Good Idea For Improving Civ3?

[yin26]

The good folks at Empire Earth actually seem aware of how their money is made:

Empire Earth Survey #2

Greetings my friends!

I want to provide you with a personal reminder to fill out the Empire Earth Survey #2. We pour over this information very carefully, to determine what your preferences are.

Your preferences are very important to us. This information directly influences our future product strategy.

As I have mentioned before, at SSSI, we really want to get to know our customers better. When we select the initial feature set of a game, we spend alot of time debating about what types of things you most want in a game. If we can obtain a better understanding of your interests, then this will take much of the speculation out of the process.

So, fill out the survey -- and do it only once. How else are we going to figure out whether you are more interested in: A) tactical nuclear weapons, or B) Half-naked Amazon woman with huge tracks of land?

The survey: Here.

Now I know this takes the combined computing genius of NASA and several top research labs, but maybe Firaxis can have a bake sale?

[kailhun]

In my opinion, the first step to making a better civ3 is to start from scratch. Sitdown with 'the team' and work out what it's going to be: will there be resources, how do they work, how does culture work, what victories will there be, which civs etc. etc. etc. etc. (many etc. because there are many issues). It is this lack of thinking things through which lies at the heart of many civ3 problems.
Only after this is clear can they start drawing and programming.
Then: playtest the bloody thing.

Robert

[Kilroy_Alpha]

Originally posted by yin26
Now I know this takes the combined computing genius of NASA and several top research labs, but maybe Firaxis can have a bake sale?

Comedy Platinum.

[Grumbold]

Hmm, it looks good at first glance, but then you find that they haven't asked the questions you really want to answer, and havent left any space for comments. So its about as useless as any other tickbox questionnaire.

[player1]

Originally posted by kailhun
In my opinion, the first step to making a better civ3 is to start from scratch. Sitdown with 'the team' and work out what it's going to be: will there be resources, how do they work, how does culture work, what victories will there be, which civs etc. etc. etc. etc. (many etc. because there are many issues). It is this lack of thinking things through which lies at the heart of many civ3 problems.
Only after this is clear can they start drawing and programming.
Then: playtest the bloody thing.

Robert

No, that's not FIXING Civ3, that's making Civ4.

[kailhun]

Originally posted by player1


No, that's not FIXING Civ3, that's making Civ4.

Yes, it is. Civ3 has some good ideas, but was not thought through. It was rushed and not tested. Fixing it is more trouble than starting from scratch (if your goal is to make a good net version of civ). I'll probably play it again, but am basically giving up on it. Mainly because after hours of playing it can become unplayable through crashes and bugs.

The first thing a game needs to be 'good' is vision: the people who make it need to know what they are making before they start the actual building.
The sculptor who starts chopping away at a bit of rock in the hope that something good will evolve tends to end up with gravel.

Robert

[Roy H Smith]

Fixing Civ 3...are you serious? I'm a cynic but I have no doubt I'm right about this: they've made their money so they don't really care. Thanks to Sid's name, the Civilization history, and a handful of reviewers that I seriously don't think played the game for more than an hour or two we are screwed.

The game has tremendous bugs and even if these are fixed....

The design decisions are in many questions...uh...questionable.

1. Corruption is insane.
2. Espionage is useless
3. You can't use caravans to boost Wonders? Instead you get a Leader to produce 800 shields instantly to make the Hoover Dam and use settlers to boost a city from 6 to 12 after building the Aqueduct (and in a single turn!)
4. Airpower is useless, bombardment a waste of time.
5. The Tech Tree is filled with useless and deadend techs
6. Despotism is now better than Monarchy.
7. Republics and Democracies collapse under defensive war.
8. Armies are so expensive to build why not crank out a dozen extra cavalry or a handful of tanks instead?
9. Forget conquering enemy cities, they'll just flip back and that size 1 City will kill the 20 tanks you have in it (sure, happens all the time). Raze or forget it!
10. Nukes are weak!
11. The AI cheats like a maniac and (my personal favorite)...

...if you start on a penisula (60% chance) you will get 3 or 4 decent cities at most. Where you begin is infinitely more imporant than they civ you pick. I'd rather have a good location and NO benefits at all than pick Expansionist/Whatever and find myself on another desert island...again.

And does anyone expect even 10% of this addressed, plus a decent editor, plus multiplayer support, plus fixes for the literally dozens of other problems others have had?

Guys...this is a beta release, it's not a game. Within a month people noted serious problems let alone the little things like Wonder movies and the things we all loved in SMAC being MIA.

They didn't even keep little things from Civ II that worked like a better Air Combat system and Firepower (those Pikemen hiolding off Tanks...brings Civ I memories back doesn't it?).

They had to chose between a game that worked right and one that they could ship immediately. And we're the suckers that get to pay the price (and in my case $50 and two installs).

I loved Civ 2 and SMAC and I'm stunned something this bad was released and I'm pissed something this incomplete made it into my game collection.

Considering CIV III's quality (is that the word I'm looking for?) the only real question is how much can we expect from the next patch. Seriously...don't get your hopes up they've pretty much crushed mine.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by kailhun
In my opinion, the first step to making a better civ3 is to start from scratch. Sitdown with 'the team' and work out what it's going to be: will there be resources, how do they work, how does culture work, what victories will there be, which civs etc. etc. etc. etc. (many etc. because there are many issues). It is this lack of thinking things through which lies at the heart of many civ3 problems.
Only after this is clear can they start drawing and programming.
Then: playtest the bloody thing.

Robert

I think that Firaxis already did this. They did sit down and work out the features they wanted and how to implement them. The "problem" with civ3 is that many hard core civers happen to disagree with those design decisions.

[MarkG]

1. Corruption is insane. editable now
2. Espionage is useless editable now
3. You can't use caravans to boost Wonders? Instead you get a Leader to produce 800 shields instantly to make the Hoover Dam and use settlers to boost a city from 6 to 12 after building the Aqueduct (and in a single turn!) so what?
4. Airpower is useless, bombardment a waste of time. editable now
5. The Tech Tree is filled with useless and deadend techs editable now
6. Despotism is now better than Monarchy. editable now
7. Republics and Democracies collapse under defensive war.editable now
8. Armies are so expensive to build why not crank out a dozen extra cavalry or a handful of tanks instead? editable now
9. Forget conquering enemy cities, they'll just flip back and that size 1 City will kill the 20 tanks you have in it (sure, happens all the time). Raze or forget it! learn some strategies
10. Nukes are weak! editable now
11. The AI cheats like a maniac that's a change?

[Dida]

Originally posted by MarkG
1. Corruption is insane. editable now
2. Espionage is useless editable now
3. You can't use caravans to boost Wonders? Instead you get a Leader to produce 800 shields instantly to make the Hoover Dam and use settlers to boost a city from 6 to 12 after building the Aqueduct (and in a single turn!) so what?
4. Airpower is useless, bombardment a waste of time. editable now
5. The Tech Tree is filled with useless and deadend techs editable now
6. Despotism is now better than Monarchy. editable now
7. Republics and Democracies collapse under defensive war.editable now
8. Armies are so expensive to build why not crank out a dozen extra cavalry or a handful of tanks instead? editable now
9. Forget conquering enemy cities, they'll just flip back and that size 1 City will kill the 20 tanks you have in it (sure, happens all the time). Raze or forget it! learn some strategies
10. Nukes are weak! editable now
11. The AI cheats like a maniac that's a change?

i don't know how to edite those things. would you be so kind to tell us.

[Zealot]

My problem isn't with what's editable, it's with what's not fixed!!!

Example: Science cap lengthed from 32 turns to 40 turns.
Although I can modify this, it's still clearly a fix. And Civ 3 needs many, many more!

Another example: It's not acceptable that I am forced to either have MAJOR tedium if I want unit animations, or no animations at all!

And no state-of-the-art equipment can fix this!

[Dida]

stack movement is the big issue. If I have ten workers that I want to move across the nation, w/ stack, I can just stack them, and move once. w/o stack,however, you gotta perform the same click-n-drag thing 10 times. That just makes me sick.

[Venge]

Quote-
"i don't know how to edite those things. would you be so kind to tell us."

Well for all the bad things that has been said about the Editor, one thing is for sure. Any modifications that _can_ be done through the Editor are so very easy to make.
So if all you want to do is change what is there, then open up the Editor and have a look. In minutes you will have changed what you wanted to.
It is that easy.




Oh, and try "control-shift-g" for moving multipul units to far away cities on the same land mass. This does not even come close to making up for 'no stack movement', but it may help.

[KoenigMkII]

Originally posted by MarkG
1. Corruption is insane. editable now
2. Espionage is useless editable now
3. You can't use caravans to boost Wonders? Instead you get a Leader to produce 800 shields instantly to make the Hoover Dam and use settlers to boost a city from 6 to 12 after building the Aqueduct (and in a single turn!) so what?
4. Airpower is useless, bombardment a waste of time. editable now
5. The Tech Tree is filled with useless and deadend techs editable now
6. Despotism is now better than Monarchy. editable now
7. Republics and Democracies collapse under defensive war.editable now
8. Armies are so expensive to build why not crank out a dozen extra cavalry or a handful of tanks instead? editable now
9. Forget conquering enemy cities, they'll just flip back and that size 1 City will kill the 20 tanks you have in it (sure, happens all the time). Raze or forget it! learn some strategies
10. Nukes are weak! editable now
11. The AI cheats like a maniac that's a change?

Yes, but why cant we have some sensible default values distrubuted in a patch, and values that adjust for Map size??

Or are you saying I should use an editor for each map size?

Using an editor destroys any hope of ever synchonising versions for a MP edition of Civ III.

The corruption for a democracy on a huge map IS insane. I have started a whole thread on the problems with the advanced governments.

The game is great fun, until you try to advance to Democratic or Repuplic gov. on a huge map. Then it falls appart.

[Grumbold]

The difficulty is that there is not yet any concensus on what are the best values for these things.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by KoenigMkII
Yes, but why cant we have some sensible default values distrubuted in a patch, and values that adjust for Map size??

see Grumbold's post below yours

Or are you saying I should use an editor for each map size?

that can actually be done as well. you can have different bic files, specialized according to the map size you want to play

Using an editor destroys any hope of ever synchonising versions for a MP edition of Civ III.

well, at least in the cases of ctp1 and ctp2, after a lot of work, there have been 1 or 2 major mods, created by the community and also used in MP(pbem) games

[Nadexander]

Originally posted by kailhun
In my opinion, the first step to making a better civ3 is to start from scratch.
Robert

Actually I think that the fact they started mostly from scratch is one of the major problems with civ3. They entirely abandoned many of the small touches that civ2 and smac so good. If they had started with either one as a base im sure they could have had the same product out in half the time. Its not like they added anything particularly revolutionary anyways. Mostly a makeover that could have been easily accomplished by simply morphing the old code.

[player1]

Originally posted by MarkG

Quote:

Using an editor destroys any hope of ever synchonising versions for a MP edition of Civ III.

well, at least in the cases of ctp1 and ctp2, after a lot of work, there have been 1 or 2 major mods, created by the community and also used in MP(pbem) games

CTP was MAJOR failure without MODs, while Civ3 isn't.

While I played many CTP mods I doubt I'll play any of those for Civ3.

Plus, we heen to be compatibile in Story forums.


Basicly:
If 60% of payers think that something needs to be chaged, and agree what chage that should be, that that chage should be done in basic Civ3, not MODs. Mods should be reserved for remaining non-satisfied players (40%).

I don't think that 60% of players think that actuall setting are OK.
(not counting casual gamers)




And...



All best strategy games had balance patches.



Or Civ3 isn't supposed to be best strategy game?

[yin26]

Grumbold:

Hmm, it looks good at first glance, but then you find that they haven't asked the questions you really want to answer, and havent left any space for comments. So its about as useless as any other tickbox questionnaire.

The difficulty is that there is not yet any concensus on what are the best values for these things.

I think this admittedly simple questionnaire is designed precisely to gather a consensus. And besides, if I were a betting man, I'd bet on the lame horse wobbling forward over the paralyzed horse choking on its own tongue.

[Pyrodrew]

1.Corruption is insane, but currently this is the only thing preventing the lategame from being easier. The AI should learn how to balance the power in the game & try to win. Most my games the AI could care less if I finish building my spaceship... as long as I give them Ivory or something. Would a human let me win for Ivory?

2.Espionage should be cheaper &/or better, I agree.

3.Disagree - I'm glad I cannot throw a boat on the pyramids & call it the pyramids. Leaders are fine. Although leaders do highly favor the warmonger over the pacifist... making war always the way to go. No reward (not even bonus points at the end of the game like in Civ2) for being peaceful to everyone.

4.Air & Bombardments should be stronger. If Naval units were faster & stronger, then air units could be made to sink ships (since the task would be more difficult). Of course the naval units need to improved tho. As many have said, non-wind naval units *definitely* need to be faster.

5.I don't mind the dead end techs, but I do mind that the AIs will spend time researching them or give you their soul for a dead-end tech... even if the Wonder in the dead end tech is built.

6.Despot Pop Rush should have a much higher price to it.

7.I never been at the losing end of a Republic/Democratic Defensive war... but I suppose they would fall apart. Again gives less incentive to be a pacifist.

9.I usually don't have any problem with culture-flips. Only if I see a Civ has a much higher culture (not often) do I have to worry.

10.I agree, nukes should be stronger.

11.Given the advantages we have over an AI, the few cheats it does are welcome. We don't need this game any easier.

12.Factories should be weaker... they make the strong MUCH MUCH stronger.

Originally posted by Roy H Smith
and (my personal favorite)...if you start on a penisula (60% chance) you will get 3 or 4 decent cities at most. Where you begin is infinitely more imporant than they civ you pick. I'd rather have a good location and NO benefits at all than pick Expansionist/Whatever and find myself on another desert island...again.

I strongly agree with this. In Civ2 no one wanted to start in the jungles, but atleast you had banannas (the best growth bonus there was). Deserts were no fun, but they had oasis & oil. The terrains were well balanced for the most part. No starting position was extremely horrid.

In Civ3, starting in a jungle isn't just horrid, it's suicide! Banannas were replaced with DISEASE (editor won't remove this). Oil is no longer limited to desert... plains can have them & since plains are more common than desert, you'll typically find more oil in plains. A desert's flooded plains might seem like a valid oasis replacement, but starting next to 1 in the beginning means disease again. By the time any goodies are discovered in the jungle or desert you're too far behind in tech to know they are there... and being in the middle of the map (where jungle & desert is placed) makes you strategically the perfect target for the next feeding frenzy... especially given how strong distance corruption is. Grasslands went from good in Civ2 to being the *perfect* terrain in Civ3 now that they can be mined. Sadly, forests have no strategic use on grasslands like they did in Civ2. Where a Civ starts dictates how successful they will be hands down. True starting position & unbalanced terrain did play a role in Civ2, but not to the extreme degree it does in Civ3.

If I could have only 3 wishes:
1)A better AI - for the AI not only to try to win, but try to prevent the potential winners from winning by understanding the balance of power & teaming up.
2)More options in the World Generation Screen... currently a dry hot world looks VERY similar to a wet cold world. Use your editor & you will see. More options means more variety... using random world would then mean more surprises. More options would also hopefully mean turning off disease, mining in grasslands, etc. as well as possibly turning on random natural disasters, resource quantity (increase, decrease, random), etc.
3)A better editor... a much better editor.

[MOHonor]

Hey guys let's try to stay off-topic here. This is patented "yin26 cry for attention" thread so let's get back to his desperate need for people to listen to his whine. Anyone.

[Capt Dizle]

I can always stand a littlemo yin.

[yin26]

For you, sir, certainly.

[Zachriel]

Good game, Dan. I got more than my money's worth. I play Civ3 all the time. I look anxiously forward to any patches, updates, or sequels. I'll buy them too.