Replayability

::Rubs eyes and takes a look at the rapidly changing Civ 3 forum::

Haven't been here in a while Well I got an idea for a thread today, hope we can get some good ideas stirring in here...

One of the best things about the Civ series is replayability - the ability to play the game over and over, always a new game, always a different game, never gets boring, never gets repetative - like this sentence

This is a factor of the game that Civ 1 and Civ 2 followed without flaw. However, from what I hear about SMAC and ToT, it may be falling. In order to be a great game, Civ 3 must be able to be played over and over and over with the user wanting to play again.

I ask you Apolyton...how can this be done effectively? How can Civ 3 be constantly replayable by all people. What are the factors of the past SM games that MAKE it replayable. And what must Firaxis do to keep the game strong in this department?

Do
1) Have many different tribes
2) Have multiple paths for the tech tree
3) Have more and more event triggers
4) Stress the importance of "being the first" to discover a tech (enabling techs)
5) Have more customizability (is that a word? )
6) Have more diplomatic options

Don't
1) make the diplomacy predictable
(E.G. if >enthusiastic = give tribute. If icy = refuse tribute. If>icy - declare war etc...)
2) Have a simplistic tech tree

Please add/comment to this list

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - well who am I?~~~
- "When man first discovered that milk comes from a cow, what did he THINK he was doing?"
- "Women's breasts are like toys: They're meant for kids, but usually it's the fathers who wind up playin' with them."
- "Practice makes perfect, but if nobody's perfect...why practice?"
~~~Oh well oh well so here we stand, but we stand for nothing~~~
- Apolyton Picture Contest IV
[This message has been edited by OrangeSfwr (edited July 29, 2000).]

[Christantine The Great]

Um.......

I think even a settler unit could repel a Wolf hoard. I think we should stick with Elephants and horse-drawn units.

------------------
"Adorare Christantine!!!"
Republican Decree #1

[DarkCloud]

Not necessarily Christantine, a settler can barley hold itself off from a warrior.
The only animal units would be wolves, because those could be trained to attack and they would start as wandering 'barbarian' units and would be able to be captured.

Also- if in the later game you made the wolves 'rabid' you might have a real good weapon if the wolves could get near enough to the soldiers.

[Christantine The Great]

I like rabid wolves but i think it should be something different. Any ideas? But I have had cases of settlers holding off units as high as a legion at full health. And they were not inside cities (They were working though so maybe there is a bug that makes them stronger while they work?). If there are wolves I think that a warrior could hold them off though. Rabid wolves could damage units by doing a new type of attack. This should probably not work after the Renissance though (Medicine really worked after then). This could be taken to another level like spies being able to ruin crops around cities. This would make a great thread.

------------------
"Adorare Christantine!!!"
Republican Decree #1

[DarkCloud]

Well the colors should be bright and the units should be simple.
Civ II's units were much more interesting to look at then Test Of Times.
I love to play Civ II but ToT is very boring, mostly because of the unit colors.

Civ II could implement something like Age of Empires native units in scenarios. Such as in the ancient age after discovering 'Animal Handling' you could round up some 'Barbarian' Wolves and make them into a fighting unit after fighting a training war. The training war would have to be simple as complication can turn off the masses in most games.

NOTE:The Animals could NOT be produced they could only be 'caught'

Well... What do YOU think?

[Steve Clark]

Scenarios = replayability for a long, long time

Steve Clark - Yes, I think a well done, easy to use scenario editor will be crucial to replayability. Especially with such a demand for scenarios on the internet.

CTG (...I need to think of another abbreviation for your name with Casesar and Celestion around..)- I agree that horses and elephants should be the only animal unit. Not to crazy about the wolf idea DC. I think the unit workshop will be important to replayability as well.

As for the comment about settlers being able to stop warriors...

I had posted in I believe a Unit workshop thread a while back that a settler unit should be able to have a 50/50 chance against horsemen and archers, and 75% chance of defeating warriors. This is because settlers in the west (US) were able to defend against native americans with rifles and such. Obviously the odds would change with veteran units...

Keep the great ideas flowing!


------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - well who am I?~~~
- "When man first discovered that milk comes from a cow, what did he THINK he was doing?"
- "Women's breasts are like toys: They're meant for kids, but usually it's the fathers who wind up playin' with them."
- "Practice makes perfect, but if nobody's perfect...why practice?"
~~~Oh well oh well so here we stand, but we stand for nothing~~~
- Apolyton Picture Contest IV

[Shadowstrike]

A scenario editor above and beyond the capabilities of the TOT tools and more sophisticated then the FW editiors would provide near infinate replayablity to Civ 3. A map editor, a rules editor, and a graphics editor would cover the bare basics. Advanced events would be extremely helpful (for example, a UNITKILLED trigger with a possibility of specifing a unit instead of a civilization as the attacker) Generally, if the program was polymorphic, replayability shoots up. For example, AIs learning how to counter ICSers, etc. (by the way, I got the idea from the advance Polymorphic Software (SMAC))

But then again, this would kill off significant potential for AI improvement in Civ 4, assuming they ever get around to making one, as the AI of most serious players would already exceed what the programmers had in mind...

[Christantine The Great]

Shadowstrike

I think that any potential problems for Civ IV should not even be brought since we haven't been exposed to Civ III yet. If Civ III uses a polymorphic AI than there wouldn't be any problems because any other Civ games would be centered around improving graphics and features, not the AI.

------------------
"Adorare Christantine!!!"
Republican Decree #1

[Napoleon I]

Scenario Editor is the huge one here, but better AI would also be crucial.

What I would want to see is an AI that would not allow the player to beat the WWII scenario with the Spanish (although, maybe I'm asking a bit too much here )

------------------
Napoleon I

[Strategist]

quote: Have multiple paths for the tech tree

That's exactly what makes Master Of Magic so replayable! Even i fyou always choose the same spheres of Magic, you won't be able to discover the same spells every time. The higher the spells are, the less is the propability of discovering them. The same should be included in Civ3: perhaps different Civs should be able to research different technologies. Of course those techs shouldn't be too different, we have to remember that we want a historical game. But we all know that the development of the American Natives was not half the same as of the European culures...
Also the way you develop your civ should influence the technologies you are able to research...

What do you think about that?

And yes, the Civ3 Forum changed a lot...

[Tiberius]

Important factors for Civ's replayability:

1. Have many different tribes and also make them different not just by their name or colour. At least include an option to play with a different folder for each civ (civ specific units, technology, behaviour, religion maybe even buildings or wonders)

2. Have multiple paths for the tech tree. Strategist said it right, I want to add here only the idea of minor techs (I think I saw this in the Civ3list). Make it possible for civs to specialize themselves in a certain tech (researching minor techs). After the discovery of a major tech A, you could choose what to do: research the next major tech B or a minor tech A1, and then A2 (specialization in tech A). Militaristic nations would prefer to research "attack weapons" related minor techs while peacefull nations would prefer economical minor techs.

3. Advanced diplomacy. It's a MUST.

4. Give trade/business a more important role.

5. Give resources (coal, iron, uranium, oil, etc) a more important role. Fighting for resources was a missing aspect from Civ2. I think the introduction of the energy concept would be usefull.

6. More random events (natural disasters, diseases, a random appearence of great personalities and leaders: philosophers/ scientists/ generals/ politicians)

7. Rise and fall of Empires

8. Customizability

9. Good scenario editor (and scenarios)

10. Nice graphics (bright colors, not dark one like in SMAC or ToT) and good sound.

What else?

[DarkCloud]

The game should not resemble Civ II test of time in many ways:
1:The unit movement is klunky
2:The unit graphics are boring
3:The colors are far too dark
4:The main screen is klunky
5:The music needs to be reworked

[UltraSonix]

quote: Scenarios = replayability for a long, long time

I think an good editor would be better than good scenarios out of the box...

And as to improving replayability - I'm loathe to change the tech tree too much, as it could make the game too complex. Rather, I'll do another for having the SMAC SE choices (that Firaxis are supposed to have rejected for Civ3) - having a SMAC-like SE model would allow civs to different.

edit: I know that SE choices are perhaps more suited to the sci-fic SMAC, but I'm sure that they could change the names or something and adapt it to Civ3...

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary... (And no, koalas don't usually speak!)
[This message has been edited by UltraSonix (edited November 29, 2000).]