Civ-2 also in Civ-3 - Is it only me?

[Ralf]

I want to recognize something of that homey feeling of the old Civ-2 game, in Civ-3 also. Actually, i wouldnt mind if perhaps 80% of all Civ-2 units, city-improvements and wonders in Civ-2 re-appeared in Civ-3, as well.

Dont change for the sake of change! Am i the only one in this forum feeling this way?

[QW1020]

I agree with you

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

I would say I want no more then 70% of civ2 units, improvements, etc. in civ3. Dont get me wrong, civ2 was great for its time, but I want civ3 to be much, much more realistic, and I want alot more units.

[Tical_2000]

Totally agree with Ralf. There was never a real big problem with the Civ2 units & wonders. The problem I think we're all hoping for Civ3 to fix is the idiotic AI as well as adding fresh, new game concepts and features to immerse us more.

[DarkCloud]

Yes, the civ II graphics should remain; but they wont

[DrFell]

frankly, id be happy if all that was improved in civ3 was the ai, and more civs available at a time (as well as better barbs ). im expecting much more, but i just hope that the basic parts of civ2 are not changed. e.g. all the old wonders still in there, maybe balanced out a bit, and all the old improvements, units, etc. with a few changes. im expecting lots of new units, improvements, and wonders though.

[Jer8m8]

(I have not played TOT)

I hav eheard that TOT has the original civ2 and other games. Why not also have the original civ2 come packaged or on the same cd as civ3

[zyxpsilon]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 12-16-2000 04:59 PM Am i the only one in this forum feeling this way?

Built upon solid evidence units and authenticity throughout a "general" representativeness of changes and evolution eras... Yes!
Can't certainly dismantle Stealth planes or Crusaders... for examples.
That being said, it is not in the "amount" or "type" of units you must handle but rather, how well balanced and interactived they are brought into play.
There will always be the -missing- key unit, wished for, should be tried, forgot elementary that MUST get a slot in the making of Civ3.
Within >programmable< restrictions, the customisation power and diversification process has to account for; say, the discovery of electricity and the making of light bulbs AND the overwhelming streak of dynamic usage of energy loaded *UNITS*.

I'd swear for 100% keeping of those (already done) Units.
But i won't.
Give me... a >>SPACE CRAFT<< instead?
But i don't.

How about another kind'a Submarine? Deep sea able.

YOU are not the only one, Ralf!

[Ralf]

DIABLO, BRO. OF MEPHISTO:

With that that 80% figure i only refered to the amount of units, city-improvements and wonders taken from the old Civ-2 game. I expect however, that Firaxis will enlarge the overal number of available unit-types, city-improvements and wonders, by at least 20%. In practice this means:

- 2/3 old units vs 1/3 new fresh ones
- The same ratio (more or less) goes for city-improvements and wonders.

DARKCLOUD:

I dont mind (and i expect) a graphic facelift (but TOT was unfortunately not a good example, of that). It is the type- and naming convention that i think should remain, mostly the same.

Perhaps it was the latter you refered to, then you wrote "graphics". Well, if so lets hope you are wrong about that. I dont want Samurai instead of Legion, Shrine and bazaar instead of temple and marketplace and Sphinx instead of Pyramids. Again; dont change for the sake of change.

TO ALL OF YOU:

I forgot about the Civ-2 techs:

The Civ-2 tech-tree should be enlarged by 20-25%. Some good rearrangements of course. About 2/3 of this new tech-tree should consist of old familiar Civ-2 techs. The remaining 1/3 should be new fresh ones, give or take.

NO SMAC-style beyond 2040AD techs. Let SMAC be SMAC, and let Civ-3 be Civ-3 - dont mix them togeter in the main game. For futuristic Civ-3play; tailor-cut someting nice with the scenario-editor instead, or play the future scenarios, im sure Firaxis is going to include together with the main game.

[DrFell]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 12-17-2000 05:32 AM NO SMAC-style beyond 2040AD techs. Let SMAC be SMAC, and let Civ-3 be Civ-3 - dont mix them togeter in the main game. For futuristic Civ-3play; tailor-cut someting nice with the scenario-editor instead, or play the future scenarios, im sure Firaxis is going to include together with the main game.

i agree... civ2 goes far enough into the future as it is. i dont want to see loads of unrealistic sci-fi techs popping up; i see civ3 as being a realistic game, based on history, and a resonable assumption of what may be possible in 20-40 years time. 'future techs' fill in for the sci-fi advances.

[orange]

This is a "do you want Civ 3 or Civ 2.5" question. As far as I'm concerned...if I'm going to pay 50$ for a game, it better be mostly new. At first, the upgrade from Civ 1 to Civ 2 was awful for me. I didn't move correctly (I was used to the simple square layout as opposed to the diamonds of Civ 2), there were more units to understand...but soon it grew on me. The same will happen with Civ 3 if it is mostly new.

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[airdrik]

I agree. After all, you should be able to change the units/tech tree/terrain/etc. as you please like you can do in civ2. You don't need to worry about working on the look and feel of the game, as of yet. That can be done after the game is out.

What we need to do here is work out all the AI, diplomacy, SE, etc. internal workings of the game. Also, we should work out the unit workshop ideas for if that is included in the game.

The only things that need be changed on the units is to add any flags in the .txt file that would make different units more realistic. And for the terrains, they are fine (unless surprise and ambush are implemented, in which case one value would be added: cover: affects chances that a unit is spotted before a surprise/ambush). The tech tree is fine as is(except for making it bigger).

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by orange on 12-17-2000 01:29 PM This is a "do you want Civ 3 or Civ 2.5" question.

Its not about that, Orange. Its instead about "quality before quantity". Its about concentrate developing resources on issues that really matters.

(And i dont think that spending countless hours trying to figure out unnatural and dubious unit-, tech-, city-improvement- and wonder replacements, easily falls in in the "really matters" -category).

Firaxis should always remember, that once the Civ-3 game is released, there are only two potential player/game-magazine complains, that towers highly above anything else:

- "This interface/game-feedback really stinks!"
- "What a piece of crap this AI is".

For the strategy of trying to cram as many features as possible into the game. Well, theres a saying that goes "If your try to please everybody, then you might end up pleasing nobody". Look what happend to CTP.

[orange]

not so Ralf! Maybe what you feel "really matters" isn't what others care about. You can't speak for everyone.

For some, better units/wonders/techs may be the core issue.

Personally I would much rather see a better diplomatic system set up before I see better AI (though I do want that as well)

Everyone has a different ranking of what they want and don't want in this game.

By Civ 2.5/3 I mean do you as a person want to see Civ 2 with the tweaks necessary to make it better, or do you want to see a completely reworked game - ala Civ 1 to Civ 2. I know some people would be happy with an upgrade...I personally would feel cheated. How you or others feel is a different story, but I respect that.

What Firaxis needs to do is find a way to bring in new players while satisfying the old gurus like us I agree with you on one thing Ralf...

quote: If your try to please everybody, then you might end up pleasing nobody".

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by orange on 12-17-2000 04:03 PM By Civ 2.5/3 I mean do you as a person want to see Civ 2 with the tweaks necessary to make it better, or do you want to see a completely reworked game - ala Civ 1 to Civ 2.

I think we are talking past each over, Orange!

An upgrade ala Civ-1 to Civ-2 is exactly what i want to see. A large part of the units, wonders, techs and city-improvements from Civ-1 re-appeared in Civ-2 as well. STILL it was pretty massive upgrade!

The trouble is what many in these forums dreaming of a game that converts Civ-2 into Civ-10 instead. Below i copied from a previous thread:

"Its also a question of what is workable and feasible solution for the programmers point of view, as well. Many gamers just take this or that Civ-2 or SMAC solution, and then try hard to come up with much more complicated and more "accurate to our real world" type of suggestion, as a replacement.
They just dont understand what exponentially increasing AI-calculation problems and AI-developing and debugging problems, that adding this or that complicated suggestion, actually would create for the developers".

Having said above - im NOT content with a shallow Sim City 2000 to Sim City 3000 type of upgrade. Rest assured!

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by orange on 12-17-2000 04:03 PM Personally I would much rather see a better diplomatic system set up before I see better AI (though I do want that as well)

A diplomatic system before a better AI, is like asking for a faster car before a stronger engine, or a more streamlined design.

It doesnt make sense. A diplomacy system without an AI, is just an empty shell.

Only in multiplayer games the AI can be reduced to a "go-between" or a messanger-boy - carrying out human player orders. The problem is however, due to the lengthy and complex nature of Civ-gaming, that the "multiplayer" option can never be a stand alone alternative. Only an added feature. And they cannot release a game for multiplayers only, can they?

[Grumbold]

Some posts from 'The List' seemed to be talking about Units in SMAC terms, i.e. you would develop the technology to make a 2 point attack, or to ride horses for 2 movement points then build your own flavour of 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 2.1.2 and 2.1.1 units as desired. While I had some reservations about this initially I am coming more and more to thinking it is a much more open and flexible approach than trying to name each unit type and tie it to a certain tech. If the Japanese can call their 1.2.1 Ashigaru while the Romans call theirs Auxiliaries, even better. It also allows for many many more units in the long run, and in the modern era Civ is woefully short of different ground unit types IMO.

[Deity Dude]

I'm for a better AI as being the primary thrust. Unfortunately, i'm sure it is probably the hardest to accomplish. It doesn't take much to program new units or techs.

[airdrik]

Grumbold, what you described is what is called the Unit Workshop. If you want to see more about this topic, just search for it, but it is a very contraversial topic on this forum since there are some people who refuse to have unit workshop in Civ 3, for this reason I have suggested (a number of times) that it be an option at installation, whether or not you want to install it.

[orange]

quote: A diplomatic system before a better AI, is like asking for a faster car before a stronger engine, or a more streamlined design. It doesnt make sense. A diplomacy system without an AI, is just an empty shell.

I don't think you understand. I want to see better options, as in trading land a better system of embassies, better ways at expressing the interaction between the two.

The AI improvement is certainly important to this. But if the diplomacy stayed the same as it is in Civ 2, I wouldn't even care. I need the best of both worlds, and to me the first is more important.


------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

airdrik, what exactly is a 'unit workshop'? I thought it was the same as a 'units editor'. please just give me an idea of what it is like. I would really like to know because I am a MAJOR scenario builder, and love to make new scenarios.

[Rollo Tomasi]

The Unit Workshop was used in SMAC and was how players created units to manufacture. Instead of technological advances giving new units, they gave new components, such as laser weapons or synthsteel armor. Using these components, you would build your units from scratch, picking out the chassis, weapons, armor, and other attributes for the unit. As airdrik said, this is a very contrversial topic. Some loved the customization it gave; some hated it, mostly for the fact all the units tended to look the same.

[Grumbold]

I knew what it was but not what it was called

I can't see any easier way of introducing lots more unit options into Civ3. If all units are coded into the game and tied to techs then unless the tech tree expands we are stuck with this whole idea of a WWI tank unit == a 1999 tank unit and no gradually expanding functionality. I certainly would not want the units to be graphically like SMAC (yawn) but the Unit Workshop seem the easiest way to allow the potential to slowly improve from 6-4-3 tanks to 10-8-5 tanks over 100 turns instead of having to wait for a totally new unit type. With multiple unit combat stacks the potential for good combined arms tactics is huge, something CtP2 has hinted at without really delivering the ideal answer.