Civ3 Is filled with REAL history!

I Am Jeff · February 23, 2002, 12:53

You history fanatics may appreciate this. I just took this picture, it is pretty self-explanitory.

I Am Jeff · February 23, 2002, 12:54

This is the other one I have.

kmill25 · February 23, 2002, 13:44

Funny.

HisMajestyBOB · February 23, 2002, 14:46

stuff like that does add nice flavor to the game

aahz_capone · February 23, 2002, 15:24

YEah, I love that being a history buff. However, it's a shame that you really can't NAME your treaties like The Treaty of Versialles, or the Locarno Pact, etc. Then they could mention that in diplomacy. Maybe a thing for a patch or an add on.

Scooby_Doo · February 23, 2002, 16:06

"it's a shame that you really can't NAME your treaties like The Treaty of Versialles, or the Locarno Pact, etc"

Wasn't that a feature in Civ 2 that whenever two AI civs signed an alliance a box popped up saying, for example, "Romans and Persians have signed the Rome Treaty to contain your aggresion", I think it just picked randomly one of the civs cities. This did add to the relaism of the game, I thought.

I wonder why they changed that because I would imagine that they could have programmed the Civs to refer to specific treaties in this way during diplomacy.

Does anyone else remember this from civ 2 or did I just imagine it?

aahz_capone · February 23, 2002, 16:36

Yeah, that happened in civ2. Only with Pacts against you though, nothing else.

nato · February 23, 2002, 18:49

Naming things like that is cool and fun, similar to the idea of being able to name Armies. Makes it feel more "real".

MonsterMan · February 23, 2002, 19:05

...about naming rivers, lakes, mountain ranges etc in my wishlist for Civ 4. I can't take credit for it, I got the idea from the PC version of SimCity 2000. Don't ask me why they dropped it from SimCity 3000.

Alex · February 24, 2002, 10:57

Quote:

Originally posted by MonsterMan
...about naming rivers, lakes, mountain ranges etc in my wishlist for Civ 4. I can't take credit for it, I got the idea from the PC version of SimCity 2000. Don't ask me why they dropped it from SimCity 3000.

The ability to name landmarks was present in SMAC. Beside the Planet landmarks ("Great Dunes", "Uranium Flats"), you could name any terrain you wanted. Great feature, it would add even more flavor in Civ3.

aahz_capone · February 24, 2002, 13:01

Now I ask myself, if these grand ideas existed in Sim City 2k and SMAC, why the hell aren't they in civ3? Sloppiness or what?

Scooby_Doo · February 24, 2002, 13:11

Quote:

Sloppiness or what?

I think that this is certainly the reason behind it. Its not a challenging feature to implement I would imagine since its been in games for many years.

Oh, well, never mind...

ACooper · February 24, 2002, 13:47

Quote:

Originally posted by aahz_capone
Now I ask myself, if these grand ideas existed in Sim City 2k and SMAC, why the hell aren't they in civ3? Sloppiness or what?

The game was meant to be as simple and stipped down as possible. Everything you put in a game makes it bigger and slower.

aahz_capone · February 24, 2002, 14:24

Sorry, ACooper, I don't agree. I know that FIRAXIS didn't want the hard-to-follow sci-fi stuff in SMAC in civ3 because not everyone is into that, but I don't think simplification of a game makes it great or keeps the winning pattern that was founded in civ1.

A game can be immensly complex and still be fast, as SMAC has showed. What makes a winner is a game that starts simple and builds up to complex without you knowing it, essentially learning the ropes without even trying and suddenly realizing, "Hey! I know all this complex stuff and I didn't even try!"

The civ series has always had that, except I think that civ three falls short of the very last revelation because at one point you are building the UN and go, "What, that's it?"

nato · February 24, 2002, 17:49

Stripped down is supposed to be good? I just don't get it.

Who in the world ever actually wants something stripped down? The only reason to ever want that is because it makes things cost less money, since no one would pay full price for something stripped down (since it by definition has less value).

Civ3 however cost the standard price for a computer game...

aahz_capone · February 25, 2002, 05:04

So I'm not the only one who thinks FIRAXIS but more work into SMAC than civ3? I think SMAC was a hell of an undertaking, seeing as there was hardly anything to base it on (as civ3 bases itself on the older civs).

Blaupanzer · February 25, 2002, 13:45

The reason to "strip down" computer code is to make it easier to manage, load, and cross-reference. In this case, Firaxis did NOT strip the code, the didn't add superfluous puffery to the existing code. Culture and diplomacy added enough to the save files, in someone's opinion, without the player naming geographical features in a way the machine must store them. By the way, feel free to name features, just don't expect to see it in the code.

ACooper · February 25, 2002, 14:11

I didn't say they stripped down the code. They made the gameplay more basic and cleaner if you will. The classic games have the fewest basic rules and fewest basic options. (i.e. chess, checkers, backgammon, etc.)

I'm also not saying I agree with the decission, just that it is.

Scooby_Doo · February 25, 2002, 14:52

Quote:

Who in the world ever actually wants something stripped down?

Depends whats getting stripped down, I think....

But seriously, it's clear that Firaxis chose to make a civ 3 game that would appeal to the masses, and this meant that many features that would be appreciated by the more dedicated RTS fans, such as a more detailed tech tree for instance, were lost as this would maximise sales.

Sadly, people like us lose out in such decisions I think.

nato · February 25, 2002, 18:11

Quote:

I'm also not saying I agree with the decission, just that it is.

Oh ok, I figured you did agree with it given your general position. I didn't see how it could really be defended, at least from a dedicated players like ours point of view.

Quote:

Depends whats getting stripped down, I think....

Heh heh, good one. Now that I can easily agree with.

Watch out, most people here have a prejudice against RTS...

Dida · February 25, 2002, 18:34

Ability to name tiles, individual units, and diplomatic agreement would be nice.

Trifna · February 25, 2002, 23:55

Civ III is filled with history as same as a turkey filled with peanut butter. It may not be the worst or nothing at all, but it's not the best. Civ is aiming at selling a game that's fun. They could make StarCraft, but they just happen to have developed Civ... It's a little how I feel about all this. I'm stil pretty happy they developed Civ, but it stil needs some tweaking before we get something close to controling a civ in real History. But it's on its way, sloowwly, whoever will finally do it...

aahz_capone · February 26, 2002, 09:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Scooby_Doo

Depends whats getting stripped down, I think....

But seriously, it's clear that Firaxis chose to make a civ 3 game that would appeal to the masses, and this meant that many features that would be appreciated by the more dedicated RTS fans, such as a more detailed tech tree for instance, were lost as this would maximise sales.

Sadly, people like us lose out in such decisions I think.

Well, maybe not only RTS, but your right in the fact that it's for a broader consumer range. I think THAT is why God invented expansion packs and add-ons (or was it Sierra in 1983?

). Anyway, for the intence psychos like us we should see all the depth in something like that. An expansion pack for the masses would really pain me.

As for stripping down, I don't want anyone here to mention the thread about Joan d'Arc "stripping down". In any way or means, indirect or direct. Do you understand me? I repeat, we will NOT be mentioning the "stripping". At all.