Thread Tools
Old January 10, 2001, 21:37   #1
MarkG
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
14 POLL: "unique benefits depending on the Civilization you choose"
i understand how this could be in smac, and fits excellently, with each faction representing an ideology, but how will this fit into civ3?


why should a tribe called mongols (especially on a random map where they could start in isolated jungle island) be better at something that another tribe called english?


final results on page 4
[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited February 14, 2001).]
 
Old January 10, 2001, 21:58   #2
raingoon
Prince
 
raingoon's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:45
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 500
I do question it as well -- isn't the the fundamental point that each civ begins with the same tableu rossa and each player than shapes their civ's strengths and weaknesses according to their own strategy? This will essentially pre-fab some of the strategies for you, before the game even begins.

Believe they may be taking a page from AoE and Age of Kingoms II.
raingoon is offline  
Old January 10, 2001, 22:22   #3
MarkG
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
quote:

Originally posted by raingoon on 01-10-2001 08:58 PM
This will essentially pre-fab some of the strategies for you, before the game even begins
an optimist would say that it would replayability since you would be able to try to win with various civs...

 
Old January 10, 2001, 22:27   #4
DarkCloud
staff
NationStatesAlpha Centauri Democracy GameCivilization II Democracy GameInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamSpanish CiversCiv4 InterSite DG: Apolyton TeamPolyCast TeamApolyton Storywriters' GuildAge of Nations TeamApolytoners Hall of Fame
 
DarkCloud's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:45
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Deity of Lists
Posts: 11,873
You should be able to set them with a screen.

You have 10 'random allocation points' to distribute among your civ and then the computer does the same with the computer generated civ making them better at

Sea Warfare
Attack Overall Bonus (1 point costs 2 points)
Defense Overall Bonus (1 point costs 2 points)
Building Bonus
DarkCloud is offline  
Old January 10, 2001, 22:34   #5
MarkG
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
well it seems like they are going with a set of specific civs to choose from, each with each own advantages and disadvantages instead......
 
Old January 10, 2001, 23:10   #6
- Groucho -
Diplomacy
Prince
 
- Groucho -'s Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:45
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 577
Hopefully, the preset civilizations they give us to choose from will be just that - presets. Like RPGs that give you pre-rolled characters if you just want to start the game without doing a bunch of tweaking.

Hopefully #2, they will give you an option to play against a randomn map with plain vanilla opponents. No benefits, no burdens. That is one of the best things about CivII - except for maybe the luck of your starting city placement - you can't really blame failure on the machine or the gods. You just have to start over and hone your skills.
- Groucho - is offline  
Old January 10, 2001, 23:31   #7
yin26
inmate
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Born Again Optimist
 
yin26's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:45
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: This space reserved for Darkstar.
Posts: 5,667
This fits quite nicely in Age of Kings: TC. And, quite often, a certain map does favor one civ over the other. Mongols, for example, are excellent hunters and can gain great early advantage because of it. Of course, they are rather weak toward the end game if they have been challenged at all, so the name of the game here is balance.
yin26 is offline  
Old January 11, 2001, 11:26   #8
wernazuma
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
i think special benefits for civilizations are generally a good idea. but there are some things they need to think of.

i don't want a civ3 where mongols are always "despotic police-state warmongers" whereas indians are always "peaceloving diplomat-builders" and i soon know how they react. (like in SMAC)
there could be presets for the "personality" and boni of special civilizations but there must be an option to make personalities and boni random for each civilization.
 
Old January 11, 2001, 14:02   #9
Lancer
Civilization III MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FamePolyCast TeamC4BtSDG Rabbits of Caerbannog
Deity
 
Lancer's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:45
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Posts: 16,064
wernazuma, aren't they doing something w/ leaders this time out? Certain leaders emerging that give certain abilities... Wouldn't the personallities of these leaders determine the personality of the civ?

I'm w/ DarkCloud on his "10 points" idea. Or, perhaps a combination of points, natural atributes, and environmental factors could be used to determine strengths. To use the example of the Mongols, certainly as Mark was getting at, if the Mongols were temperate forest dwellers they would be less likely to be great nomadic horsemen. Their advantages would be somewhat framed by their environment. Add to that their historical ability (don't want to make the Mongols unrecognisable) and Darkclouds "10 points" of player preferences, and you have a situation that might be fun, w/ player control, while rooted in the environment and history, for realism.
Lancer is offline  
Old January 11, 2001, 14:44   #10
bagdar
Warlord
 
bagdar's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:45
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Turkey
Posts: 166
Don't we actually re-write history in Civ? The Unique character of a nation develops through time, so what could the "unique benefits" be back at 4000BC? In Civ I and II some civs did start with more advances, and sometimes with two settlers, but anything beyond that would be superfluous. I believe the only logical explanation of "unique benefits depending on the Civilization you choose" is something related in some way to geographical placement, and accumulation of the nation's experience. Otherwise, setting the destiny of the Chinese as good archers back at 4000BC is nothing but nonsense... In fact, any exagerated application of this idea would become a type of racism.
bagdar is offline  
Old January 11, 2001, 14:58   #11
Steve Clark
King
 
Steve Clark's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:45
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,555
What's the point? Why would I want to play a Civ that limits me on what I can and can't do??? Are they forcing me down a specific path or strategy?

Keep all of the civs generic, but allow complete customization through the various files and scenario editors.

I'm going to keep hammering this point because it is the single most important factor in Civ3 (apart from a better AI, but that's a given). If you don't want to play against the raging Mongol hordes, fine, change them to peace-loving Steppe Nomads. If I don't want to play with a certain benefit of my chosen civ, fine, give me the option to have no benefits or a different one. Don't limit me in how I play Civ3.
Steve Clark is offline  
Old January 11, 2001, 15:06   #12
Brent
Prince
 
Local Time: 16:45
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 635
I've changed my mind and now I think a civ should be shaped only by the human playing it. Unless maybe it is a ficticious civ. I'm thinking the Civ games should go farther in a different direction from SMAC and any sequels as if it could have any. I also think that it makes a lot of sense for civs to have individual features in some, most, or all scenarios.
Brent is offline  
Old January 11, 2001, 15:36   #13
Boracks
Warlord
 
Boracks's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:45
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fort Erie, Ontario
Posts: 254
quote:

Originally posted by Lancer on 01-11-2001 01:02 PM
wernazuma, aren't they doing something w/ leaders this time out? Certain leaders emerging that give certain abilities... Wouldn't the personallities of these leaders determine the personality of the civ?


Actually, the tone of the civ might be a determining factor (not THE factor) on the tone of the leader that appears. A militant civ is more likely to produce a military leader but a civ that stresses the economy is more likely to produce an economic leader.

Perhaps if you have a wonder in one of your cities your civ will be more likely to get a certain leader type. "The Great Library has attracted many scientists to East Toohoosis including the renowned researcher..."

I also like the ideas of being able to customise the game including a vanilla 'original civ' option (all start the same) and having the ability to set characteristics with certain numbers of points.


------------------
"Treat each day as if it were your last. Eventually, you'll be right."
Boracks is offline  
Old January 11, 2001, 19:27   #14
Bereta_Eder
Settler
 
Bereta_Eder's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:45
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 65,535
If it isn't broken don't fix it.


(the only english saying I know that can describe what I think).

Keep Civs Generic. No plus no minus. I prefer to have the exact same propability of greatness or disaster with every civ.

Bereta_Eder is offline  
Old January 11, 2001, 20:09   #15
Lancer
Civilization III MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FamePolyCast TeamC4BtSDG Rabbits of Caerbannog
Deity
 
Lancer's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:45
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Posts: 16,064
Certainly environmental factors are the main contributors to a civs early abilities. The hunting method carries over to the manner in which wars were fought, and the hunting method is determined by the environment. So the foundation upon which the earliest warriors faced other men is built upon the way they fought the beasts which made up their diet. This also formed men.
The hunters of the African steppe could run in pursuit of prey for great distances. The Chinese are social people, who lived in vast family units, dependant upon hierarchical (sp?) organization for literally everything, creating a civilization where each family is like an ant colony, and each member has a duty,or duties, set within a strict regimen of tradition, created for the strength and survival of FAMILIES, over many generations.
The tribes of Northern Europeans depended upon wit and imagination to survive the hardships of the great ice age. Though they overcame the cold and the dark, they had become suspicious, and made war, one tribe upon the next, not unlike the American indians, but perhaps with more vehemence. The Europeans, and their cousins, the Americans, do so to this day, with the most destructive weaopons ever created. These weapons have been universally adopted among civs, because they are the most destructive, and the dealiest. The interesting thing is that Europeans have become good at it, which only makes sense.
The decendants of the early Europeans spread their version of civilization throughout the world, so good had they become at killing each other, that no civ could stand against them, and they, we, have shaped the world, but with the old, indeed ancient bugaboo, they, we, just can't get along. So we have great wars, and a great weakness. This has been shaped by the tens of thousands of years of our history, both written and unwritten. We, with our high notions of equality, are but the most recent, and it seems a rewrite of history is in the works to make this new history real.
The creators of Civ 3 are dealing with this rewrite, done among the decendants of the Europeans, that all men are created equal. We are not. Each has strenghts. So it is with the Chinese, the Africans, the Indians, the Europeans. You may not like it, but we are not all the same, of course. Not as some would like you to believe, which is the way of things in this current generation in these european decended civs in which most of us (Apolytoners) live. However, there have been alot of generations, and this game should not be bound by the prejudices of political correctness, such a recent thing.
This game spans thousands of years, and gets right down to the times of the shaping of men, and mankind. All men are not created equal, and no tribe is better than another. We all have strengths, and weaknesses, and they are not the same. In this world, and this game, to the victor goes the spoils, and let him write the history, as we now do.
However, don't let the notions of these men who write a pleasant history today describe the game which we all hold dear, because they are very recent, and history is very old.
Lancer is offline  
Old January 12, 2001, 00:32   #16
yin26
inmate
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Born Again Optimist
 
yin26's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:45
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: This space reserved for Darkstar.
Posts: 5,667
First, it's obviously FAR easier to program generic civs, so far less risky from both a financial and public relations standpoint. My guess is we'll get (essentially) generic civs, nothing to panic about.

However, unless you've taken the time to learn the challenging intricacies of playing a game that DOES limit certain choices but opens others, then you'll never appreciate that having, say, 12 distinct civs would truly make each game that much more different. And, hey, if you love to win by war, chose a civ that's good at such things. Otherwise, go for total random seeding and see how good you are on-the-fly!

Afterall, why would I want to master every so-called "civ" in about a week?
[This message has been edited by yin26 (edited January 11, 2001).]
yin26 is offline  
Old January 12, 2001, 01:56   #17
Jon Miller
staff
ApolyCon 06 ParticipantsCivilization III MultiplayerCivilization II MultiplayerRise of Nations MultiplayerPtWDG Vox ControliC4DG Vox
OTF Moderator
 
Jon Miller's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:45
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 13,063
Hi all

I disagree with Yin here. Making Civs have different abilities is not only unrealistic, it also is lazy. Firaxis is basically conceeding that they can not make more strategies viable for the players, so instead theyy are goiing to give the Civs unique abilities to force people who play them in to strategies which would normally not be viable. That is what they did in SMAC (I am most espicially thinking of Yang and Miriam). Having non-generic Civs also limits multiplayer since some playing styles I and the people I played with obviously prefered (also the Miriam was especially weaker on a larger map) and we could not use them because some factions did not allow them.

And sure you could always choose to play different but then that leaves a weaker computer player. It is just gilt put on the game to impress the easily impressible. I am saddened that Firaxis is sinking to the unimaginative lows of MOO, MOM, AoE, and all the rest (I like those games they are just not civ (also uniques fit better into MOM and MOO)).

Note I have judged based upon pass implimentations of this and I cannot but think that Firaxis dropped the ball on this one (sure it will sell but it won't be as good). While making some of it based upon where you start might sound fun but the one thing about civilizations is that they change. Being locked into one strategy path just limits options, does ot expand them (and it is especially frustrating when it is artificial).

I do see one good aspect in that if it is customisable it will be a boon to scenario designers.

All I hope is that they make it optional so that I can at least turn it off. Anybody feel like asking a question and/or making an petition.

edit once more: I am sure the game withh be fun and plan on buying it. I just think that the best option was not chosen in this case.

Jon Miller
[This message has been edited by Jon Miller (edited January 12, 2001).]
Jon Miller is offline  
Old January 12, 2001, 03:01   #18
yin26
inmate
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Born Again Optimist
 
yin26's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:45
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: This space reserved for Darkstar.
Posts: 5,667
quote:

I disagree with Yin here. Making Civs have different abilities is not only unrealistic, it also is lazy.


In a bizarre kind of way, I see your point. But surely properly balancing the various civs takes an enormous amount of work. Of course, there's quite a danger involved in that...potentially leading to some civs being played too much (or even banned in MP) while others never get played. This is a real concern, of course, and is why I agree this should be in check-box option, like "Civs inherit historical attributes."

In AoK, they had the catch-all: "All Techs Available." But the funny thing is, almost NOBODY uses it! The plain fact of the matter is that the game is FAR more interesting and complex when having to deal with the weaknesses and strengths given to various civs.

And I find it odd that people who scream for more historical accuracy prefer to play with cardboard cut-out civs!

Good job on this one, Firaxis, if you manage to balance it as well as ES did (...of course, that took a few patches...).
yin26 is offline  
Old January 12, 2001, 09:25   #19
Wazell
Chieftain
 
Wazell's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:45
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Fine Land
Posts: 85
Isn't there an option in Alpha Centauri startup screens where you can randomize those factions' advantages, or even turn them off? I'm not sure though. But it seems unique benefits will be there because people who buy games like to have different alternatives to choose from. Maybe it'd be better to do it like in first civ. At least it says in the manual that Indians can be tough in space race, or Mongols are aggressive warmongers and so on, but this had no effect on human player, who had no bonuses or minuses like those. And in civ2 some civs are always aggressive when some others are perfectionist. They're only expanding this system.
Some AI civs could also simply be better than others. It's better to have major civs like Chinese, English or Germans as your opponents in the endgame, rather than having some minors like Vikings or Hungarians, so the major civs should have bigger probability to survive and go beat the human player(s). If this is done by 'unfair' benefits, I see nothing wrong in it. Of course there must always be an option to turn all bonuses off.

Also the experience idea is good. If you build ships very early and use them a lot, your civ's naval skills will get better than others. Learn by doing, that's it!
Wazell is offline  
Old January 12, 2001, 11:16   #20
lord of the mark
Deity
 
lord of the mark's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:45
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 11,160
I agree with Bagdar, and I think Lancer's post should serve as a warning.

Notice how in AOK and other RTS forums people are always talking about "races" - when talking about the English, celts, etc - which are actually cultural groups not races? the confusion of language and culture with race is one of the fundamental confusions of the century just past, and one which resulted in tragedy in that century.

Civ, thankfully has avoided that confusion. Everyone starts out the same in 4000 BC, and what your CIV (NOT RACE) evolves into depends on HISTORY not BIOLOGY - what the terrain is, what govt types you choose, the prximity of other civs, the nature of interactions with them, the techs you research, the wonders you build etc. Depending on your strategy and the enviroment in which you pursue it you will result in a very different civ, such that the looking back one might deduce that the difference came from some profound racial origin - BUT becuase you've actually been playing the game since that first settler in 4000BC you know that isnt true

you KNOW that the Americans have high tech weapons because theyve been following a demo-science-peaceful-naval path since they split off from the brits, and that the brits started on such a path to take dvantage of their island isolation, and had powerful midgame science wonders like Isaacs. It only LOOKS like the anglo-saxons have a gene for high tech weapons.

Thus Civ2 is, as a game, a powerful argument for the importance of HISTORY, and a powerful counter to biological/racial determinism.


Building in AOK style "race" advantages will transform the nature of this game, in a negative way. Making it possible to eliminate these with modifications is not enough - they will poison the Civ community. At most it should be possible to add them in modifications, but exclude them from the basic game. I'm not even sure if that is a good idea.
lord of the mark is offline  
Old January 12, 2001, 11:30   #21
lord of the mark
Deity
 
lord of the mark's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:45
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 11,160
quote:

Originally posted by yin26 on 01-12-2001 02:01 AM


And I find it odd that people who scream for more historical accuracy prefer to play with cardboard cut-out civs!

...).



Is it historically accurate that the anglo-saxons in 4000 BC had the charecteristics of the 19thc English? Is it historically accurate that they would have inevitably developed those charecteristics regardless of location, govt type, history ?

So that the charecteristics of 19thc england were determined not by the Danish invasion, the Norman conquest, Magna Carta, Henry VIII and the church, the Spanish armada, the english civil war, the Glorious revolution, all things which could have come out DIFFERENTLY, but by genetic inheretance determined in 4000 BC?

That is not making civ more historical, it is making it profoundly ahistorical. It is precisely because I value Civ as a historical game that I dont want predetermined civ charecteristics.

And this is not AOK - in AOK you can ask what were the cultural charecteristics of each group at the start of the middle ages, and presume they more or less lasted to the end of the middle ages. In civ we are dealing with 4000 BC to present. The ONLY difference that could be HISTORICALLY justified would be ones that existed in 4000 BC - but given popular expectations thats not what we'll get - we'll get the cartoon view of each civ at the height of its power.
lord of the mark is offline  
Old January 12, 2001, 11:36   #22
lord of the mark
Deity
 
lord of the mark's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:45
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 11,160
Indeed this is the first sign of what we have lost with the departure of Brian Reynolds. Brian was philisophically astute enough, I believe, to understand how diametrically opposed "racial charecteristics" are to the historical philosophy behind Civ. This is the first hint that a Brian-less Civ3 may not be worth buying (There! first shot across the bow) and it may be better to wait for what BHG comes up with.
lord of the mark is offline  
Old January 12, 2001, 11:46   #23
yin26
inmate
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Born Again Optimist
 
yin26's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:45
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: This space reserved for Darkstar.
Posts: 5,667
First, you guys have jumped the gun entirely. As far as I know, no firm details on this have been decided. And for argument's sake, I'm all for SOMETHING giving your civ a unique character (preferably though the 'history' you create in the game--if not, in rough approximation to Earth's history depite what else happens in the game). As always, the option to turn it off should be there.
yin26 is offline  
Old January 12, 2001, 11:51   #24
Grumbold
Emperor
 
Grumbold's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:45
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,732
I agree with those who espouse vanilla starting civ's. The differentiation should come later, as nations expand, encounter each other and interact.

My favourite way of doing this is to allow nations to pick one or two specials from each historical period. This could be done by hanging them on certain techs. As soon as you learn the tech, you can choose whether or not to take the associated special, be it +1 sea movement or cheaper chariot units. Each special could only be taken a fixed number of times but there would be enough choice to make sure nations would not normally be left with only something useless to pick. An alternative would be to allow say 5 specials over the whole game. Your choice could be between an early rush to victory or hope to survive unassisted to get the renaissance/modern era specials and become a great latter day power instead.
Grumbold is offline  
Old January 12, 2001, 12:04   #25
yin26
inmate
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Born Again Optimist
 
yin26's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:45
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: This space reserved for Darkstar.
Posts: 5,667
Yes, the pick points idea would work fine. You could also earn points as part of the Throne Room concept. But I'd also like the option of a "real history" setup (from which I could pick a certain time period), and at the start, the civs would approximate civs at that time...so if you wanted to play an underdog civ, you could try to change history. That sort of thing.

I see people's worries about the game being "determined" from the start if certain civs are given too powerful a bonus. I have faith enough in Firaxis not to ruin the game in that way, however. They have more creativity and gamer's spirit, I'm sure.
yin26 is offline  
Old January 12, 2001, 12:40   #26
Grumbold
Emperor
 
Grumbold's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:45
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,732
I would certainly be interested in playing a game where the specials you could take were preallocated by nationality, but those only really work when they activate at the appropriate time in history and the map is historical, too. A "historical" England starting in the Mongolian plains is not going to be too impressed with its naval bonuses or ability to more easily administrate distant colonial outposts
Grumbold is offline  
Old January 12, 2001, 14:30   #27
Ralf
King
 
Ralf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:45
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,728
In SMAC I tend to play "Peace-keeping forces" (i dont remember the exact name) alternative, over and over and over again, because that faction had the "best" benefits, and was the closest one to my playing-style.

Honestly, after about 10-12 games i felt gradually more and more limited.

Sure, there was temperament- and empire-managing templates connected to the AI-civs in Civ-2. But those you could ignore. You could choose the AI-agressive Mongols for example, and play them as civil and peaceful, with emphasize on science, trade and well-developed city-areas instead.

To summarize it: DONT have "hardcoded" Civ benefits, like in SMAC factions. Its NOT a good idea. Civ-2 style AI temperament- and empire-managing templates is necessary, but nothing more then that.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 12, 2001).]
Ralf is offline  
Old January 12, 2001, 15:51   #28
Maniac
Alpha Centauri Democracy GameC4DG Team Alpha CentauriansACDG The Cybernetic ConsciousnessACDG Planet University of TechnologyPolyCast TeamACDG3 Spartans
 
Maniac's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:45
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Gent, Belgium
Posts: 10,712
quote:

A "historical" England starting in the Mongolian plains is not going to be too impressed with its naval bonuses or ability to more easily administrate distant colonial outposts


Well ,there's a very simple solution to that. Just program that the English's starting position is always on an isolated island; that the Greek's starting position is always on hilly coastland; the Mongols and Sioux on plains and steppes; the Egyptians and Babylonians near a large river; the Celts in foresty land; and so on...

Assuming that, that the starting positions are similar in each game, it is perfectly logical (because of accumulation of experience) that civilizations will always and in each game(=alternative history) develop the same benefits and weak points. And that has nothing to do with genes or racism, as some people claim.

To further illustrate my examples: it's only logical then that the Greeks and English will each game turn to the sea, so there's nothing wrong with giving them beneits like "free Harbor facility in each city" or "+50% transport capacity" to simulate the unavoidable experience they will gather after decades of seafaring.
As a second example: it's logical the Mongols will turn to horses as means of transport and war, so there's nothing wrong with something like "+25% Attack bonus for mounted units".
You could further expand this by SE factors, such as +2 Research for the Greeks, +2 Support for the Mongols or Celts (their military society resulting out of their harsh starting conditions), -1 Police for the freedom-loving Dutch, etcetera.

If you per se want a 'generic' civ, despite the fact it's historically unrealistic, you can always create your own custom civ. That isn't difficult in SMAC, so neither will it be in Civ3.

MarkG, I tried to vote on the poll half an hour ago, but the first time I entered the wrong username (ACOL's SMAniaC instead of Apolyton's M@ni@c) so my vote wasn't accepted. Then I tried again, but I got some error message. The third time I got a message that I had already voted. But when I checked the results, it showed I hadn't! Is there some way I can still give my vote? Cause, looking at the reactions in this thread, I think my option "1) Yes, like in SMAC" will need all the support it can get.

M@ni@c
BTW, I hope you guys have all tried SMAC before voting against non-generic civs. It REALLY increases replayability, fun and strategy.
Maniac is offline  
Old January 12, 2001, 15:57   #29
Boracks
Warlord
 
Boracks's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:45
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fort Erie, Ontario
Posts: 254
I also got an error when I tried to vote (5) and now it says I can only vote once.

I believe the more start options a game has, the more playability and replayability it has and will then have a broader appeal and success rate.

I still play MOO2 and SMAC for those reasons.


------------------
"Treat each day as if it were your last. Eventually, you'll be right."
Boracks is offline  
Old January 12, 2001, 16:12   #30
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:45
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
Here's another view (mine , which has caught some praise on the OT... where we are also discussing this):
http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HTML/001634.html

--

And I disagree with programing the English always to be on the coast. The fun part is the random areas were you are placed and then, from there you explore your surrounding and make judgements based on where you are.
Imran Siddiqui is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:45.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team