14 POLL: "unique benefits depending on the Civilization you choose"

there was a problem, please try to vote again if you had trouble...
[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited January 12, 2001).]

[Lancer]

How about, the more a civ does something, the better they get at it. In other words, all Civs start out vanilla. When a Civ builds X # of ships, they get better at it, and build better ships. The more they fight ships the better the sailors become. Though sailors only live a short time as compared to the length of the game in game years, tradition and skills are passed from generation to generation. The historical precedent for this would be the English, who were basicly unbeatable until the more than met their match in the war of 1812.
So this way, if the English start in the steppe, they would tend to being better horsemen, if the Mongols start on an island, they would tend to be better sailors.
Those who built their cities up would be better builders....etc

[Ralf]

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!

Isnt it exactly that what Civs with pre-fabricated benefits really is? Cardboard cut-outs?

Also - our history is pretty contradictive, with many "1 step forward, then 2-3 steps backwards" historical examples. Yes, its overal progressive and evolutionary, but mostly in rather roundabout and erratic ways, with many blind-alleys and labyrinthic "We have lost our direction - where shall we go now?" type of nation/civilization crises (and yes, we are all certainly living in such times now, i think).

This is why i simply DONT like the idea of Civ-3 having neither development-team pre-designed civ benefits, nor player pre-designed civ benefits (through pre-game allocation-points).

Its simply historically false!

Its like if a 4000BC people knew exactly where they was heading, from the word GO (and, by the way - here is some 100% static cultural, political, economical and military benefit/trade-off values, that either will be helpful, or disadvantageous for you, the next 6000 years of timeline!) Good Luck!!!

Talk about a "cardboard cut-out" design-approach.

Its like having all those once-and-for-all 100% static values; then let the whole historical timeline again and again, be shaped by those static values.
Isnt it really the other way around? Hasnt value-systems of civilizations again and again have to be reshaped, in order "to better fit the surrounding reality". Hence; "The stone you first threw away, have know become a cornerstone".

The game should reflect this:

What benefits and trade-offs your people shall have should be decided dynamically, by the way YOU play the game. It shoudnt be decided statically once-and-for-all, by the game-designers, or by some pre-game allocation benefit-points.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 12, 2001).]

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 01-12-2001 11:04 AM 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.

Fine - create a scenario on a real world map, place only 4000 BC civs in actual locations Sumerians, egytians, Indians, chinese with actual beginning techs. Anyone else starts with no bonus starting techs, or even has to research roads, mining and irrigation. Dont think you need civ unique charescetreistics (a la AOE/AOK) for that.

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 01-12-2001 11:04 AM 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.

Fine - create a scenario on a real world map, place only 4000 BC civs in actual locations Sumerians, egytians, Indians, chinese with actual beginning techs. Anyone else starts with no bonus starting techs, or even has to research roads, mining and irrigation. Dont think you need civ unique charescetreistics (a la AOE/AOK) for that.

[Atahualpa]

Too much effort to do unique abilities for (assuming) 40-50 different civs to choose from.
Rather do some unique abilities that depend on play style.

ATa

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 01-12-2001 11:04 AM 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.

its not the game being dominated by one civ im worried about. Im quite aware that Ensemble Studios has managed to balance AOK (after lots of problems with Teutons, IIUC . Im sure Firaxis can game-balance as well as ES.

What ES has left in AOK however, AFAIK, is that each civ has a pre-determined flavor based on its strengths. I get english and they have better archers, whatever. In CIV I want an English specialty in archers to be the OUTCOME of the game, not something predetermined in 4000 BC (I realize scenario writers might want soemthing different, I continue to think that this is NOT the right engine for relatively short ((as compared with 6000 yr) scenarios)
Why did the english develop better archers then the French? Hisotrically becasue french placed greater emohaiss on knights, looked down on commoner foot soldiers, etc (see tuchman "A Distant Mirror")
This had too do with social and historical differences between England and France. Maybe this can be addressed in the social engineering model. It should not be addressed ala AOK, by giving english archers an attack bonus, preset from 4000 BC. If my english follow a pattern of development more like France, they should be no better archers than the historical ("orignal time line") French.

[Sirotnikov]

I am also extremely against unique civs who's charachteristics don't change and are forced upon one.

I have mailed the civ team (askthecivteam@firaxis.com) asking them to elaborate the Idea and describing my views. I received no reply yet.

If it is to be implemented, DarkCloud's 10 points idea (stolen from The Sims, but who cares ) is the best compromise as it would allow costum civs and still will not hurt civ developement as much.

Please note though, I do not support or concede to the idea of unique civs for the reasons many (and especially Jon Miller, lord of the mark) have already described better than me.

Unique civs will definitely stop me from buying Civ III. I will have to resort to my tactic with CTP: download warez, play for three days, see it's crap, delete every trace, play civ2.

quote: 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.

But AoK is AoK. I want to play civ goddamit! If I want to play AoK I would! Anyway, AoK isn't that fun with the different civs. The only thing that makes it better is Random civs.
Also don't forget those are different games and different time spans. Though AoK claims to be a great game of developing civs, it isn't. It's a simple build a base, build troops, kill enemy game. I stopped playing it several months ago and will probably never return playing it. I return to civ every time for the past 4 years.

quote: 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".

Why is it logical? why do you assume it is logical? why should they always start on plains? That's boring. We are out to replay history. Why should we repeat it? Why are greeks always smart? Beacause of genes? That's not historical accuracy, that's prejudice.

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 01-12-2001 04:46 PM Isnt it exactly that what Civs with pre-fabricated benefits really is? Cardboard cut-outs? Also - our history is pretty contradictive, with many "1 step forward, then 2-3 steps backwards" historical examples. Yes, its overal progressive and evolutionary, but mostly in rather roundabout and erratic ways, with many blind-alleys and labyrinthic "We have lost our direction - where shall we go now?" type of nation/civilization crises (and yes, we are all certainly living in such times now, i think). This is why i simply DONT like the idea of Civ-3 having neither development-team pre-designed civ benefits, nor player pre-designed civ benefits (through pre-game allocation-points). Its simply historically false! Its like if a 4000BC people knew exactly where they was heading, from the word GO (and, by the way - here is some 100% static cultural, political and economical benefit/trade-off values, that either will be helpful, or disadvantageous for you, the next 6000 years of timeline!) Good Luck!!! Talk about a "cardboard cut-out" design-approach. Its like having once-and-for-all 100% static cultural/political/economical values; then let the whole historical timeline again and again, be shaped by those static values. Isnt it really the other way around? Hasnt value-systems of civilizations again and again have to be reshaped, in order "to better fit the surrounding reality". Hence; "The stone you first threw away, have know become a cornerstone". The game should reflect this: What benefits and trade-offs your people shall have should be decided dynamically, by the way YOU play the game. It shoudnt be decided statically once-and-for-all, by the game-designers, or by some pre-game allocation benefit-points. [This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 12, 2001).]

I think you;ve caught the essence of it. Civ (at least Civ2) is a "hegelian" game, in which what you can do depends on the history that has come before, with resulting historical contradictions, so that a "militaristic" civ that neglects research falls behind in military technology and must change direction to catch up, or in which a heavyweight industrial civ finds itself being turned toward environmentalism.

The national trait idea is a more one-dimensional view of history (Chinese - literate but stagnant, english - practical and commercial, Romans martial, etc) that does not fit the subtlety of Civ.

[our_man]

I think Firaxis should do it for Civ3. In my opinion it would simply be an expansion on the aggresive/militaristic/expansionist settings. The advantages/disadvantages could be used to reflect racial traits of a particular tribe i.e. the Mongols could have a military advantage and start off with Horseback Riding always, but suffer an effiency and research disadvantage.

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by M@ni@c on 01-12-2001 02:51 PM 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"., .

What if the mongols settle somewhere other than mongolia - what if they conquer China, and (unlike original time line) hold it? Do they continue to get their horse bonus? Historically conquerors of China, like the Manchus, became sinicized.

How about the english? they didnt start out on a island, or have you forgotten? this game begins in 4000 BC, the angels and saxons didnt migrate to england until 600 AD, before that they lived in North Germany. Maybe the Celtic Britons should get the naval bonus? Or anyone who starts their first city near a coast? Or maybe it could just be that if you start on an island, you have an incentive to build naval wonders (HEY! thats what we have in Civ2)

Should the Greeks be innovative democrats (Athenians?) or tough minded egalitarian militarists (spartans) or expansive religious despots (byzantines?)

what traits do the Romans have that the Renaissance Italians keep? And do the post Muaryan Indians keep the same traits as Indus valley civilization?

The more you think about it the more you realize how ahistorical the whole idea is. Hopefully Sid and company wiil discover this as they try to implement it.

[Jon Miller]

Note, I am not _as_ against some ideas (similar to Imran's, even though it is not the best way it is a simple _platable_), I just do not beleive Firaxis is going this way until they tell me differently and so would like to react against it.

Also note, I am a fanatic, I will buy Civ3, whether I continue to play it is the question.

Jon Miller

[yin26]

Like I said, I don't think Firaxis is going to throw things all out of whack. They are a smart bunch. Let's see more details about this first.

well, it's now a poll

go to the first post to vote
[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited January 12, 2001).]

[Theben]

Further thought down the "gain ability"line:

ALL civs start out vanilla-flavored. A civ that tends toward one or more aspects of civ is offered a bonus eventually; the player/AI doesn't have to take it, as each civ may only have 1 bonus at a time.
Once the aspect becomes obsolete, or the player ignores it's use for a long while, the bonus is lost. The civ is now eligible for a new bonus

FE: English get an Archer bonus at some point for building lots of archers; lose it when Musketeers replace most Archers. They concentrate then on navy and eventually get a naval bonus.

Otherwise civ should stay all the same at the beginning. Another NO! to hardwired unique benefits for each civ.

[Ralf]

Then im writing this: 120 votes have been made.

- 36 votes for either SMAC-style, or SMAC-style with added option (pre-game allocation-points).
- 84 votes for either CIV-2 style, or CIV-2 style with SMAC-style and/not allocation-points as added options.

Well, I understand civers who voted for all options = flexibility. The player is given the ultimate choice (but, at the expense for increased workload and more potential game-release bug-problems, for the game-designers at Firaxis).

What i dont understand is that so many as 19 voted SMAC-style only, some with the argument "more historically accurate". I dont get that. If Civ-3 had a timeline of perhaps 300 years; Yes, then perhaps. But the timeline is at least 6000 years.

Also, historically interested scenario-designers most probably wants to tailorcut any civ-benefits themselves, and they most probably wants to have those benefits applied to a specific and limited time-period in history. Is Firaxis pre-fabricated civ-benefits going to be helpful here?
Finally, bear in mind that you can have SMAC-style civ-unique benefits in scenarios, without having those civ-unique benefits in the main game. So this poll isnt about having civ-unique benefits, or not - its instead about if we should have them in the main game.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 14, 2001).]

[kolpo]

I don't understand those comments that say that predeterminated SE adds te replayability.

In SMAC was quite always the Hive the strongest computer opponent because his very powerfull start SE settings and could you predict the outcome of all wars between computers. I never got a game where the morgans dominated the world even while that would be intresting to play, I never have seen how the peacekeepers conquered the hive empire, I never saw a game where communistic rebels took over the power in the morgan empire or where fasist took over the power in the peacekeeper empire(even while similar things happened a lot in real history especial with nations who are not doing it very well). But that would certainly give more replayability then a game where predeterminated variables make sure that there will never be a surprise that there will never happens something that can't be predicted.

And even giving civs random predeterminated bonuses will solve nothing because you will soon be able to discover which civ in that particular game has which predeterminated ability so from then can you predict how things will happen and also CIVILIZATIONs CHANGE OVER TIME. The Germans who are now a peacefull democratic nation with a relative weak army where 50 years ago an extremely agressive despotistic nation with an extremely strong army.

So please run as far away as you can from predeterminated civilizations attributes but let history(which will be every time different) determinate who is good in what and what character each civ has. So that you can never predict what will happens ,so that all games are different. That is real replayability.

[Windborne]

I too have to object to the idea of a game set up with factions like alpha-centauri. I'm a very strong proponent of cultural differences, I like to see different civilizations doing different things at different times, but I wouldn't want to see the human player stuck with some set of standard advantages and disadvantages just because of a tribe name.

What I'd rather see is some form of cultural set-up screen at the start of the game, perhaps with some default settings if you choose to use a standard race, but those settings should change throughout the game, the mongols shouldn't stay a warlike civ with no interest in the sea if they end up on a small island away from everyone, in civ II the japanese were in this kind of situation, they built a huge army but seldom any boats to get them to the enemy!

Humans have almost all the characteristics we place on alien intelligences to one degree or another, but we have them as a broad range, our cultures change their emphasis over time, grow, try new things, etc . . . I think this is the main difference between a game of civ featuring humans and something like "space empires" where you get some standard, shallow, race stereotype. Humans are more complex.

I am strongly against unique benefits. Firstly, the racism charge is a risk, reinforcing stereotypes, and SMAC was weakened as a game by unique attributes for civs.

But most importantly, this will weaken the game for the legion of multiplayers. Just as we build only certain wonders, player will only want certain civs. We already have fights over just the civ colour, imagine if civs are differentiated??? Not worth the trouble.


------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.

Keep the OT sticky thread free!!

[Darkknight]

since Civ games almost always start at or around 4000bc?? then the individual civs have already been around for 6000 years since 10000bc end of last ice age. therefore they would have all their individual characteristics but there should be a choice to let it be set per civ or random or for the terrain they're in e.g. mostly forest you get archers (whatever) if it's mostly sea then naval units. therefore it would be better to stay inland if thats where you're from because if you go out to the sea then you'll be overpowered by opponents.

------------------
" mind over body "

[JosefGiven]

I think there should be some scope for civs to have individual characteristics, but I think they should be very underplayed.

The civilisations that have 'gone the distance' in the real world have undergone some amazing transformations, sometimes the whole character of a nation has changed time and time again...for example,

Britain, only 100 years ago, had an empire so large that 'the sun never went down on it'. Being the seat of empire, Britain was very militaristic, and had a rigid class structure based on old feudal customs.
Nowadays, Britain is just another European democratic post-industrial nation, and this comes through in the thoughts and feelings of it's people.

Right, back to the point in hand: I say that a civilization's character becomes defined as the game goes on, so that isolated civs become insular, and civs in contact with each other become either very aggressive, or very cosmopolitan. Do you see what I mean?

In this way, by forcing an identity on your civ, you limit your game. By all means have a facility for civ characteristics for those who want them, but make sure it is possible to play a game without them...



------------------
Josef Given
josefgiven@hotmail.com

[Theben]

nevermind...
[This message has been edited by Theben (edited January 14, 2001).]

[The diplomat]

Another reason why a SE system is a good idea. Allow an advanced SE where the player can pick "traits" for his civ. This way, the player decides what advantaged/disadvantages his civ has. Furthermore, this avoids the problem that has been raised of a civ's benefits clashing with the starting location (ie: seafaring civ starting in the middle of land).
Instead of calling them "traits" they would be called "policies" since that is what they are. They represent the player choosing to emphasize certain areas of his empire that he/she feels is important to his civs development. All "policies" would have the following affects:
-research bonus in specific area (ie seafaring would give you research bonus in naval techs)
-special bonus (like +10% attack)
-special penalty (like -15% production)
-unhappiness for certain groups of people/happiness for others. (ex: seafaring would give coastal cities bonus happiness but landlocked cities would get unhappiness penalty)

Just a suggestion...

But I still don't see the real problem with simple SMAC-like bonus/penalties for each civ. You just have to make sure that they:
a) are balanced
b) don't restrict the player's strategies

I think that unique benefits acentuate the historical aspect of the game and make each civ more challenging to play and more fun. After all, just because the civs have unique benefits doesn't mean that the player is forced to follow history.

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.
[This message has been edited by The diplomat (edited January 15, 2001).]

[markusf]

hmm In the rules.txt i would add something like the following. This would allow anyone to customize the civs....

Assume that all the following are specialists.

@Germans

entertainer = 3 -- produces 3 luxeries
taxcollector = 3 -- produces 3 taxes
scientist = 4 -- produces 4 science
industryworker = 4 -- produces 4 shields
merchant = 3 -- produces 3 trade

@Mongols

entertainer = 4 -- produces 4 luxeries
taxcollector = 3 -- produces 3 taxes
scientist = 3 -- produces 3 science
industryworker = 4 -- produces 4 shields
merchant = 3 -- produces 3 trade
[This message has been edited by markusf (edited January 15, 2001).]

[loinburger]

I'm in favor of anything that will help turn me into a research powerhouse. +5 Research Bonus, here I come!!!

[Theben]

Okay, what happens when there's a schzisim and the Mongols split off from the English (for example)? Do the Mongols have the previous English abilities of expert longbow archery & seamanship, or do they immediately revert to being good hunters/ excellent horse archers?

I STILL say hardwired civ benefits are a bad idea. In fact it could RUIN civ3.

[kolpo]

There is no real genetic difference between races. What a race is is completely determinated by it's political, cultural, economical and religious decisions and to a lesser extend also by the climate.

Rule the USA like North Korea is ruled and you will see that within 50 years it will have become a very weak economie where many people don't have enough money to buy food. On the other hand if you rule North Korea like South Korea is ruled will you see that within 50 years it has become a very powerfull economie.

The japanees are now one of the most peacefull nations on the earth but where 50 years ago one of the most agressive, has the japanese race a peacefull or agressive nature ? none of both of course it are just the political, cultural, economical and religious decisions that have changed.

[Windborne]

I think that cultural advantages being set from the begining is just WRONG, one of the greatest things about civilization one and two is that everyone starts out with almost the same abilities and what matters is how you develop them from there.

I do favor a MUCH greater ability to mold your culture, at heart civilization is a roleplaying game more then anything else. I play a civilization and develop it's culture, abilities, and characteristics over time. It's all up to me whether my people become warlike nazi's, or peaceful Ghandi-worshipping technocrats.

The way I'd do this is by giving the players choices throughout the game, each choice made alters things a bit more, until you finally have cultures that are totally DIFFERENT from each other, using the land and oceans in different ways, and pursuing different roads to ultimate victory such as world peace, world conquest, first integrated world economy, highest total score, etc . . . . .

[Steve Clark]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 01-13-2001 05:42 AM What i dont understand is that so many as 19 voted SMAC-style only, some with the argument "more historically accurate". I dont get that. If Civ-3 had a timeline of perhaps 300 years; Yes, then perhaps. But the timeline is at least 6000 years. Also, historically interested scenario-designers most probably wants to tailorcut any civ-benefits themselves, and they most probably wants to have those benefits applied to a specific and limited time-period in history. Is Firaxis pre-fabricated civ-benefits going to be helpful here? Finally, bear in mind that you can have SMAC-style civ-unique benefits in scenarios, without having those civ-unique benefits in the main game. So this poll isnt about having civ-unique benefits, or not - its instead about if we should have them in the main game. [This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 14, 2001).]

Excellent points. By introducing explicit limits to civs, you are limiting the game. Because of the factions, SMAC is viewed by some as being no more than a complex scenario.

As said many times, ideas like this are best implemented in a custom scenario where the emphasis is usually specific to a time period or types of civs.

[Sirotnikov]

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat on 01-15-2001 05:08 PM Another reason why a SE system is a good idea. Allow an advanced SE where the player can pick "traits" for his civ. This way, the player decides what advantaged/disadvantages his civ has. Furthermore, this avoids the problem that has been raised of a civ's benefits clashing with the starting location (ie: seafaring civ starting in the middle of land). Instead of calling them "traits" they would be called "policies" since that is what they are. They represent the player choosing to emphasize certain areas of his empire that he/she feels is important to his civs development. All "policies" would have the following affects: -research bonus in specific area (ie seafaring would give you research bonus in naval techs) -special bonus (like +10% attack) -special penalty (like -15% production) -unhappiness for certain groups of people/happiness for others. (ex: seafaring would give coastal cities bonus happiness but landlocked cities would get unhappiness penalty) SMAC-like bonus/penalties for each civ. You just have to make sure that they: a) are balanced b) don't restrict the player's strategies

I think the diplomat has a point.

If we take the bonuses and construct them according to rules:

1) blanced!
2) player chooses a trait
3) maybe player can choose more traits every era (like Imran's suggestion)
4) traits do not limit players
5) perhaps traits don't make you actually worse, they over develop an area making you better in one and there fore, reltively worse at others
6) traits don't have effects such as "can't choose democracy as govt." because this is stupid and ineffective in a long time span game, and not realistic.

Basically I support Imran's traits Idea, and I think diplomat's suggestions are consistent with the trait idea and can be implemented that way.