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

[colossus]

I am well aware the danger that the majority of the unique bonuses will go to the military. It is easier to give a unit +1 AP, +1 HP or +1MP, rather than boost the civ's science or tax income. Would it turn out that some civ will become warmonger due exclusive of the civ bonus? Already civ2 is too much a military and conquer-the-world game, I'm afraid that unique bonus will accentuate the problem.

[kolpo]

I NEVER saw a game where civ bonuses where balanced and didn't limit the player stragegies.

There was always 1 civ that was at least a little bit better then the others, there was always 1 civ that was more popular in multiplayer then the other. If all previous failed on that is it then not possible that bonuses and balance can't be combinated.

And bonuses will always limit strategies. Who wants to play with something else then the civ with the best military bonus(even when it only lasts 100 turns) when he goes for instand conquest ?

Nobody will play peacefull with a civ with a small military bonus, nobody will play instand conquest with a civ with a small diplomatic bonus.


If you want to wipe out the indians in colonization will you choose the Spanish or the French ? The Spanish
off course because they give you a small bonus against the indians and the peace with indians bonus from the French is useless then.

For every type of strategy will there be one civ that is the best in it(so there is no sense in playing another when you use that strategy), from all strategies will there be 1 that is the best in multiplayer so will there be 1 civ that is used in multiplayer by everyone and will those who play another get killed because the other gain a small bonus in the beginning with will detreminated the outcome if all players have equal skill.
[This message has been edited by kolpo (edited January 17, 2001).]

[bagdar]

N.C.'s quotation of AustralianJeremy is the best summary there is.

The poll results are frightening given that the developers and the voters have in mind something like the AoE model. That's nonsense, and in my opinion, the only plausible explanation for the "unique benefits" is related someway or another to -geography- or -accumulation of experience-.

In AoE2, they gave the Turks the priviledge of building so many types of cannons, and I believe that ruined the balance of the game because the other nations' towers and units just didn't have the effect the cannons had. The reason? The famous cannons employed during the siege of Constantinople? Nonsense! and how about the growth rate of the Chinese? Chinese farms somehow more fertile? Also, what kind of unique benefits for the Americans back at 4000BC? How many of the original Civ nations were present then? Allright, this is not SimHistory, but... Anyway: Sid won't do anything that'll make the game feel silly. Let's not make such a big fuss, we don't know how it's going to be.


[This message has been edited by bagdar (edited January 17, 2001).]

[Biddles]

Many people in this forum are claiming that bonuses are going to limit the strategies that you can use with a particular civ. I don't think that this is the case.

quote: Originally posted by kolpo on 01-17-2001 04:03 AM If you want to wipe out the indians in colonization will you choose the Spanish or the French ? The Spanish off course because they give you a small bonus against the indians and the peace with indians bonus from the French is useless then.

Fair enough, the french bonus will be useless in this situation, but how are you any worse off than if there weren't any bonuses in the first place? The answer is that you aren't.

Besides, who says that a peace bonus would be useless in that situation. I can think of ways it could be useful even if you wanted to conquer the native americans. Given, it probably would never be as strong as the spanish bonus.

If all civs are inherently the same, THEN your strategies are decreased. If you finish the game with the spanish, then it is the same as finishing it with all the other civs. This was never the case in SMAC. I played (and still do) all the factions in SMAC (admittedly the UoP is my favourite). In civ1 I only ever played as the Greeks because I thought they were pretty cool and there was no incentive for me to change who I played as, they were he same anyway. With differentiated civs you can develop strategies that suit that civ (this doesn't mean it is restricted by the civ). For example in civ3 the americans will probably have a capitalist/economy bonus. This doesn't mean that you can't build a strong military. Your civ can have both military bonuses (from government/SE bonuses) and your civ bonus (economy). The civ won't have the possibility of being as strong militarily as sparta (if you had your starting military bonus and then chose military SE) but it would still be strong militarily. I can't see how that is limiting your strategies, unless you refuse to play as anyone but your chosen civ. For people who feel that way, just have the option to choose which civ bonuses you want at the start. That way I could play as the morgans but have the universties bonuses or the spartans bonuses.

Other people claim that the actual bonuses were too unbalanced in SMAC and would as such ruin civ3. I never found this the case. I did find that Yang was too powerful for the AI. A good player can adapt to the situation and find a use for their bonuses and a shield for their weaknesses, no matter what they are. Firaxis did a pretty good job of balancing the SMAC factions and I have no reason to assume that they won't do the same good work with the Civ3 civs.


------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[n.c.]

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse on 01-13-2001 09:44 PM I am strongly against unique benefits. Firstly, the racism charge is a risk, reinforcing stereotype

Here here! Check out a discussion of this matter: http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum23/HTML/019132.html?98

The best summary I've seen of why this is a horrible idea is the one below:

quote: Originally posted by AustralianJeremy on 01-15-2001 04:29 PM So, we have the following very good reasons why unique attributes are a bad idea in Civ3: 1. No civilization has maintained any particular attribute over 6000 years 2. Civ covers periods where current civilizations simply didn't exist (America, Australia etc) - so what do they get? 3. The best explanation for nations being different isn't their genetics, it's their EXPERIENCES within the world. Civ2 ALREADY models this. Civilizations make the most out of where they start. If Firaxis wants to reward, say, shipbuilding nations (and I suppose it makes sense that a nation that's built lots of ships should have stronger ships, simply from experience), then it could simply have defence and attack bonuses based on how many naval units that civ's produced. (Say after you've built 25 battleships they get +1 attack. BUT this would need to be limited - three levels at the most.) 4. racism - it's not wrong because it's "un-pc", it's wrong because you're assigning characteristics based on the genetics of that first settler unit. Didn't we all start out with the same ancestors anyway? Surely the differences are in how we run our Civ... 5. gameplay balance - as people have pointed out, what's an equivalent to the roman empire's military skill around 30BC? Rome should only have a super powerful empire if the Roman player's playing that way. What, if I'm playing the Australians in a battle with the Romans do I have to lose every time just because we didn't have a warrior Civ then? What's the point of playing a Civ differently if it's constrained by race? I notice in the poll that the pro-unique civs vote is winning. That's more than a little scary...

[Theben]

quote: Originally posted by Biddles on 01-17-2001 09:39 PM Given, it probably would never be as strong as the spanish bonus.

quote: I played (and still do) all the factions in SMAC (admittedly the UoP is my favourite).

quote: The civ won't have the possibility of being as strong militarily as sparta (if you had your starting military bonus and then chose military SE) but it would still be strong militarily.

In you arguement you've answered why there shouldn't be bonuses. Never as strong, you have a favorite (because of those high tech bonuses?), won't be possible; pretty cut and dried that you admit certain civs will be better than others.

quote: Other people claim that the actual bonuses were too unbalanced in SMAC and would as such ruin civ3. I never found this the case...A good player can adapt to the situation and find a use for their bonuses and a shield for their weaknesses, no matter what they are.

Uh, did you ever read Vel's strategy guides? He's pretty clear about how each faction is tailored made to a certain overall strategy: builder, momentum, or hybrid (which has the most flexibility). And that limits you. After all, you don't want to be Miriam or Yang if there's no one nearby in the early game, do you? The builders will leave you behind, technologically and monetarily. Conversely, builders want to be left alone, which won't happen when Santiago shows up on your doorstep right away. And SMAC, as has been pointed out by several people here, is a game based on a few hundred years (which actually is enough that even SMAC faction bonuses/penaltys should change over time), as opposed to civ which is 6000 years.

I'll say it again: experience, not pre-determined!

Another sour note to sing is that the poll itself is biased, albeit not purposefully, I expect. 4 out of 5 choices are "yes" or "yes, but" with one "no". But with that range of choices it's no surprise that the "yes" count is winning (and no, I don't have a suggestion to "fix" it- yet).

quote: Originally posted by Theben on 01-18-2001 03:13 AM Another sour note to sing is that the poll itself is biased, albeit not purposefully, I expect. 4 out of 5 choices are "yes" or "yes, but" with one "no". But with that range of choices it's no surprise that the "yes" count is winning (and no, I don't have a suggestion to "fix" it- yet).

what kind of "no" answers would suggest???


btw, the "yes, but" answers are actually "yes, but only if". which means that if the "but" thing is not done, it's a "no" answer....

[bagdar]

well in SMAC, there is a logical basis for the characterisctics the factions have. Part of the argument is how to decide for the characteristics for people in 4000BC. Some of you argue against this, but what makes Civ such an addictive game is that its main ingredient is the feeling it gives by having you rewrite history. In fact, no matter what -that is, how many more nations are included in civ III [i hope no more]-, I'll play the Greeks (most of the time), the Chinese or the Zulu (not as much as the other two) as I always have with Civ I and II, on the world map. Both because I like being these guys, but also because I like where they start on the map. I don't think I want any limitations to things I want to do with the Zulu, Greeks or the Chinese!

[kolpo]

quote: Fair enough, the french bonus will be useless in this situation, but how are you any worse off than if there weren't any bonuses in the first place? The answer is that you aren't.

Everything except the spanish have on this part an disadvantage: not having that bonus !

If you give an advantage to 1 civ give you the disadvantage of not having that advantage to all other civs !

It is all RELATIVE ; if 1 because stronger in something become the other weaker in that thing !

[TacticalGrace]

quote: Originally posted by Lancer on 01-12-2001 04:02 PM 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.

Yes! this is not only a nice idea that makes sense it also makes the game enjoyable. Although CTP2 is increasingly becoming a dirty word, this is one element it did get right.

example. In CTP2 the first person to circumnavigate the world gets +1 naval movement point for 25 turns. this is a nice bonus with no danger of unbalancing play (only for 25 turns)

[N35t0r]

I don't know for the game, but YES! for the scenario editor...

[Biddles]

What I fail to see is that if you include civ's with bonuses and allow options to switch off these bonuses at the start, how is this possibly limiting your options. I don't think I have seen one person who wants individualized civs and has said "No don't even include an option for generic civ's", whereas people who don't want individualised civ's seem to be saying "No don't even include the option to have individualized civ's". It can't be too hard to switch off the individualisation at the start of the game (just have the game read the civ.txt files from a different directory where the civ's are all generic) and that way everyone is happy. I was actually p$@##$ off at something else when I was voting (so I voted 1) but I would vote 5 if I had had time to think about it. Voting for 1 or 2 is restricting the options that you have.

quote: Originally posted by bagdar on 01-18-2001 07:22 AM I'll play the Greeks (most of the time), the Chinese or the Zulu (not as much as the other two) as I always have with Civ I and II, on the world map. Both because I like being these guys, but also because I like where they start on the map. I don't think I want any limitations to things I want to do with the Zulu, Greeks or the Chinese!

I assume your playing on an earth map here. If you are your saying that you like individualized factions (who wouldn't like the greek starting position, you can wipe out 3 or 4 civs in the first turns of the game.)

All that I'm saying is at least give people the option of playing with the preset civs. Whether you want preset civs or not, I don't see how you can argue with that. (Even if you prefer the trait idea that would be replacing aspects of SE, you could still start with bonuses).



------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[lord of the mark]

Generic civs ONLY or unique civs with option to turn it off?

Well from the game play point of view, obviously the latter is all right, as long as there are no AI problems with changing from the default rules. When im playing civ it wont matter.

It matters when i step out into Apolyton. I dont want a Civ community dominated by discussions of the best "races" to play, as is AOK or SMAC. I also want Civ to continue to be a tool that teaches those who play about the contingency of history - I dont want the false lessons implied by unique civs.

I guess im being "politically correct" here - or rather politically INCORRECT in terms of the current flavor of the time. The new politically correct libertarian stance is that I should be satisfied with what i get to play myself, and shouldnt be concerned with anyone else. I also shouldnt be concerned because cultural products such as games and movies have no impact on the culture, and are for fun only and everyone chooses what they like which is best for them, and stop being such a sourpuss, anyway.

Unfortunately I dont share the above assumptions.

[Biddles]

Isn't it a bit selfish to deny other's the option of playing unique civ's just because you think that this will then dominate the discussion after the game is released. If you aren't interested in a particular topic, don't participate in that thread. Both generic and unique civ's shouldn't be too hard to implement (see above), so why deny people (including yourself) the option of greater playability (If you get sick of generic/unique civ's, you can switch to the other).

------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Biddles on 01-19-2001 10:42 PM Both generic and unique civ's shouldn't be too hard to implement (see above), so why deny people (including yourself) the option of greater playability (If you get sick of generic/unique civ's, you can switch to the other).

Well, giving the player an optional free choice, is of course better then "SMAC-style only".

However, whe problem with this poll, is that many look at it at a simple choice between 100% generic and 100% civ-unique. That is totally wrong.

With the old Civ-2 model you already had...

- AI-civs with some extensive temperament- and emphasize differences between themselves.
- Those civers who dont think that above is enough can tweak the civ text-files themselves (= more fun).
- Scenario-designers can start from a clean slate and directly tailorcut their own time/era civ-unique benefits, without having to waste time in nullify benefits, that have been force-feeded upon them by the Firaxis-team.

With the SMAC-model only you have...

The confused game-feature/bug-report problem:

SMAC had only seven factions (= easy to overview). In Civ-3 the player can choose upto 6-8 AI-civs from a pool of perhaps 30-40+ available AI-civs. Now, if each and every one of them have their own unique "hardwired" benefits, its going to be hard to overview and keep track of them all. This together with the fact that most average civers just "jump-start" without reading the manual that much, it is easy to predict that this is going to produce some bug-patch demanding e-mails, that perhaps was a result of those hard-to-keep-track-of SMAC-style civ-benefits instead.

The time/era civ-benefit/compromise problem:

Compare with a game like "Age Of Kings", with a much shorter timeline - only 1000 years; playing through pre-modern times only. In the AOK-case, its not that difficult to design historically consistent benefits to each AI-civ.
But, what about the timeline in Civ-3? Its at least 6000 years, for crying out loud. Admittedly, the first 2-3 millenniums pass by quickly. But, still; dont you guys see the obvious problems with 100% static 6000 years through several time-eras, civ-unique benefits?
Well, perhaps those "hardvired" SMAC-style benefits isnt that rigid/static after all? Perhaps they change 2-3 times through the timeline. If so, is that good? Isnt such stepwise changing SMAC-style civ-benefits, likely to produce even more "mistaken game-feature for a BUG" reports to the Firaxis-team?

The feeling of being forced down a specific path:

I didnt like that in SMAC. In theory I could choose between 7 factions, but in practice I played 1-2 factions over and over again, because the other faction-benefits simply was too far off. It really felt rather limiting after while. The problem gets even worse in multiplayer games, because then one have to argue what best civ to choose, and who is going to put up with that unbalanced crappy religious faction (refering to SMAC).

The time-consuming game-balancing problem:

No matter how much time they spent on balancing those civ-unique benefits, there always going to be weaker civ-choices, that nobody wants. And by the way; i believe that balancing those 30-40+ civ-unique benefits ala SMAC, really IS time-consuming. Developing time that could be much better spent, by instead concentrating more on game-issues that players cant tweak themselves.
By this i DONT say that they should ignore the field, of course. I just say that it would be much smarter to choose the Civ-2 style path, because the AI civ-benefit related game-balancing problems, is obviously much easier and less time-consuming.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 20, 2001).]

[ChrisShaffer]

In my opinion, the best of all worlds would be:

1) The option to turn off unique bonuses.
2) Earning bonuses through gameplay.
3) Changing bonuses over time, also based on gameplay.
4) Less radical bonuses than SMAC, thus bonuses that have less of an impact on gameplay.

Don't we already have one bonus system in place? Wonders.

p.s. to those who think Miriam/Believers in SMAC can only be a combat faction, you're wrong. It's quite viable to play Miriam as a builder on a large map. The support bonus allows the use of hundreds of formers (I had 300+ one game) and massive terraforming.

[bagdar]

Let's hope the second release from 'ask the civ team' says somehing about that unique civ business. They pretty much did clear up the confusion over customisability vs. 3d units. They can do likewise for the unique civs problem. I do recognize that it's deeper a subject than the graphics, however, there must be a billion questions accumulated by now.

[Sorn Xorin]

Ok first off if theres going to be Historical advantages /Disadvantages there should be an on/ off toggle similar to when you start a game in Civ2 and you choose what level of barbarians you want..

As for the way they could implament it..

Ill give you 3 seperate nations or culture as examples

1) The English upon reaching the tech level for archers the english would get a special archer with diffrent stats to that of everyone else ie a higher defense value say 6 instead of 4...Another way this could be done is all Archers produced by the English are Veterans when they come off the production line whether theres a barracks or not. This advantage would obviously be tempory as soon as the English developed Gunpowder the Archer would be retired from your build list as it would be obsolete.

2) The Spanish. Similar to the Archer when the Spanish develope the technology for medivial marine transport ie the ships that took the Spanish to the Americas, the Spanish transport ship of the era would have more room for the land units on board this would reflect that Historically the Spanish built Galeons in that time period which where larger than any other ship of that time, and that other nations did not generally build galleons hence making it a Spanish advantage. Steamships start to appear

3)Romans. Another way you could define an advantage is by if a nation used a particular form of Goverment well.
For example lets assume Civ3 contains an Imperial Empire style system of Goverment ie similar to that set up by the Roman Emperor Augstus. The Romans could have an advantage built into that system of goverment that no cities would be unhappy due to distance from the capital. Historically this would be justified because the Romans had a strong centralised system of Goverment. Now eventually that system of goverment would become less and less practical as time went and the romans would eventually choose a diffrent system of goverment (Historically the Centralised Roman system was found lacking and the empire broke in 2 ie Rome and Byzantium)

So as you can see from the above examples the advantages should be tied to when that Culture or nation was a great power historically.

The Americans for example would have no advantages till fairly late in the game as they are a very young country compared to the French, Greeks, English.

And for those who dont like national advantages turn it off at the start the of the game.

That makes everybody happy

Well thats my 2 cents

Sorn Xorin

[Theben]

My 2 @@:

1.) All civs start generic.

2.) 2 options to turn ON-
-The option to allow benefits over time & experience.
-The option to choose from a list of benefits either a) Before the game starts or b) as soon as your 1st city is settled. AI civs get to cheat in either case by comparing their immediate surrounding terrain (includes more than they can "see") vs. a table that gives them a decent bonus in areas that will be useful.

Hardwired benefits/penalties are not acceptable under any circumstances.

Number 2 above will take a lot of the developers' time IMHO and cause any number of bugs, but I can live with it. Generic civs should be standard in cases of tournament play.

[Theben]

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark on 01-19-2001 03:27 PM I also want Civ to continue to be a tool that teaches those who play about the contingency of history - I dont want the false lessons implied by unique civs.

Excellent point!

[Biddles]

I would like the following options:

1. The option to choose between unique or generic civ's
2. The option to randomize the unique civ benefits
3. The option to specifically choose which benefit you want (i.e Morgan benefit, but playing as Spartans)

Can anyone possibly say that that isn't fair to everyone?

[Lord Maxwell]

quote: Originally posted by Lancer on 01-12-2001 04:02 PM 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. Those who built their cities up would be better builders....etc

This is actually a really good idea. It makes more sense than almost every other opinion on how civ should be. (Well, most opinions mount up to nothing much more than smac bashing.

[Lord Maxwell]

quote: Originally posted by kolpo on 01-13-2001 10:31 AM 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...

That is because the AI in the civ games blows so bad it's unbelievable. A human player is much more likely to dominate as Morgan than he is as Hive. (Given that he is equally adept at all playing styles.)

I mostly play multiplayer smac these days. (I can win transcendence victories on a huge planet with tech stagnation, arid land, playing as believers. Beating the AI up has always been easy, atleast once you start reading boards like Apolyton.)

Hives style lends itself well to the exceptionally near sighted AI. (It can't conduct war, it can't improve tiles rationally, it doesn't build city improvements that will be the right ones in 20 turns, it was like that in Civ, it was like that in Civ II, and it most definitely was like that in SMAC. And I pretty much figure it will be like that in Civ III.

But I don't think SMAC style SE is the right way to go in Civ III, nor is predefined bonuses. I would much prefer that you got the bonuses depending on how you played. (In SMAC I don't build a navy before I got the Maritime Control Center etc, once I get the bonus I build the associated armies, city styles, whatever.) It would be much more fun having to build and maintain a huge navy while slowly getting more and more navy bonuses. (Along with DRAWBACKS! All bonuses should have a cost. If you get better at naval combat you should get worse at say, land combat. Your naval superiority protects you army...

I want drawbacks with my bonuses, and I want both of em to be dynamic, so that I have to play a certain style, and building on my tabula rasa.


This was sorta long winded, sorry bout that.

[Tjoepie]

I like the Idea to earn bonusses according to accomplisments of a civilisation and gameplay.

For example:

1/ The first civ that sails a ship around the world (in case of a "cylindric" world) gets a bonus of +1 movement for naval vessals during 100 or so turns as they can use the experience from that expedition to improve navigation techniques.

2/ A civ that has no war during 100 turns get a happyness bonus. Or even more bonus if it is at peace with all. This would give a chance to peacefull players to get an advantage in accepting annoying things (in exchange of peace) like a civ that builds a city on your "home" island. Untill now I would destroy that city but would I think twice if I would loose a bonus because of it. One cound then try to isolate the city instead ...

3/ There could be another way to get a bonus ; By specialising, for example if a civ specialises in naval warfare (like the British did) that they would then get a naval advantage since they can use their vast experience as an advantage. They could then maybe get a chance to build "one"(and I mean this in numbers) unique unit that no-one else has but then not too good a unit as not to upset balance. In this example I would say a super-battleship or so that could shoot first in case of a battle since it would have longer range gun's or something ? This unit could then be used to enhance regard among other nations by being a sort of status symbol.

I have a few other examples but these would require more explenation and I now just wanted to explain my idea...

The idea to give civ related bonusses seems interresting but as some said there's always a bonus that's better than the others and that would make that all would play one or a select amount of civ's.
Another thing is if my country or background was in the selection I would like to play them, but the fact that they might have a bonus that I don't like would prevent that. Anyhow I don't think it would NOT be a good idea ; a civ should be build from nothing and be equal to all others at the start to give all the same chance to "succeed". If there is a bonus system there shound be an option to turn it off.

The most important thing I would like to see in CivIII is a good AI (since this sort of game takes so long I feel it's still not a feaseble "multiplayer" game) :

The AI should have a global strategic insight, like if one civ is gaining a considerable advantage compared to all others ( for example get double the population of second civ) that the AI will see that threat and attemp to get allied against that civ to make a strategic balance in the world.
An interresting AI that will not do stupidities like attack a stack using 1 unit. That the AI reacts according to what you do diplomaticaly.
That as in the real world there's a small chance an AI might dubblecross you and get you offguard.
That the AI uses geography to its advantage like bottlenecks. And that he uses the bombard fuction to its advantage to destroy resistance before attacking a city.

I think there should be a penalty for casualties, like if a number of units get destroyed in a democracy fighting far from home for a useless cause according to democratic values .

I also hope that bombarding a city will (with a percentage of chance) as in the real world cause a reduction in population and destruction of buildings.

Most important of all is GAMEPLAY BALANCE , AI and the have the ability to play all kinds of civ's peacefull , warlike , ecological , etc !


Please excuse my bad English spelling...
These are just a few tought's I wanted to share could be worked on ...
I hope I could provide a usefull idea and help create a great game !

[Lancer]

Tactical Grace, Lord Maxwell, thank you for appreciating, and taking the time to quote, my idea.

[Grumbold]

Having seen the debate expand hugely since my last comment, I'm still against preset permanent benefits because I just don't think they can be justified. England alone has gone through many phases of ascendancy and decline in many spheres. No fixed bonus can adequately reflect its changing emphasis.

I prefer the option of "buying" special bonuses after acquiring particular technologies and losing them again when the technology becomes outdated. In this respect, very much like mini-wonders.

For example, there could be the option to allow players to buy "elite musketeers" bonus, "excellent galleons" or "skilled longbowmen". While any nation could be able to buy these advances if their game position warranted it, modifiable text files could give the AI French, Spanish and English nations an optional bias toward the respective benefits that are traditionally seen as theirs. They should not be exclusive and mandatory because many civs simply have not lived throughout the whole timeline and the random terrain placement or order in which techs are acquired may make them redundant.

IMO this gives the greatest flexibility and historical accuracy. Mod makers can always turn off the ability for certain nations to gain certain skills to fit their scenarios.

[Patient English]

"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. "

I have to comment on that! From my researches (and in my opinion as an Englishman), the English were neither unbeatable before 1812, nor outclassed after then. The French beat them from time-to-time in the 1700's (in 1781, too, as an American should know). After 1812 the English - British really -formed the most powerful navy in the world to about 1925. They could still be beaten in ship-to-ship encounters, however (as in most of the 1812 encounters) because their advantage was as much quantitative as qualitative.

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by Patient English on 01-23-2001 09:36 AM "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. " I have to comment on that! From my researches (and in my opinion as an Englishman), the English were neither unbeatable before 1812, nor outclassed after then. The French beat them from time-to-time in the 1700's (in 1781, too, as an American should know). .

1781 - the battle of the capes, off of chesapeake bay, where De Grasse and the French fleet defeated a british fleet sent to relieve Cornwallis, making possible Washingtons victory at Yorktown. unfortunately our textbooks tend to neglect the role of France, Lafayette apart.

Vive la France!
God Bless America!

[Lancer]

Sure, there were exceptions, don't get me wrong. That's what I meant by 'basicly', as in 'for the most part'. Btw, what happened to DeGrasse and his fleet? The French, the Spanish, the Dutch, and even the Danes, all got crushed by the English at sea, or in port, as with the Danes, Dutch, and the all too trusting French in WW2. Some got crushed on a regular basis...and the English got used to winning, until they met the Americans.
After the days of sail, the English went on to build the fleets of WW1 and 2, but the Americans were building too, and had shown themselves at least the equal of the English sailors. After 1812, it was only a matter of time. However you are right, England was still numericly superior to the Americans in 1812 and for some time to come, and while they could get overpowering force to a battle, they still had some scant hope of surviving it.

[Biddles]

Contrary to popular(american) belief, the war of 1812 was merely a sideshow to the napoleonic wars. Besides, nobody won the war of 1812, it ended in compromise.