I got the Magazine! Preview, First Impressions, Screenshots forthcoming!

[yin26]

Echinda:

You totally misunderstood. I'm talking about game balance here, not whether life is worth living or not for God's sake. Let me explain:

Imagine at a certain point in the game one side gets access to ICBMs. Great. He cranks them out in mass numbers and begins lobbing them across the world at the other guy's cities. If there's NO defense (now, I'm talking game balance here, Echinda), this game is over. In fact, this was SMAC. Sure, you could make a smaller map to ensure that you were putting pressure on early, blah blah blah. But that's forcing the player to correct a flaw in the game.

Now imagine BOTH players with the same tech and money lobbing missiles all damn day at each other. Fun, eh? Makes you want to fire up another session to enjoy all the deep strategy, right?

What I meant was this: Balance.

IF the missiles are HUGELY expensive, let's say, so that launching even ONE is a significant investment at all stages of the game, that's a start. Add to that HUGELY expensive Star Wars technology that allows a player on defense, say, to have a 50% chance of shooting down the missile...or having bunkers so that you lose no poplulation but just 1 or 2 improvements etc....THEN you can have some kind of balance and a game worth playing.

See the meaning now?

[yin26]

I should also add that "Mutually Assured Destruction" plays its own natural part in the real world of these missiles. But in a game that simply won't work. Sure, you could program it in to a degree I suppose, but then the comp will A) over-optimize itself to be the first one out of the gate with massed missiles or B) under-optimize itself and be totally unprepared to deal. Even between human players, if you make getting these missile a priority, you could seemingly strike first and wipe your opponent off the map before you've even met on the battlefield.

This could be like a Zergling or a Tower Rush. A strategy that cheaply narrows a path to victory to some hollow build pattern.

Now, again, if you want to add Europa Universalis kind of dimplomacy to this whereby the guy who launches these missiles without a Causa Bella gets ganged up on and embargoed, I'd be willing to see how that would play out.

So this is a game, Echinda, that needs to be balanced properly so all these things make the game FUN. Seems an obvious point to make, I'm sure, but somehow that point was missed in previous games.
[This message has been edited by yin26 (edited April 28, 2001).]

[Eli]

Maybe someone said it before but I'm really happy that they kept the same citizens faces(happy, content etc) like in civ2.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Harlan on 04-28-2001 04:36 AM I'm quite surprised to hear that all the Civ2 wonders will be back,

I like that. Many Civ-3 city-improvenments, wonders, units and techs should be similar with those in Civ-2. Differently tweaked and rearranged perhaps (like the updated Great wall wonder), but still similar. And many new ones, of course. The latter goes without saying.

quote: JS Bach's Cathedral: What is this supposed to be? Has anyone figured out what cathedral is associated with Bach?

The guy was religious and he only created church-music, as far as I know.

quote: Adam Smith's Trading Co.: Smith was an academic who wrote books, he never had a trading company.

quote: Sun Tzu's War Academy: Again, no such thing. No one is even very sure what town he lived in or came from.

quote: Isaac Newton's College: Is this supposed to be Cambridge? In no way is that "his" college, he's just one of many famous or non people who worked there.

quote: Marco Polo's Embassy: He had some great journeys, but never anything remotely like an embassy. The world didn't even HAVE embassies in the 1300's! (though there were ambassadors)

So what? Does it matter? Its only a light-hearted game for crying out load. They act as symbols only.
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 28, 2001).]

[Russian King]

quote: Originally posted by Myself on 04-28-2001 01:17 AM PLEASE FIRAXIS make the panel, and thicker city names

DID ANYONE EVEN HEAR ME???
Anyone even wanna agree w/me on thicker city names? Who can actually SEE the city name with the horse???

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 04-28-2001 05:51 AM Now, again, if you want to add Europa Universalis kind of dimplomacy to this whereby the guy who launches these missiles without a Causa Bella gets ganged up on and embargoed, I'd be willing to see how that would play out.

Agree! The casus belli feature of EU, should definitly be implemented in Civ-3 as well. At least in early-modern and modern eras, and (of course) especially then using nuclear weapons.

-------------------- edited:
Im not sure. Perhaps ONLY then contemplating using nuclear weapons. Maybe thats enough. Anyway, very severe domestic happiness-problems should be the result, without a pretty substancial Casus Belli-reason.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 28, 2001).]

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Russian King on 04-28-2001 06:29 AM Anyone even wanna agree w/me on thicker city names?

Yes, I agree. The city-names must be both bigger & thicker, and the map must recenter automatically (at least as default option) with flashing city-names/or cities then the building-queue is empty. Please, dont be subtle then it comes to these things.

[Depp]

Well well, only 7 civs. This was like I expected I guess. But it still sucks, I love to have at least 10 civs.
But I guess they won´t be able to change that now, what a bummer. They could at least have made it an unofficial feature, since some actually have the computer to run such a game.

When I play SMAC im always pissed of that there is only 7 Civs, when you play a standrard map fine, but if you play a bigger map 7 civs give some great startinglocations and some really bad. With 12 civs you could get a much more even game on a big map.
And the scenariopeople must be furious...

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Depp on 04-28-2001 07:38 AM Well well, only 7 civs. This was like I expected I guess. But it still sucks, I love to have at least 10 civs. But I guess they won´t be able to change that now, what a bummer. They could at least have made it an unofficial feature, since some actually have the computer to run such a game. When I play SMAC im always pissed of that there is only 7 Civs, when you play a standrard map fine, but if you play a bigger map 7 civs give some great startinglocations and some really bad. With 12 civs you could get a much more even game on a big map.

This is indeed a major disapointment.

quote: And the scenariopeople must be furious...

We are!!

[Russian King]

I agree with Ralph . The names of wonders dont matter at all, in fact, i like the idea how they made some people more famous by putting their names on things they didn't do .

Throughout my years of playing civ i havent even noticed this fact until the message got posted yesturday.

Anyways, i give my thanx and appreciation for our hero Snapcase, and good luck on civ-cant wait till the next topic.

PS: anybody wanna verse an Xpert??? send me an ICQ message.

Screenshot brightness: These are significantly darker than the magazine images. It's due to the fact that the computer with the scanner has a crappy monitor.

Stadium: It looks like a modern stadium to me.

Borders: Expand with "culture" raitng.

City names: Way to thin, I agree. They're more visible in the magazine, but not visible enough.

cpoulos: There is another thread about 7 civs where I posted all the info I had.

[Shadowstrike]

I guess that they are going for a CivI feel in the 16 civs.... I still recall the good 'ole days of playing CivI. You really got to know the different civs.

[Nemo]

QUESTION: in normal and peace mode, can you still build ANY military unit, only defensive ones, or neither?

quote: if you're the first person to get [nuckes] you will have an opportunity to benefit, but once everybody else gets them it's unlkiely that you can use them and have a successful game.

QUESTION: does this meand that the AI is smarter with them and will retaliat, or is there some kind of M.A.D.? (i REALLY hope they have MAD - it is easy to impliment, and is VERY realistic)
[This message has been edited by Nemo (edited April 28, 2001).]

[Nemo]

The canal and great wall concepts, and teh "small" multination building wonders such as apollo, manhattan, and statigic defense concpts are REALLY COOL!

only 16 civ's to pick from doesn't bother me becuase i usually only play with germany, or america, and i alreay know that those will be in there. however, it must suck for those people in countries who didn't make the cut...i'm sorry. but, sicne there are civ unique units (YEAH!), i guess they can only have so many civs, or else there would be too many units.

quote: Starting Units: One Settler, One Worker.

NICE!

quote: Number of Civilizations in one game: Still seven.

i think the feelings on this are being vented in teh "7 civ" thread.

the way coastal fortress is now implimented really rocks!

armies/stacked units - since smac had this to some extent, and CTP did this nicely (one of the few things they got right) i am glad to get an "official" word on it.

hiding resources until you NEED them! that sounds very cool. it will definatley force negotiations until the rival nation refuses, in whcih case you bombard them to the stone age, just like in reality way cool!

man, this is DEFINATLEY going to be a one more turn, one more game feeling! --i gues smac left me doubting. nemo begs for firaxis' forgiveness

EXPANDING BORDERS! i was worried about the borders stopping at the city edges before. phew! what a relief.

conquoring cities now seems like it is more realistic, i never liked
the 'patriot' (or what ever the name of the unit was) from civ II. i think what they are doing for taken over cities is MUCH better.
[This message has been edited by Nemo (edited April 28, 2001).]

[Comrade Tribune]

Hmmm.

Imo, the map view looks god-awful. An unplayable eyesore. I hope it´s not their last word.

Nationalism & Armies: Does that mean antiquity has no armies?

Civ-units: How about balance? Will Impis stand up to Panzer divisions?

If this is not a bad dream, I see a lot of problems on the horizon.

I suppose impis will arrive early in the game and that the Zulus will get normal tanks, just not Panzers. The graphics are arbitrary and placeholderish, so don't worry.

I found another screenshot which I thought appeared on the Firaxis website earlier (but obviously didn't). I'm not going to post it because it's just a wireframe render of Queen Elisabeth's head as seen previously.

[XMon]

FYI for those who live in Florida or wherever else they have Borders bookstores...Borders carries that mag (saw it today) they just don't have the new issue yet. I did go to the back of the issue they had and it said "Next issue: In depth preview of Civ III."

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by jglidewell on 04-27-2001 12:43 PM For anyone interested here is the response from PC Gameplay I got for availability in the US, 'If you live near the Canadian border, you can try Chapters'

Geez, like it was British North America.

Always good for us yanks to be reminded how much british influence remains in Canada.

LOTM

[OzzyKP]

quote: Originally posted by XMon on 04-28-2001 09:45 PM FYI for those who live in Florida or wherever else they have Borders bookstores...Borders carries that mag (saw it today) they just don't have the new issue yet. I did go to the back of the issue they had and it said "Next issue: In depth preview of Civ III."

Hooray for Borders!

Us Yanks have hope!

[OzzyKP]

quote: Originally posted by Harlan on 04-28-2001 04:36 AM In some cases, obviously the Civ2 team started with a person they wanted to have a wonder about, and invented a fictious building to go along with it, for instance:

I think a great way for them to do this would be to build the actual people. Lets say that Shakespeare's theater confers a bonus of making no citizen in the city unhappy, but instead of building the theater you build the Bard himself. Much more realistic and then you can move him around like a unit to different cities. He could be captured or destroyed this way, just like a real person. Capturing could be like defecting, Albert Einstein was German but came to the US and gave us his benefits, same thing.

I think this would be a great way to handle it. But i think i got in too late and didn't get my idea in The List. Oh well. BUt they are kinda doing this with the General thing. That is really cool.

[Sirotnikov]

quote: Civ-units: How about balance? Will Impis stand up to Panzer divisions?

Do you think impis will survive long enough to meet panzers?

It's not red alert, where you have all your units in the same time frame.

[St Leo]

I have been designing scenarios for years now with two critical successes (Fictional Americas, Roman Riots) and the seven civ limit disgusts me. For example, I have been planning a sequel to Fictional Americas for some time now and it requires fifteen civs for it to be any fun.

I will make up a hypothetical scenario on the fly to illustrate my point:

The Gandalf Wars - Gandalf succumbs to the temptation of the Ring, builds a mighty kingdom in the Shire, and prepares to wage war across Middle-Earth.

To make it fun and balanced I would need the following civs:
-Shire (Gandalf)
-Isengard (Saruman)
-Mordor (Sauron)
-Rhun (Pallando)
-Harad (Alatar)
-Gondor (Denethor)
-Rohan (Theoden)
-Dwarves (Dain II)
-Orcs (Azog?)
-Imladris (Elrond)
-Laurelindorenan (Galadriel)
-Grey Havens (some shipwright)
-Arnor (Elessar)
-Carrock (Beorn)

This adds up to fourteen civs and there are probably others that would be a good addition.

------------------
Leons Petrazickis (St. Leo)
http://aventine.cf-developer.net/minizigg/
petrazi@sprint.ca

[Lung]

quote: Originally posted by Ceci n'est pas Snapcase on 04-27-2001 11:13 AM Not my impression, Dave, I think it will fight until it's in the red and then let the next one take over, and same in attack. And CtP is non-canonical, and obviously doesn't count.

Are you suggesting that they have thought up these CTP ideas all by themselves, without any reference to CTP? Please spare us the holier-than-thou crap! Graphics aside, Civ2 is a far superior game to CTP, but credit must be given where credit is due! It is obvious that they have added the best parts of CTP to Civ3 in addition to their own ideas (and ours ), and modified them when and if they deemed necessary. This was, of course, a pertinent course of action, as they are hence learning from their own, and Craptivision's, mistakes

The introduction of separate workers and settlers corrects the problem in Civ2 which CTP tried to correct, with mixed results. Bombardment was first done in CTP, so please don't suggest that they even thought up the idea themselves, let alone invented it. However, i must congratulate the Civ3 designers on adding active defence to coastal fortresses What worries me, though, is absolutely no mention of build queues! As imperfect as new technology may render them, it's far better to change your build queues where necessary than have to change your city production whether you like it or not. I also suggest that Gutenburg's Bible be pinched from CTP for use in Civ3, due to it's historical relevance. After all, Gutenburg was recently voted *the* most influential person of the last 1000 years, so a mention somewhere is appropriate. While many will debate this, it's hard to argue his irrelevance to modern society.

As for Civ3, i am salivating even more in anticiptation of it's release, as a result of the newly released infor about the game I am also disappointed at only 7 civs (even though my PC couldn't handle more). Even if only they allow this number to be modified for scenario creators, i will be happy. Seriously, game reviewers are only going to play the game out of the box, so this shouldn't hinder them.

I'm amazed that many people are wailing about the graphics, when it is almost certainly far from finished. It is a concern, though, as there is a fine line between good graphics and bad, but we shouldn't worry until closer to completion. Also, as cool as the Civ2 citizen heads are, it would surely be bad form to include them in Civ3!!

As for late suggestions, how about being able to hide units in ambush, and minefields? They were and are historically important in determining the outcome of wars, so should be included, and could be with minimal effort. Perhaps only certain units could ambush, and they lose their ZoC, or at least part of it. Perhaps even a camouflage discovery? As for mines, they should be able to be built, hidden from other civs until found, and built only by military engineers. If there isn't a unit for ME's, there should be! They could also build temporary bridges in one turn, and a myriad of other goodies, but have no defence.

Nuclear weapons should definitely be able to be set for automatic retailation, at least upon a certain discovery. Access to uranium should be mandatory, although i'm certain that they're introducing that into Civ3

That's enough for now!!

[Lung]

Oooh!! Another one!!!

I forgot to mention - now that the barbarians have encampments, the encampments should also have the ability to rise to the presitge of "civilisation", if they survive in the one location long enough, or succeed in diplomatic relations, in the event of their being less than 7 civs. This would also be historically accurate, as the Vikings eventually became civilisations in their own right.

After all, we were all barbarians once

[Admiral PJ]

NEW ARTICLE

Today I got the latest PC Zone which has a Civ 3 preview article, its Top story..
It has a Screenshot i haven't seen before, with a cool looking aqueduct, and roads and houses in the same walled city Screen view as before.. it also has a lighthouse wonder and a tall temple and a roman like round colliseum.

Maybe I should scan it in for you all to see?

The article claims they have a working prototype version, and that they using a New Contoured Map system with heigh affecting artillery.. hopefully this means the final game will have round polygon SMAC like maps?

Admiral Pete
Emperor of the Potatoe

The screenshot with the Aqueduct was in Computer Gaming World a few weeks ago, And was scanned in then. Thans for the offer, though.

[Admiral PJ]

Is it me or is that Pentagon shaped building outside the city walls in Snapcases screenshot, actually meant to be the American Pentagon? - a 'minor' millitary control wonder or somesuch

[smellymummy]

What is this i'm reading everywhere; "7 civs, doh, i guess thats okay, but it sucks for scenario makers" .... Hmm get a clue here, more than 7 civs is very POSSIBLE, w/o killing the game! What's happening here, they do know how to balance out a game right (it's only their 3rd official shot at this, 6 and + if you cant all the other stuff) or what?! Also, i might be wrong, but isnt the majority of people nowadays using a computer thats somewhat more powerful than what they had in mid 90's? Technologically, restricting to 7 civs is just plain lazy.

Whats the deal about minor civs btw? I've read it a few times throughout the thread - is this just wishful thinking or a real feature?

Wasnt the concensus among the fans for more than 7 civs anyway? I really do hope they change this, and allow more than 7 civs. Not 32, or 50, but hey at least more than 7. The barbarian thing sounds great.. but just how smart barbarians are gonna be? Can they research? Barbarian nations is great, but if they can only push out pikemen, whats the point. I'm guessing your Civ's culture rating will play somewhat a factor in anhiliating barbarians at your vacant borders.

Another thing I've been reading is about how bombarding was stolen from CTP... Hmmm bombarding WAS in SMAC, and you could of done it 2 squares away. Now I dont remember exactly which came out first (SMAC or CTP), but I know for sure that the SMAC demo was out before and it had bombardin.

As for nukes, someone mentioned a thing about embargoes and such... given civ3's ressource trade model, thats a GREAT idea! How are you going to build those nukes w/o all those needed pieces... sure it might cost more, and you can always conquer those that hold the resources, but hey at leasts its not as easy as just accumulating shield production (or pay 40K gold like in CTP2).

Yin26's ideas about bunkers and whatnot... little additions like that could make the threat of nukes much much more present, and dangerous. I really do pray they can implement nuclear warfare in correctly, because whenever I play, I always being present in a destroyed wasteland world - its real cool, asides that I'm always alone to survive in most cases (stuff like that needs fixing).

Anyway I'm waiting for civ3, but it really looks like most gripes in this thread is related to game balancing. Maybe firaxis should talk to reynolds for some pointers

Just my 2 red cents

[Imran Siddiqui]

quote: Bombardment was first done in CTP, so please don't suggest that they even thought up the idea themselves, let alone invented it.

Uh... wrong. SMAC first had bombardment, and it came out before CtP.

As for the 7 Civs, come on people! Firaxis ALREADY said there would be minor civs. 7 Major civs and, say, 7 minor civs, and you have 14 on a map.

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 05-01-2001 03:15 AMFiraxis ALREADY said there would be minor civs. 7 Major civs and, say, 7 minor civs, and you have 14 on a map.

Ehm, there will be barbarian encampements, which is what accounts for the minor civs. Not exactly sufficient, is it?