JEFF BRIGGS Interview

[MarkG]

introduction not needed

http://apolyton.net/misc/interviews/...briggs-1.shtml

[MOHonor]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Well, he did a good job of not saying anything. The questions sucked.

Briggs's reply on fundy was probably an outright lie.

Bout what you can expect from this organization- not much.

What's that say about groupie/stalkers like yourself?

[TCO]

The answers were pretty blah. No new insights. given that Jeff is going to be political and safe in his repsonses, perhaps some of the questions (MP omission, etc.) should have been avoided and replaces with things that Jeff was willing to talk about.

[DanS]

I would have like to have seen some follow up on those "other genres".

[Sirotnikov]

sadly, one of the most useless interviews.

we don't need an interview for that much info - we can read the damn firaxis site.

[Sirotnikov]

Which reminds me, his political bable kinda reminded me of DanQ

[notyoueither]

Reinforcement of the notion that more expansions are possible is a good thing.

The thinking behind delaying MP is good also. If PtW kicks *ss, then the decision may well have been worth it.

[Christantine The Great]

Originally posted by jimmytrick

Briggs's reply on fundy was probably an outright lie.

Um...why? I don't see Civ attempting to be very PC since Zulu units are white, just like everyone else's.

[Zealot]

The questions were pretty void and uninteresting.

How about their 3d secret game they're developing?!? Don't tell me they told you something and asked not to spread the word!

[Solver]

How about their 3d secret game they're developing?!? Don't tell me they told you something and asked not to spread the word!

Interview was before the 3D info, Zealot.

Also, do you guys think there's really anything they would talk about ?

[TCO]

Maybe there was Solver. See my comment. Don't give them questions that you know will get blah answers. just omit those. We don't need a trivial PR anouncement. Even if we can't get insights into the more touchy areas, we can at least get more insightful answers about "non-political" issues.

[Tigen]

I have to agree this interview was not well thought-out. The questions all have an accusative tone to them. Must be depressing coming from the "hardcore fans." It's like you're expecting him to say

"You got me! We took out fundy because we were scared of the PC crowd and because we don't care! The negative feedback has been due to the fact that our game sucks! Apolyton also sucks! We won't do any more Civ3 patches since we're trying to squeeze out more $ from PTW, this is also why we left out multi from the start! Hahaha!"

Sigh.

[Spaced Cowboy]

Wow, that was the best interview EVER!

[player1]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
2. Can you explain the rationale behind making an elephant airliftable but not a worker?

Maybe because Workers cost a whole POPULATION point.
(with equipment to make a small city: Colony)
Elephants not.

[Straybow]

This was one Civ3 decision I agreed with, sorta. Fundi is definitely way unbalanced. I had a brilliant suggestion (thread now long lost) to amend it. Of course, the boobs at Firaxis were jealous of my genius and pretended they never saw it.

Fundamentalism: This Civilization Advance has Theology and Chivalry for prerequisites. Upon discovery it makes available, to a Fundamentalist government, creation of Fanatic military units (see below).

• Attitude: A Temple or Cathedral makes one additional unhappy person content (not cumulative if both are present). Cathedrals require one less money upkeep. A city with both Temple and Cathedral gets one content person made happy. Courthouses and Police Stations each make one unhappy person content. Coliseums make one fewer unhappy person content (due to strict censorship). Martial law makes one unhappy person content for each of the first three military units stationed in the city.
• Corruption & Waste: Devotion to the true path keeps it very low and relatively constant outside the Capitol city.
• Resource Support: Each city supports, free of maintenance, 3 units or a number of units equal to ½ the city size rounded up, whichever is greater. Fanatics are all free of maintenance, but are counted first towards the number of free units supported by a city. Settlers require two food units.
• Special Conditions: Luxuries and research are reduced in effectiveness by 25% due to strict sensorship. Tax, luxury, and science maximum rate is 80%. Fanatic military units can't be bribed and their special attributes are always in force.
• We-love-the-ruler day: Each happy person contributes 2 money in tithes; each content person contributes 1 money in tithes. Tithes are subject to ½ city improvement effects (+25% for market, bank, exchange).

Fanatic Armies: The Fundamentalist government can build Fanatic Archers (3/1/1). Ironworking makes Fanatic Legion (4/1/1) available. Discovery of Gunpowder makes Fanatic Archers obsolete and introduces Fanatic Musketeers (3/2/1, 2 HP). Conscription obsoletes Fanatic Legion and brings Fanatic Riflemen (like the Civ2 unit, 4/3/1, 2 HP). Each Fanatic unit costs 20 shields to build. Note they are essentially Archers, Legions, Musketeers, and Riflemen with a defense penalty due to brief training and overeagerness for martyrdom.

Fanatic Vengeance: Fanatics do not disappear or convert to the opponent if the city supporting them is destroyed or captured. Instead they either default to the nearest friendly city or become free of support requirements (following the rules for discovery of mercenary tribes). Where Partisan units would appear on the capture of a city under other forms of government, Fanatics appear instead. Fanatics remain in the game under the control of the computer to exact vengeance if the controlling Fundamentalist civilization is eliminated. Fanatic units belonging to a non-Fundamentalist empire have only a 25% chance of not being eliminated along with the city or civilization to which they belong.

While at first the 25% penalty on research doesn't seem too steep, remember that this version of Fundamentalism never gets the trade arrow bonus. There would also be an ancient version, basically the same but without Fanatics. (Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, we haven't been invented yet!)

Theocracy: Mysticism and Writing are prerequisites. Theocracy becomes the prerequisite for both Polytheism and Monotheism; Polytheism is no longer a prerequisite for Monotheism.

• Attitude: A Temple or Cathedral makes one additional unhappy person content (not cumulative if both are present). Cathedrals require one less money upkeep. Martial law makes one unhappy person content for each of the first three military units stationed in the city.
• Corruption and Waste: Identical to Monarchy.
• Resource Support: Each city supports, free of maintenance, 3 units. Existing Fanatics are all free of maintenance, but are counted first towards the number of free units supported by a city. Settlers require one food.
• Special Conditions: Tax, luxury, and science maximum rate is 70%. While Fanatic units can't be built under a Theocracy, existing Fanatic units like Theocratic government. Fanatics can't be bribed. Where Partisan units would appear on the capture of a city under other forms of government, there is a 50% chance Fanatics appear instead. Fanatics have a 50% chance of surviving the capture or destruction of their supporting city (or civ) under Theocracy.
• We-love-the-ruler day: Each happy or content person contributes 1 money in tithes.

For the purist, the symmetry of 3 ancient and 3 modern government types would not be lost by introducing Theocracy. Despotism is out of the ancient trio as a timeless fallback along with Anarchy.

[ACooper]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
oh gee, i am sorry, what am i thinking about...

of course we never move population by air transit

next thing you know i'll be thinking we can send people to the moon in a rocketship..

Well, so far we haven't done it. Not more than a few people at a time anyways.

[MarkG]

jimmy, i could answer those questions in 85 seconds and it would be with real arguments but i've got better things to do (like answer to a serious post like gp's)

gp, especially on a "mail" interview, it takes two to dance. even in live interviews i believe you will agree that if someone wants to avoid a question, he can. in the end of course, both parties of the interview are judged on the specific questions and answers. and even if some answers are what the expected ones, the fact that they are given is something usefull as well.

[TCO]

Originally posted by MarkG
jimmy, i could answer those questions in 85 seconds and it would be with real arguments but i've got better things to do (like answer to a serious post like gp's)

gp, especially on a "mail" interview, it takes two to dance. even in live interviews i believe you will agree that if someone wants to avoid a question, he can. in the end of course, both parties of the interview are judged on the specific questions and answers. and even if some answers are what the expected ones, the fact that they are given is something usefull as well.

mark, we're not that far off. If you ever interview this guy again, I would skip any questions that are the least political (unless he says ahead of time that they will be answered). And maybe ask some questions other than the standard ones. These sound like a PR automaton had made the responses. There has to be some way to get more interesting content. After all we a are a hardcore civ site, not a general gaming site or a magazine.

[TCO]

jimmy, a little bit of sarcasm is interesting. Your comments in this thread are silly and boring.

[Xuenay]

The stupidity of Firaxis is shown in that even with 1.21 herds of elephants can airlift - but a single LEADER can't!

Sounds like a situation where Firaxis correctly decided play balance to be more important than realism.

[Alexander's Horse]

Pretty lame interview - lots of tough questions have been raised in the forums but none seem to make it onto the interview list.

[Christantine The Great]

Originally posted by Xuenay


Sounds like a situation where Firaxis correctly decided play balance to be more important than realism.

Sush, that would make them look smart!

Pathetic really...

That interview stank.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Xuenay
Sounds like a situation where Firaxis correctly decided play balance to be more important than realism.

Correctly? Oh goody, just 100 more road squares to get to the other side of the map.
Yeepie...

Oh wait, now I get it, Firaxis wants me to build a boat for it. And since the AI already has tons of battleships roaming the sea, it's going to force me to buld my own tons of battleships to protect my leader! Wow, that's pretty good game designing, no doubt about it. Hurray for air lifting...

[MarkG]

And since the AI already has tons of battleships roaming the sea, it's going to force me to buld my own tons of battleships to protect my leader!

yeah how dares that AI build ships when i choose not to!

[Zealot]

Originally posted by MarkG

Quote:

And since the AI already has tons of battleships roaming the sea, it's going to force me to buld my own tons of battleships to protect my leader!

yeah how dares that AI build ships when i choose not to!

Yeah, I rather have air supremacy than naval supremacy. I find it more enjoyable. I rather bomb those pesky ships than to have naval skirmishes.

That's why I consider banning leaders to take air lifts an option that's crippling a player's strategic options. It just doesn't make any sense!

[Fitz]

Truley sad. Given the massive flaws incorporated into the last two Sid games that I've played, I doubt I'll ever buy another. I was highly disappointed in the end result of the SMAC/SMAX series, which was nothing. They never fixed a multitude of problems (many game breakers), even though they released 4 patches for SMAC, 1 expansion, and 1 further patch. Then they stopped supporting it. Can we expect to see the same for CivIII?

Who knows, but given the disappointment that CivIII is, does it really even matter?

Jeff Briggs: Apolyton is held in the highest regard around here. We rely on you guys for feedback on things we're doing and to keep our hardcore fans well informed. You always deliver and we appreciate all of your dedication and hard work.

Too bad they have not really delivered in return. I'm starting to agree with jimmytrick here, Briggs is in it to make the quick buck, and doesn't seem to give a crap about making a quality product.

Mark, next time let Jt interview the Firaxians. I suggest you pick someone with a little less negative aspect to join him, of course, or they might start holding you in less high regard. I bet jt asks the best questions though.

And by the way, you're starting to act in the manner the so-called whiners have always accused you of acting. Removing all of a posters comments, some of them very good, just becuase you don't like some of them, is of course your perogative as site owner. It is also a little tyrannical, and certainly makes you look like a Firaxis Sycophant.

[MarkG]

fitz,

1) the fact that you consider smac a dissapointment when other give it as an example of what civ3 should be like(and extend) is certainly something worth of being as an example on the definition of the word "opinion"

2) it seems that the 500,000 people who bought smac didnt think firaxis hasnt delivered a quality product since twice that many people have now bought civ3.

3) on what jt might ask in a interview, he gaves us some examples and in my opinion he would not get a single good answer

4) no posts were deleted. they were simply moved to a separate thread, still availiable for everyone to read and judge on whether or not they were helping in the creation of a constructive discussion.

[Coracle]

So where is the LINK to all the posts Jimmytrick and I posted, posts that were removed no doubt for criticizing the SMUG SELF-SATISFIED ARROGANCE of Mr Briggs and the powderpuff questions asked of him??

[Wittlich]

The thread is in this same forum, in a locked thead titled "garbage"

[player1]

Originally posted by Coracle
So where is the LINK to all the posts Jimmytrick and I posted, posts that were removed no doubt for criticizing the SMUG SELF-SATISFIED ARROGANCE of Mr Briggs and the powderpuff questions asked of him??

Just for you Coracle:

garbage