Status of Vel's Strat Guide

MattyBoy · July 16, 2002, 02:00

Like many, I used to learn a lot from Vel's SMAC/X
strat guides and was pleased to hear when it was published. Unlike many, I have barely visited any of the Civ 3 forums.

Does anybody know whether Vel ever managed to publish a Civ3 startegy guide?

I haven't bought or seen Civ3, so I am mostly just interested for Vel's sake, I suppose.

Solver · July 16, 2002, 08:36

IIRC, Vel has said that he will not be writing a Civ 3 strategy guide.

Adm.Naismith · July 16, 2002, 09:45

Matty Boy, go to Strategy Forum and search around for some Vel great pieces of strategy (but mind of patch version, some tricks don't work with current 1.21f).
AFAIK Solver is right: no complete Vel Strategy guide for Civ III will ever be available because Vel decided that Civ III is broken by design. He's spending some time designing a MOD to improve the game as far as the new PTW editor will let him.

Please consider to send a Forum Private Mail straight to him; AFAIK none know Vel strategy thinking better than himself

Alex · July 16, 2002, 10:49

Hm... so Vel is going to make a mod... I thought he had abandoned that idea too (right after the 'mod-with-no-name').

Adm.Naismith · July 17, 2002, 04:13

Well, I'm not really active on the forum, so I may have miss some news, but he started a thread (see strategy section) and post about it a week ago. AFAIK he (and others) are simply waiting the next patch before building anything (just to avoid to remade everything again on a new .bic or to mess without considering newly added features).

Arrian · July 17, 2002, 11:21

Yeah, Vel's back on the Strat forum, but I don't think he has any intention of doing a guide.

-Arrian

Velociryx · July 17, 2002, 12:02

Hey all!

Strat guide....*sigh*

The interest and the desire is certainly still there, but I'm struggling with the notion of being unable to write the kinna strat guide I want to write, given the current constraints.

I fear that there's just not enough material there to make the kind of strat guide I would want to write.

I HAVE been revisiting the idea of it though....going back over the old strat threads....using that as a starting point and gathering some old thoughts to be mixed with the new....see how much material that amounts to.

As a measure of comparison, the final SMAX guide was around 85,000 words. My estimation is that I've currently got about half that amount for Civ. IMO, not nearly enough to make a "good" strat guide.

-=Vel=-

Solver · July 17, 2002, 12:07

Vel, guide is not the amount of words, it's the amount of good strategies put into it. I believe you like Civ 3, too, right? And I certainly believe you're an excellent player for it (you got to be!).

Also, you should face that Civ 3, even now, without its expansion, is more popular than SMAX ever was. IMHO, Civ 3 has enough material for you to discuss.

Velociryx · July 17, 2002, 12:20

Oh, I know it's not all about word count, but the word count speaks directly to the depth of the game.

What I mean by that is that you can describe the basic moves to be found in chess in...something like a thousand words, but if you do that, then you still don't have the essence of chess.

To capture that essence....to give the reader a feel for all the nuiances and subtleties of chess would (and in fact, has) taken literally volumes of books on the subject.

I'm still wrestling with Civ. I like the game....I want to LOVE the game. Perhaps my re-visitation of the old strat threads, combined with some of my later notes and tangential thoughts that have occured thanks to some excellent threads recently on the strat forums will leave me with something I would regard as "enough" or close to it....

-=Vel=-

jshelr · July 17, 2002, 12:32

Having only recently started to play, and having missed civs i and ii, I've followed the strategy forum with interest and the techniques learned made me competitive on emperor. However, I think that what's been lacking is micro management techniques, where, IMO, lots of new players have substituted shift-A for any knowledge of what's going on and have used governors to completely avoid learning about cities. (Guilt feelings showing.) I wonder if Vel could flesh out the guide by starting from basics many of you know well, but which remain a mystery to some of us new people and certainly can't be learned by RTFM. I'd pay up to $4, Canadian, for a good guide.

Velociryx · July 17, 2002, 12:37

Can do, man...will add it to da list....

-=Vel=-

Solver · July 17, 2002, 13:21

Vel, what's missing for you to love the game? I know you're a sucker for sci-fi, but that's something Civ 3 will never have (and never should).

Lord Merciless · July 17, 2002, 14:17

I think there are several reasons why Vel can't find enough strategies to make a guide:
1. Civ 3 introduced several new, unproven concepts such as Culture, resource model, abstract
diplomacy, and airpower. Almost all of the new concepts were not well balanced. Only through
extensive playings can the right balance be found.

2. Civ 3 offers significantly fewer complexities than SMAC, whether it's about units, terrain improvements, base improvements, diplomacies, or the planet itself.

3. Finally, Civ3 still lacks the MP feature, something Vel devoted a great deal of his attention to in SMAC.

I think when the Civ3-PTW is released, the game will be better balanced enough and have sufficient features to make a Strategy Guide worthwhile.

Velociryx · July 17, 2002, 14:21

Total agreement with you...Civ is Civ, and Sci Fi is Sci Fi....two different animals.

As to what's missing for me...what makes the game more of a frustration to play than a joy, it'd be things like this:

1) Linear approach. I'm reminded of the movie, "The Golden Child" :: old man's voice echoing:: "Stay on the path!" And that's true. Play the game the way the designers say so, and you excel. Deviate from the methodology they lay out before you, and you screw yourself. That's linear gameplay. Their way or no way. For a game that's supposed to model (perhaps not historically accurately model, but that's another story) the history of human civilization, and given the open- ended nature of the subject matter, that seems a hellish harness to saddle players with.

2) There are things about the game that simply aren't FUN. Things about the game that are there to take up my effort, attention, and time, but do not add so much as a single ounce of fun to the game. I'm talking about things like:
a) The need to constantly babysit my workers. The AI just can't get the job done correctly, which means I gotta do it myself. That means moving tens, and eventually scores of workers all around the terrain optomizing. This speaks to both having the AI do silly bits of terraforming if automated, and also blithely wandering right into harm's way if an enemy army approaches.
b) There is no THOUGHT required when making terraforming choices. Mine the hills, mine the bonus grassland, irrigate when you need to, railroad and road everything. End.
c) even when you finish terraforming, you can't afford to disband your workers....Pollution. Sadly, although pollution is a fact of life here in the real world, the method of modelling pollution in the game adds exactly zero to the fun factor. It's busy work. Sure, the solution is to simply automate it away, but at that point, why include it at all?
d) Rails make the game completely un-fun. Worse, they really muck up the landscape, but...you gotta have them, and you gotta have them everywhere to stay competitive and keep pace.

3) Lack of deep, meaningful strategic choice - This relates back to the first item, but is its own unique category. The in game choices I am presented with are....not meaningless, but very nearly so.

Examples:
Research or Don't Research? Given the AI's cheat bonuses (monarch and above), not researching is sooooo much better than researching that it's not even a real choice.

What tech do I want to research? Meaningless choice, and that's a pity, cos it *could be* one of the driving, most compelling aspects of the game. At Monarch and above, the combination of AI research bonuses and tech whoring means that you go up the tech tree so fast that specific techs and the order you research them in don't really matter. Add to that fact that the already somewhat light tech tree is broken out into four distinct "tech shrubs," and the problem is magnified, reducing technological innovation (one of THE driving forces of civilization in our history) to the role of prankster and court jester in the context of the game.

Resource and culture implementation: Two outstanding ideas with weak implementation. Both could be greatly strengthened and improved with even marginally better implementation.

4) An unrealistic combat model. Grossly unrealistic. The proper fix to the "well what if my civ doesn't have resource X" problem would have been to make no-resource alternative units available in all eras. The quick, "cover it up" fix was to hamstring the combat system into what we have now. Post 1.21, things are a bit better, as you can alter the model with bonus hp's, but prior to that, combat was....spooky and frustrating. Of course, the argument can be made (and in fact, I've made it myself) that Civ3 is not a wargame....it's not....wasn't meant to be....but since warring IS a part of civilization, and since players spend a good bit of their time warring, it woulda been nice...it woulda been awesome if the combat model had been.....engaging. Dynamic. Maybe more on this side of realism than not.

Still, I agree with something JT said in one of the chats. Even at its worst, Civ is still good gaming....no denying that.

But with a few nips, tucks, and tweaks, it coulda been GREAT, fantabulous, mind alteringly awesome gaming.

-=Vel=-

Alex · July 17, 2002, 15:26

Vel, what about a new mod? I mean, now we have this improved editor and all (you did read the readme, didn't you?), so I think that a "Velociryx's Official Civ Mod" would be awesome to play with...

Capt Dizle · July 17, 2002, 15:46

Vel,

That was such a great post I have to break my boycott to offer my kudos. Right on the money and well written.

Can't pass through without a zinger..

As soon as Firaxis puts some strategy in the game for Vel to write about, I am sure Vel will deliver.

Velociryx · July 17, 2002, 15:48

Soon as the patch comes out, I'll be fiddling with that very thing! I've been thinking of some workarounds and fixes for various aspects of the game that are out of balance, but before I do tooooo much on that, I am curious to see what Play the World is gonna do to fix the Commercial trait. Got some ideas of my own, but I'm waiting...and yeah, the new patch makes the editor sound a whole lot better....I'm lookin' forward to that!

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · July 17, 2002, 15:58

Thank ya JT! As I'm going back and reviewing the earlier (and some later) notes on the game, what I'm seeing is a lot of tactical discussion. Topics like:

What's a good build order?

How to execute an early war (Archer strike)

How to oscillate and keep the pressure on all my neighbors

There is some play in the various civs, discussions of inherent strengths and weaknesses (UU's and starting techs, assuming you play with those options turned on), and that's good for a bit of discussion.

I've experimented with the notion of changing the AI's tendency to trade (there's a user configurable value in the editor), but I've taken it to both extremes, and have not noticed any real slowing down of the AI's tech whoring tendencies.

What ultimately happens is that, the more civs you include in the game, the faster you go up the tech tree. That's a pity, cos more civs = a more dynamic and engaging game....more threats and dangers from different fronts. Unfortunately, with AI tech whoring so rampant, it also destroys any sense of strategy in terms of approaching the tech tree.

-=Vel=-

Alex · July 17, 2002, 16:05

hi, jt.

nice to see you again.

Steve Clark · July 17, 2002, 18:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx

1) Linear approach. I'm reminded of the movie, "The Golden Child" :: old man's voice echoing:: "Stay on the path!" And that's true. Play the game the way the designers say so, and you excel. Deviate from the methodology they lay out before you, and you screw yourself. That's linear gameplay. Their way or no way. For a game that's supposed to model (perhaps not historically accurately model, but that's another story) the history of human civilization, and given the open- ended nature of the subject matter, that seems a hellish harness to saddle players with.

It seems like I picked a good time for my quarterly visit to the Civ3 forums. Vel, glad to see you alive and well (last we talked, you were in the midst of a nasty flu).

To me, when talking about the Civ3 regular game, the above quote nails it perfectly. This is the single most fatal flaw in the game and one that canno be underestimated. Because of this, Civ3 is so unlike (and inferior to) Civ2. I have always wished they made Civ2.5 and now I am absolutely sure of it.

However, as you know, I still key on scenarios and given the news about the README, we are still a ways off from being able to create scenarios.

I'll check back in later this summer.

BTW Vel, how's the new game company coming along?

reds4ever · July 17, 2002, 20:30

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Vel,

That was such a great post I have to break my boycott to offer my kudos. Right on the money and well written.

Can't pass through without a zinger..

As soon as Firaxis puts some strategy in the game for Vel to write about, I am sure Vel will deliver.

there's nothing like a man with principles, and jimmy, youre nothing like a man with principles

Nostromo · July 17, 2002, 21:51

Like you, I enjoy the game somewhat, but I'm not gaga.

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx

1) Linear approach. I'm reminded of the movie, "The Golden Child" :: old man's voice echoing:: "Stay on the path!" And that's true. Play the game the way the designers say so, and you excel. Deviate from the methodology they lay out before you, and you screw yourself. That's linear gameplay. Their way or no way. For a game that's supposed to model (perhaps not historically accurately model, but that's another story) the history of human civilization, and given the open- ended nature of the subject matter, that seems a hellish harness to saddle players with.

But when there is no way, in a game, to counter a given strategy, when that strategy becomes too dominating, it's a good thing to kill it off. The decision to kill ICS was a good one IMO. But some other decisions puzzle me. Why did they try, for instance, to kill the culture bomb?

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx

4) An unrealistic combat model. Grossly unrealistic. The proper fix to the "well what if my civ doesn't have resource X" problem would have been to make no-resource alternative units available in all eras. The quick, "cover it up" fix was to hamstring the combat system into what we have now. Post 1.21, things are a bit better, as you can alter the model with bonus hp's, but prior to that, combat was....spooky and frustrating. Of course, the argument can be made (and in fact, I've made it myself) that Civ3 is not a wargame....it's not....wasn't meant to be....but since warring IS a part of civilization, and since players spend a good bit of their time warring, it woulda been nice...it woulda been awesome if the combat model had been.....engaging. Dynamic. Maybe more on this side of realism than not.

Strickly speaking, its not a wargame, but take away war and you have a pretty boring game on your hands. I, too, dearly miss SMAC's rock-paper-scissors combat model.

Velociryx · July 17, 2002, 22:14

Alive and well! Good to see you, Master Clark!

The game company is coming along splendidly! When you next get the chance, drop by the Candle'Bre forums here on 'poly! Your input and insight would be GREATLY appreciated!

I totally agree that getting rid of loopholes and such that make a human player unbeatable is prolly a good thing, at least in terms of SP....for MP games, I'd just as soon see the loopholes remain, as then it becomes a matter of execution....besides, in many cases, loopholes have counterloopholes, and in MP, it sets up an interesting metagame thing.

Trouble is tho, in Civ3, I don't really see that the notion of ICS is dead. The AI does it, churning out cities endlessly. The human will do it too, if for no other reason than to keep pace with the AI's burgeoning production advantages. The human player also has a compelling reason to perpetually expand....if I capture an AI city, even if it only cranks out one shild per turn, at least it's not cranking out anything for the AI, and I can bump up food production and make a wad of specialists....taxmen and/or scientists, and at least get a little something out of each new city I add to my collection (after rushing in a few improvements, the fringe cities actually become quite good money or science producers).

In spite of its weaknesses though, it IS a good game, and a good gaming experience. It just....lacks that certain something that held my attention for extended periods with other games in the line.

-=Vel=-

Nostromo · July 17, 2002, 23:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx

I totally agree that getting rid of loopholes and such that make a human player unbeatable is prolly a good thing, at least in terms of SP....for MP games, I'd just as soon see the loopholes remain, as then it becomes a matter of execution....besides, in many cases, loopholes have counterloopholes, and in MP, it sets up an interesting metagame thing.

Interesting point. But IIRC they tried to kill off ICS because no one ever found a counterloophole. And if no one ever found one, maybe there isn't one. All these Civ grand masters can't be wrong. So you either kill off ICS, or you keep ICS as an option, but change the system so that more "qualitative" strategies become a viable alternative.

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx

Trouble is tho, in Civ3, I don't really see that the notion of ICS is dead. The AI does it, churning out cities endlessly. The human will do it too, if for no other reason than to keep pace with the AI's burgeoning production advantages. The human player also has a compelling reason to perpetually expand....if I capture an AI city, even if it only cranks out one shild per turn, at least it's not cranking out anything for the AI, and I can bump up food production and make a wad of specialists....taxmen and/or scientists, and at least get a little something out of each new city I add to my collection (after rushing in a few improvements, the fringe cities actually become quite good money or science producers).

Korn argued clearly and persuasively here that ICS and REX are different, and that Civ 2-style ICS is dead:

Quote:

So while Civ3 is dead and gone, Rapid Expansion (REX) has taken its place. The thing about REX is that it is non exploitive, so it is far better than ICS, and REX rewards the players that carefully position their cities, because cities grow faster in Civ3 than they did in Civ2, so tightly spaced cities quickly become inefficient. While the AI can be annoying, especially when it practices REX, you don't have to REX to get ahead unlike ICS in Civ2. Carefully choosen city sites along with a good cultural infrastructure means that you can expand slower yet still remain as productive, and even have a chance to assimilate the enemy. All it all it seems like a huge advance over earlier Civ games.

Of course, he meant to say "So while ICS is dead and gone..."

MattyBoy · July 18, 2002, 00:55

Vel, thanks for the responses.

That lack of a Linear Approach in CivI is what got me hooked in the first place. I loved backing away from a local optimum, making drastic changes and finding a more effective strategy, then in the next game, finding that the new approach is not really working for a different situation. Time to think again.

Velociryx · July 18, 2002, 08:09

Morning guys!

Here would be my take on it (the REX, ICS thing):

REX, by its definition, is all about rapid expansion in the early game. For REX to be fundamentally different from ICS though, it implies that the early game represents the window of opportunity for expansion to get yourself on par with the AI, and use it to blow past the AI in all the meaningful measures of productivity.

The problem lies in the fact that if I build an endless stream of cities, I'm taking up land that the AI could be using to build cities of its own. So I'll do it, well beyond the early game, simply to deny the AI access to land it could otherwise use.

True, it's not *quite* the same as Civ2-style, cities in every other tile ICS, but it amounts to pretty much the same thing. I can spew out an endless stream of cities, space them a bit further apart, thanks to culture and border bumping, deny the AI access to all the land, give myself more production centers, and crank out some cheap-o unit (either through classic production, or through conscription, which is the biggest Civ3 ICS exploit, as it relies completely on food (unaffected by corruption) to churn out troops.

They've partially buried ICS by means of their various fixes, but IMO, it's still alive and well. Pop rush (or cash-rush) a granary in a new little city, and it doesn't much matter if its production sucks. Ten conscripted soldiers (not to worry about the population....it'll grow back more rapidly in Civ3 anyway) will trounce pretty much anything the AI has, even if you're behind in tech. This, because the AI is still not so good at defending itself.

Of course, as with the earlier iterations of the game, and has been clearly demonstrated, there's no need to conscript/rush your way to dominance, but if you want a surefire way to win the game, then ICS works here just as well as the earlier iterations of the game. Its function and methodology may have changed (expected, in the face of changing rules on support and such), but the concepts and principles remain largely the same IMO.

-=Vel=-

Adm.Naismith · July 18, 2002, 09:24

I played Civ I, II, SMAC and Civ III

I must admit I'm probably a half decent player (not a great one, but I never really tested myself in MP or in some Tournament, so none really know

).

I simply play to enjoy (waste) the spare time, add game frustration to my job regular stress, reduce sometime my night to about 3 sleeping hours, ruin my wedding and others similarly clever reason

I haven't the patience to regularly check different tactics, but I've got the most from SMAC using plenty of Vel strategy tips&tricks.

I know I can gain more from Civ III if only Vel will help me with a Civ III strategy guide, also if it can only include some linear tactics.

Just in case you'll spend some time writing down a quick guide, please consider to attach some game save, to help us with your analitical notes

As in game situation showed on a chess manual, it can be great if you show us the game developing with a sequence of key save point. I know it's a bit difficult with all that save files to host, but I suppose Apolyton will be able to reserve some room in ftp file area, while you can publish only the commented links.

Thank you in advance for any future effort.

Velociryx · July 18, 2002, 09:31

What can I say? With an endorsement like that, how can I refuse?

I will take what I've got currently, add to it, and create a new strat thread here, at the very least, to further discussion on it. If it turns out that we get enough material for a published version, and if there's interest in seeing something like that, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it....

-=Vel=-

Lord Merciless · July 18, 2002, 12:39

Vel, but you must admit that Civ3 AI is a lot better than SMAC's. I have actually seen the AI
building useful city improvements, workers doing useful terrain improvements, and invading my territories quite effectively.

Velociryx · July 18, 2002, 13:10

Total agreement. The AI is one of Civ3's strongest points. But, is the AI better because the AI is truly better, or because there are so few truly strategic choices to be made? I think the answer is a bit of both. We know that the AI will mass its troops and attack aggressively. That's good AI code. We know the AI gets increasingly larger (cheat) production and research advantages. That's a mediocre solution (but one that was prevalent in SMAC as well). But I would contend that it the absence of any really deep in-game choices, hand in hand with some really good AI tricks (settle aggressively, mass before attacking) that makes the AI seem even better.

-=Vel=-