The Biggest Thing Civ III is Lacking...

[Meshelic]

Anyone played Galactic Battlegrounds? I know this is off subject, but EACH race had a different level of tech advancement. I mean, the levels were the same, but there were totally different research paths to take that made the game not so much the same each time around....each culture had a long series of different technological breakthroughs/units/etc....

[Jon Shafer]

I don't even think individualized tech trees would be enough. The gameplay is still the same every game, and you still have no choice (unless that's one crazy tech tree).

Needless to say, playing as the Arabs in the 8th century would be a vastly different administrative experience than playing a feudal 1300s European kingdom. However, no matter what country you play, the 'feel' of each country for each game throughout the entire game is the same.

I think the game needs a few 'era-specific' things to make the game feel different. That would be one way to spice up the modern era. In some ways the early game is too beefy in options, and the later game is too thin. I have a few ideas brewing, but I don't have the time to post them.

[Trifna]

The implementation of our OWN culture building. We could make our civ more militaristic, try to influence it, etc. A little like the ethos system that was initially planified for MOO3 (Master of Orion 3), but of course made for Civ and its traits.

Pertinent post about traits here: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=64692

Some proposed a system where our civilization would evoluate. They could become more/less expansionist/religious..., etc.

[WarriorPoet]

Many of these ideas are great, but how exactly would they make every game different? Essentially, you'd evolve youir play stiyle to influence your civ's evolutionary track...a more complex economic system would simply complicate the game, but in time the games would still end up similar.

You have to learn to play the game from the context of a story. Sure, you're busting your hump to build all the wonders or to conquer the globe, or something in the middle, but maybe you have different motivations, revenge, survival, bloodlust, etc...

As thinking beings, we all strive to optimize what we do to have the best game possible...

In otherwords, humans are the reason why our games eventually all look the same, and no programmer could fix that, unless nothing was ever the same, even the foundations would have to change in every game. Where ever there is a pattern, you will have similarity and something you can develope a habit with.

So, stop griping, it's still a great game, and it's up to your own creativity to make it something beyond code, and moving pieces.

[SMIFFGIG]

Maybe in the addon.... hang on a minuite the addon is already out, so what the heck did that essentially have in it.

P.S i like the way everyone auto ignores posts about CtP2... do any of you know what it is ?

[Harovan]

Perhaps because this is a Civ3 forum, this thread is about Civ3, and these posts are off topic? What about talking about Age of Empires or SimCity in a thread about Cradle or WaW?

On topic: I'd like to see yet more civ diversities. As was already mentioned, a different tech tree for each civ would be good. Maybe another UU, or even more of them. This is one of the strong parts of Civ3, other games are completely missing this. I miss a landmark feature like in SimCity, that would be great. The diplomacy is good (well, not as good as in SMAC), but more features would be nice, like the right of occupation after a war (call it a one-way RoP or so). Unit trading would be great, or even gifting units to allies.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Perhaps because this is a Civ3 forum, this thread is about Civ3, and these posts are off topic? What about talking about Age of Empires or SimCity in a thread about Cradle or WaW?

Because both are TBS games, and for those why may feel that civ3 is lackin something, (as this thread is titled...) there are viable and creative options available.

Knowledge is a good thing...

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by SMIFFGIG
P.S i like the way everyone auto ignores posts about CtP2... do any of you know what it is ?

Sounds like someone has an inferiority complex.

[vmxa1]

Well we do have a whole section for CTP and not everyone has played it (I have).

[hexagonian]

Being able to compare/contrast different games is actually a good thing. The question is where to do it???? Would a civ3 player ever come over to a CTP2 thread to find out what can be accomplished???

All I can say in regards to this players such as Velociryx and Ogie recently gave CTP2 a chance. They were impressed by a lot of things within the game, and were blown away by what the Modders were able to accomplish.

Vel had emailed me his impressions, and one thing in his email stood out. He said that he never gave the CTP series a second thought because of the fact that civ players generally blasted the game (and I can guess that for the majority of civ3 players, they have not played the Modded version of the game, and base their assumption, at worst, on nothing more that heresay or at best, an attempt at playing the default CTP2 (which I readily admit is a weak game). But he gave it an honest shot and found a gem (as he described in in our Forums)...

Personally, I am not going to waste time discussing preferences - if you have played both games (and given Modded CTP2 a fair shake) and you prefer civ3, more power to you. I was somewhat critical of civ3 before even playing it - I gave it a shot, and have modified my feelings about it - it is a good game (excellent diplomacy options, a more focused AI in terms of multi-civ wars, strategic goods), but there are issues within the framework of the game that I do not care for either (Infinite Railroad Sleaze, limited governments/tile improvements choices, workers vs PW, CTP2 stacked combat vs single unit vs single unit combat format, tech purchasing pretty much invalidates the need to develop your science)

I can say the same about CTP2 too - good and bad...

The title of this thread is 'The Biggest Thing civIII is Lacking...' There are a lot of other games coming up in this discussion too - the question is whether the wishes for civ3 can actually be accomplished in civ3 either by Firaxis or the Modding community? Can disasters be put in civ3? Is there a scripting language? Can the tech tree be totally rewritten?

Hopefully, civ3 players are not threatened by hearing about viable options that are available to the gamer, and can judge the info for themselves...

[Grumbold]

Nicely put, Hex

[Harovan]

Originally posted by hexagonian
Being able to compare/contrast different games is actually a good thing. The question is where to do it???? Would a civ3 player ever come over to a CTP2 thread to find out what can be accomplished???

I did that, and everytime got flamed and insulted to death. Everyone in that forum shows, how unwelcome I and opinions different from the mainstream are.

No thanks.

[Maquiladora]

Sir Ralph ive seen the same thing in many of your posts about CtP2, maybe you should wonder why you got flamed, not everyone gets flamed who has bad comments about CtP2, just the ones with little or no tact.

[Harovan]

Thanks for the new insult.

[Jon Shafer]

Errr.. hello anyone?

This thread is about ways to improve Civ 3. If there are things people like about CTP2 that they think would improve Civ 3 and adds to the discussion there's nothing wrong with it.

[FrustratedPoet]

SR and Maq:

Does anyone have any new arguments to raise?

Or shall you guys just cut and paste the same old arguments into this thread?

[hexagonian]

Here is a link to a Sir Ralph Thread in the CTP2 Forum

Personally, I'm at a loss to see anything inflammatory in any of the posting in the above thread - seems to me that the discussion was civil on both sides of the table both yours and others and was a matter of differing opinions - nobody was called an idiot or stupid or so forth - and if this is flaming...

I'll let others judge on this one, and if there are other threads where you felt unduly slighted, post a link.

I cannot speak for others, but if I flamed you, I'm sorry...

[Harovan]

FP: I already posted my ideas for improvements. Neither Maquiladora nor SMIFFGIG and not even hexagonian did that (other than the usual "If you dont like Civ3, go play CtP2").

[Destroyer]

On topic...

Originally posted by Trip
I don't even think individualized tech trees would be enough. The gameplay is still the same every game, and you still have no choice (unless that's one crazy tech tree).

Well hows about this:

Instead of being able to research the next logical steop in some of the tree, you instead need access to some relvant resource or building.

Ie, no horseback riding, until you get horses.
No iron working until yu have access to Iron
No Mapmaking until you have a city on the coast

etc....

[WarriorPoet]

Destroyer-that would be great! Also, there would need to be similar exclusions for trading tech.

[Harovan]

Sorry to burst this bubble, but I think Destroyers proposal would kill the game. It would be pathetically easy to lock the AI's access to iron and horses with a couple of cheap spearmen and forever exclude them from any research. You could research through the medieval or even industrial age and put yet nastier defender on the resources, thus taking the chances from this civ to ever advance.

[Grumbold]

Not if ancient and mediaeval resources were as commonplace as they should be. The tech tree would have to be looked at very hard to determine more sensible causalities too - was horseback riding really crucial to further development or just something that ought to lead to chariot riding then dead end? You need to be coastal to learn how to build ships but what does that have to do with making maps? Astronomy was known to several civilisations that used it for purposes other than seafaring....

[CJM]

I know this goes way back in the discussion, but Vondrack mentions:

Instead of creating different techtrees for different cultures... what about (radically) increasing the number of dead-end techs? Make the most basic techs into sort of a "stem", but all the others "branches" and "leafs" (with techs having more significant impact being placed at the leaf positions, thus needing more research).

Wouldn't this setup drastically improve the ancient age of expansionist cultures? I don't argue that this is necessarily a bad thing, but if the point is that civilizations will have to make tough choices to remain competitive in the overall tech race, expansionists may not face that dilemma until later in the game.

C--

[twilight]

Originally posted by WarriorPoet
In otherwords, humans are the reason why our games eventually all look the same, and no programmer could fix that.

...and it's up to your own creativity to make it something beyond code, and moving pieces.

Yes, that's it. It is up to you. I try different strategies when playing. Sometimes I am playing the big scientist nation, another time I only build market places, banks and secret services, stealing technologies or buying them, but selling it to all others, as ressources and whatever. Kind of early greek nation or Ferenghis ;-)

When a civ breaks a treaty and attacks me surprisingly all I think about the next hours is to destroy their armies, destroy their field, but let them live so they can still regret

Or I try to save some interesting friends. But does'nt work properly. One time I save the whole german race. Some other people hunted them down and nearly destroys them. In the last round I gave them a little city on an island far away and guarded them several time. After conquering a little island with only 10 cities (I had enough) I let them live there.

AND WHAT DID THESE EVIL NAZI-GERMANS DO? These traitors attack me perhaps 20 turns later! Bastards!


So I conquer the isle a second time, razing cities, pillaging in masses and so on. And wth real pleasure...

What is the morale of this tale? Beeing emotional is the best. Like in Role Playing games. What would YOU do as the leader of that nation? I ever found interesting aspects.

[nbarclay]

Personally, I find the deviations in strategy dictated by different civ traits, different starting positions, different neighbors, and different kinds of land masses enough to keep the game interesting. I have games where I have to fight early with archers to get out from being boxed in, and games where I go all the way to the early Industrial era before I fire my first shot in anger. Yes, my path through the tech tree is fairly predictable, but there's enough variation in what I do when I get there that games don't have the feel of being all the same.

Nathan

[Explorer579]

Yes, the game is linear because deep inside, civ3 simulates history of human civilization. Can their be computers without all the preequisite technologies? No. Can their be universities without writing and libraries? No.

I do enjoy the game as it is now, though knowing it is what you call "linear". However, to add flavor to it, the editor and map generator has tremendous capabilities. The editor is a very buggy tool with bad interface (it does not work on my 15" monitor). However, if you think of the potentials they are limitless. It is amazing that Feraxis has not published lot of scenarios or created mechanism for people to subscribe to scenarios. I think civ4 should go only in this direction: enhancing the editor and making it fun to create units so others can easily share. The editor is too difficult to use and has serious bugs.

That said, if you manage to make small changes in the editor, you can create all the fancy worlds and scenarios you want. Again it is disapointing that not so many people are using the editor to its fullest --including me!

[Mad Bomber]

I would like to see the techs devided up into three or four categories. e.g. Militaristic, commercial, scientific... and have sliders for each category. each category would then be researched seperately with the beakers devided as apropriated by the research sliders. Thus you ciould research 4 techs at once at a slow pace, or one at a very quick pace. Techs would have multiple requirements so that you could not research only one category.

[WarriorPoet]

My tech progression is pretty-much set in stone, after devoting millions of hours playing the game, but, like Twilight, I play emotionally. When my nation gets to be fat-dumb-and-happy, usually around the end of the Industrial era, I simply buildup an impenetrable defense and build for the stars! The modern age is a rush against impending doom. However, the Medieval and ancient eras are more a quest for survival. Each game is different enough, and if I really wanted to mess with my strategies I could do that on my own, without being dictated so by extranious programming code.

[twilight]

Originally posted by WarriorPoet
When my nation gets to be fat-dumb-and-happy, usually around the end of the Industrial era, I simply buildup an impenetrable defense and build for the stars!

Oh, yes. Sometimes I use this strategy and it's convenient. Because the AI is lost on an isle every continent is connected with the others. Often I am sitting in a corner of the map, having conquered this territory during the old and middle ages. When I am finished I build a little, only a very very little defense of defeding-only-units and it is enough. So I am asking: Is the AI able at all, to endanger the player? I usually never loose a city but definitely NEVER loose a city of my hometerritory although having only a week defense in every city and two guards in bodercities.

Alsways plaing deity without bonusses for the AI. But so what, he is not able obvious.

Hm, I think I will start a new thread with it.

[WarriorPoet]

I've had some nasty games even on Monarch setting, where I am constantly beset apon by neighboring AI's. After I claw myself out of the ancient era, and survey my subjugated foes....then I spend my time diplomatically and military assuring that I never have to do that again.