The heritage of Civ 3

Optimizer · January 8, 2003, 17:40

During the last decade, the game mechanics of Civ 1 has been a source of inspiration for many strategy games in different environments. Civ 2 contained few novelties in game mechanics, but Civ 3 was more innovative, mainly because the genre developed a lot during the late 90's. What should future strategy games learn from Civ 3? I've thought of some good pieces of heritage.

* The qualitative resource system
Most strategy games contain trade with precious resources, but resource trade either gets in the background or becomes too complicated. The resources in Civ 3 play a decisive role, yet they don't require all your attention. They are qualitative rather than quantitative - you either have "nothing" or "enough".

Though there are some obvious complaints like "I want my privateers to rob merchant ships" and "why can't we breed our imported horses", I wish future strategy games to have as simple resource concepts as Civ 3. Rise of Nations has already picked up the qualitative concept.

* The bargaining table
Everything has a price. I hope that all strategy games of the coming decade have got a screen where you can exchange treaties, maps, cities and whatever you have.

Willem · January 8, 2003, 18:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Optimizer
* The qualitative resource system
Most strategy games contain trade with precious resources, but resource trade either gets in the background or becomes too complicated. The resources in Civ 3 play a decisive role, yet they don't require all your attention. They are qualitative rather than quantitative - you either have "nothing" or "enough".

That's my main complaint with the current resource system, the "one site fits all" approach they've taken. If it were up to me, I'd have it so that a resource can supply "X" number of cities. So the larger your empire becomes, the more of a particular resource you need in order to have all of your cities producing what the resource allows.

For example, if I have a single source of Iron, and only 5 cities are supplied by that source, then only 5 cities can produce a Swordsman, or Medieval Infantry etc.. It would be up to the player, through the Domestic or Trade Advisor, which city would get that Iron.

alva · January 8, 2003, 18:54

It would make things much more complicated though.

I would prefer a number depletion thing

Iron in city X is worth 150 iron units
1 swords costs(besides the shiels) 5 iron units
1 RR costs 2 iron
1 knight costs 10 iron units

etc....

Kingof the Apes · January 8, 2003, 19:05

But then iron appearing randomly would have to be much more common, or the less lucky civs might be limited to an army of 15 knights.

alva · January 8, 2003, 21:14

sure, more smaller iron resources...

This would IMO give more of a strategic use.

Do I use them now or later, and for what shall I use them.

bobbo008 · January 8, 2003, 21:20

then later in the game, units would just "runout", where many things can be synthetically produced. iron doesn't just "run out", either, but that's my opinion.

ALPHA WOLF 64 · January 8, 2003, 21:39

I too like the idea that a single source of an exhaustable resourse is worth a set amount. Unfortunately, programming the AI to understand that might be complicated. There's also the problem of where are the resources stored when not in use. It also allows for stockpiling resources thru trade even tho you currently have enough. The human would realize that whereas the AI might harm its future supplies. Coupled with this, I'd like to see units buildable only if a city contains the necessary building(s) for that unit. But all this must be done simply enough so as not to add too much micro management to the game.

Willem · January 8, 2003, 21:48

Quote:

Originally posted by alva
It would make things much more complicated though.

I would prefer a number depletion thing

Iron in city X is worth 150 iron units
1 swords costs(besides the shiels) 5 iron units
1 RR costs 2 iron
1 knight costs 10 iron units

etc....

Firaxis mentioned that they looked at this approach and they figured it would be to cumbersome to program.

alva · January 8, 2003, 21:57

understandable, Making an AI use this in efficient and intelligent way is not gonna be easy.

Maybe in a couple of years then

Datajack Franit · January 8, 2003, 22:56

I'd make resources geographically confined like in the real world- oil in arab world, no coal in Japan forcing them to pump up research in nuclear, etc

Also they should be concentrated in areas like the Ruhr in Germany, so their loss (ww1) would mean economic chaos and so on..

alva · January 8, 2003, 23:49

That's how it works now too.

Oil appears in dessert = arab
etc..

It's just a different world

wilbill · January 9, 2003, 00:32

It really is tough for the programmers to make game elements such as trade complicated enough to hold our interest and present a serious challenge without becoming cumbersome and overly complicated. I could handle a little more micromanagement of trade and diplomacy if it were balanced with a little less oversight of worker functions. Overall this is a good, playable system, though.

Quote:

why can't we breed our imported horses

Now that would would be a serious challenge!

bongo · January 9, 2003, 10:59

Here is simple change that could add a bit of extra realism. Make any resource support a max of 5 cities. That is 5 cities using iron simultaniously. That way you don't have to bother with choosing which city getting what resource.

Oh, the number '5' was chosen just as an example.

I don't care about horse breeding, what the game needs is the possibility to breed more cattle

Willem · January 9, 2003, 12:10

Quote:

Originally posted by bongo
Here is simple change that could add a bit of extra realism. Make any resource support a max of 5 cities. That is 5 cities using iron simultaniously. That way you don't have to bother with choosing which city getting what resource.

Oh, the number '5' was chosen just as an example.

Yeah sure, steal my idea!

I've brought that up several times now. But I think you should be able to select which cites get the Iron, if you choose to. If you only have so much of it, you'd want to send it to a city that's producing a Swordsman for instance, instead of one that's building a Library. I would find it annoying not having any control.

bongo · January 10, 2003, 05:24

Didn't mean to steal your idea, just meant to support it and offer some minor refinement.

Manually setting up a priority list for each resource is just too much for most people. One of my points is that a city building a library won't need iron but a city building swordsmen will. Better let the computer keep track of how much iron is available for your civ.

Better yet, let each resource have a maximum production value. If we give iron a value of 100 that means that total number of shields added to items needing iron each turn can not rise above that number.

Optimizer · January 10, 2003, 11:19

Quantitative resources would make the foreing trade system more complex.

Willem · January 10, 2003, 12:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Optimizer
Quantitative resources would make the foreing trade system more complex.

That's kind of the idea, at least for me. I find it to simplistic at the moment. Once a civ has Iron, there's nothing I can do with that extra resource or two I have lying around. If there was some sort of quantitative system in place, trading would become much more dynamic.

bongo · January 13, 2003, 09:45

Of course it would make the game more complex, the important question is: Will it make a better game?

Fosse · January 13, 2003, 10:08

Quote:

Originally posted by bongo
Of course it would make the game more complex, the important question is: Will it make a better game?

Of course it would!

Just by making resources limited in any of the ways discussed (or a completely different way) we get a game that is more realistic and has more strategic depth.

This isn't the kind of change that is really going to make the game "more complex" to the point that it is a detriment. Keeping tabs on resources and seeking to aquire them to keep your civ running isn't micro managment, it's empire managment!

Myrddin · January 13, 2003, 18:00

What makes a better game?

Civ has always been single-player, so a better game means a good AI.

Any change to game mechanics has to be used well by the AI; it is difficult to see how these changes could be.

Trifna · January 13, 2003, 18:16

The things to arrange first would be, I think, the combat system that's not composed of living units but of reviving units that do not get an advantage from grouping.

After, there's the colonial system that should be arranged to look like a colonial system.

After, there's the territory limits that are simply based on culture while the TERRITORIAL limits do not do this normally...

A few things like that, including social systems and spying, and it would be alot better.

bongo · January 14, 2003, 07:47

Hmm, maybe I just need a good nights sleep but I can't figure out what you want to do with the combat system.

Trifna · January 14, 2003, 11:12

Well, I'd like it to be that you have X troops, with a certain quality and temporary effect on them (which combines fatigue, moral, suffered alot, etc). No stuff like having troops that auto-heal (which in Civ is building back the effectives) without any cost. The cost should be linked to the number of men. Even if it's not said openly, it could be inherent to the way the system works. I dislike healing a little since it's not considering deaths enough...

bongo · January 15, 2003, 04:54

I see your point and it will turn civ into a more realistic combat-simulator. Waging war takes a lot of resources and a unit that has been fighting need to replace both men and supplies. I can't make up my mind if a change will be to the better though. The current system gives a sort of large-scale abstraction that works well. I don't want to loose that just to get a more 'correct' abstraction.