Comments/questions about the article? Please post them to this thread.

I think the cheats (features ha ha) need to be plugged and the AI needs to be buffed up. This will not require Deep Blue. Just better algorithms for science pursuit and for terrain exploitation (settler priorities).

Now, I am all against major changes, UNLESS they can easily be shown on the map. Everything needs to be visualizable. Want religion? Show em on the board. Want better wars? Show em on the board.

GP, The diplomat- the things you are suggesting are still relatively minor changes, that I personally wouldn't mind at all. In fact, I rather assume borders (for example) will be in the game, as they worked wonderfully in SMAC.

Hugo Rune- Your comments ar on the border between yes and no for me. Would unit factories add too much micromanagement, for example?

Lord Maxwell- Let me try to explain to you what I see as the problem with Hexagons and Round Worlds. Let us begin with Hexes. How do you change the city radius code without ruining the game balance? How do you cope with the fact that many people associate hexes to boredom? How do you map a hexagonal pattern onto the numeric keypad? How do you make hexes with editable graphics? Finally, what is the point in any case? And the round map- How do you represent it without confusing the player? As the cylindrical map with "pop-overs"? Or as a proper round planet? How do you make editable graphics once again? How do you project the map onto the mini-map? Finally, yet again, what does it really add to gameplay?

I agree with your overall premise: improve the basics and keep what we like. For me, I would like to see better unit graphics, more units, better terrain graphics, improved AI, territorial boundaries, improved diplomacy (like SMAC), possibly an improved combat model (ie gradual damage to both sides vs only one winner), troop carriers (so we're not moving hundreds of individual units all day), etc.

But I do not want any "super units" or "super heroes" in the game to throw off play-balance (like in CTP and Seven Kingdoms).

Lastly, maybe spread the tech tree out a bit more to make moving from one epoch to another take a bit longer.

I support some of his concept:

1) Don't forget new player, but do it making a learning curve sweet enough for early level of game and adding difficult for higher level and expert player, not keeping the game "basic"

2) Don't change the origninal game concept from a "strategical development of a Civilization" to a "tactical warfare - micromanagement hell".

That said, too much time "if ain't broken don't fix it" is a sure defeat approach.

Please look at some hints:
1) TBS game are suffering a lot of market loss against RTS and other kind of games

2) SMAC wasn't really a major change from CIV II (apart form Science Fiction background), in fact shared a lot of the same programming limits. I liked it, but it miss the target to refresh the Civ II success. Don't listen to the PR info, look to the chart: always far from the real succesful place in every poll and "sell hits".

3) Almost all the Civ III team left Firaxis to make New, Different, Big Huge, RTS Games, because they think they are the winning products.

Now, I'm not here to tell TBS genre is dead, but it really needs a major refresh.
Also the new Sid pet (Dinosaurs) looks like it will change a lot from a DinoCiv approach.

Lot of gamers hope Civ III will be the great resurrection of the TBS (some poll around tell so), but that definitely will NOT happens if Firaxis will chew again the same Civ model "with some minor enhancement".

Do you really like more Civ II stuff? Good, play Civ II!

I think that CTP (never played, only red lots about it, so take my opinions about it "as they are") listen to much to some weird suggestion (e.g. strange super units), without good enough play balancing and beta testing. Lot of Civ III suggestion here on Apolyton have same limits, IMHO, and I really hope Firaxis don't touch it with a stick!

BUT lot of suggestions are First Class ideas, potential seed of a new succesful BIG CIV, and I really hope someone on Firaxis (or any other clever development team) try to work out my next "game of choice".

I already saw that CTP II team catched some Apolytoners' suggestions to put some steroids in CTP sequel. Let's hope someone else will put things further.

Don't buy a full reworked Civ if you really don't want, but let us enjoy something different from another "Hollywood Remake"

I agree with Ken. As I have posted periodically in this forum [Civ3], too many ideas being discussed here are quite unrealistic. It's not that those ideas are ludicrous in themselves, but they don't belong in Civ3. Civilization 1 and 2 works in that it uniquely combines elements of the 4X genre in a simplistic, yet extremely replayable manner (along with creating scenarios). What folks here have been discussing is changing that unique model into something entirely different. Examples include adding a full wargame model (ala Talonsoft), adding a full diplomacy model (ala Imperialism), adding a full city-building model (ala Pharaoh), and so on. It is one thing to talk about such ideas for fun, but building such a impossibly, unrealistic expectation level is stupid, IMO. I have been in the software development industry for years, including game design, so I know how hard it is to take an abstract idea such social engineering (for example) and trying to program it.

My point is that Civ2 works (it has not been voted one of the top games of all time for nothing). It does need improvements, enhancements, fixes, tweaks in the tree, etc. but not a make-over as many folks here are led to believe. I, for one, would play Civ2.5 for years, but I would not play a Civ game that many here unrealistically believe that should be part of that game.

Besides, knowing software development cycles, I suspect that much of the design for Civ3 is complete (remember Sid's message?). It is now a matter of programming and getting the pieces to work together, and to do the artworks (which will take a while).

One more point and then I'll be done. Someone mentioned hexes and how that would radically change the game. I don't think so. We are still talking about a flat, 2D map that would be more realistic cartographically (as oppose to the diamonds). You would have to tweak the movement points on the units, but I believe that that is a minor change.

I'm here to share opinion as politely as my english knowledge let me do, so your reply are welcome.

Ok, I agree that lot of design decisions are probably already done (but with almost all of development team changed I'm not sure how many rework has been necessary), and already agree with you I'm not for a change of game that transform Civ into a tactical wargame or so on.

I know quite well how game industry (but also movies, books, etc.) LOVE the dotFIVE sequel concept.
- "Do you like this game? Good, now we will do some make-up, some bug-fix and you are served: almost-the-same-game 1.5 version, please give us another full-price-as-if-new amount of money".

I really can't understand how you, as a player, feel good forking out good money for so minor enhancement as you describe.

I mean, when a game change a genre (i.e. Civ 1, SimCity, etc.) I can understand an interim release can be acceptable to fix some game balancing, add "just too late on design desk" features and so on. But at the THIRD trial?

Ok, you probably will keep your idea, I'll keep mine: no problem, feel good

I also bet Firaxis will be very happy to follow your suggestion about a 2.5, so you'll win anyway

quote: Originally posted by Adm.Naismith on 06-13-2000 06:57 AM I really can't understand how you, as a player, feel good forking out good money for so minor enhancement as you describe.

That's an easy one. As most here would agree, Civ2, despite some flaws, is a very well designed and replayable game. They tried to make it better with SMAC and even though it is a good game, it just doesn't have the appeal to some civers. They tried to make it better with CtP and failed horribly. They tried to make it better with ToT and failed. I was active in commenting on the Civ3-List and was a proponent of several fixes and new ideas, and some of those weren't minor. But, I believe Civ2 lays the foundation for Civ3, so there is no need to change the basic game model, imho. Remember they tried several times and failed. I think that is my point, we know that Civ2 works and for a game to be called Civ3, it would be wise to build upon that unparalled success.

Alot of ideas that you and others propose are not bad ideas, but I believe they should be built into a new game that would change the game genre, called (hypothetically) Humanity I or Society I or Culture I, but not Civilization III.

As far as spending good money. I've been buying games regularly since the late 1980s. I would hate to think about the many hundreds of dollars spent on bad games or games that were played once. If Civ3 offers the same level of replayability as Civ2, then $40 is nothing. It comes down to this, I have played alot of strategy and war games and nothing to this day have been better overall than Civ2.

Sorry for being long-winded.

Adm, I do enjoy reading your replies and the difference in opinions are not personal in nature. Take care, my friend.

Foe example, Microsoft hit upon a great formula with Age of Empires - so Age of Kings just improved upon it.

Warlords IV will just be an improvement on Warlords III.

Many fans feel PG2 (nice unit icons and hand-painted maps) was the best version of that series, yet PG3D (3D terrain, odd-looking units, fuzzy terrain graphics) completely changed the game, and hence never garnered the same acceptance.

So CivIII should be an improvement of CivII, but it must embody what has made CivII a winning formula. CivII and CivIII will be around a long time, while many 3D "eye-candy" games will be long forgotten. Just look at the 4 years and 30 million dollars that was spent on Daikatana. What a waste.

The only reason to make beloved turn-based games into real-time 3D games is to line the pockets of computer and video card makers (forcing us to up-grade all the time). After all, if we're not constantly up-grading our computers, how are these computer companies going to make their money? Of course they want to do away with turn-based games - you don't have to up-grade to continue to play those games

The basic Civ formula is superb and makes for a really compelling game experiece. However there are two huge problems : weak AI and the awful micro-management once you get up to 25+ cities which, at least for me, reduced much of the fun in playing Civ after some time.

I would MUCH rather have Civ-3 fix these two problems rather than try to invent a whole new game with the same old weaknesses. This is especially so since the more complex the game the less likely it is that the AI will be even half decent. I , for one, would rather have a relatively simple game with a good AI rather than a really complex one with lousy AI.

There is nothing wrong with radical ideas incorporating deep game-play changes per se. But these can done in other games not the Civ series. Perhaps the CTP series? Also there is nothing wrong with incremental changes in the game-play where there is perhaps one or two new features in the game play, a better diplomacy model for instance.

Personally, I think the biggest change should be in the ai, but not just in the "stupid ai, you attack with warriors!" area. I feel that the game would be more interesting if some of the differences in civilizations that were pioneered in civ2 and SMAC were built up further.

I mean, if you play SP, the game reaches a point where everyone just attacks you, and they all act alike. Maybe we can have one civ that favors heavy millitary, one that goes far into techs, one that is untrustworthy as an ally, one that will keep alliances and act honorably.

There has been advances in this area, with having the mongols more agressive, for instance, but as each game progresses, the civs slowly become carbon copies: all agressive, all untrustworthy. There's no real benefit in keeping peace treaties after 1750.

I would point to Age of Empires as an example of how ais can be programmed with different strategies, and I think that would really improve civ3, over civ2.