1. The option to choose between unique or generic civ's
2. The option to randomize the unique civ benefits
3. The option to specifically choose which benefit you want (i.e Morgan benefit, but playing as Spartans)

quote: Originally posted by Lancer on 01-12-2001 04:02 PM How about, the more a civ does something, the better they get at it. In other words, all Civs start out vanilla. When a Civ builds X # of ships, they get better at it, and build better ships. The more they fight ships the better the sailors become. Those who built their cities up would be better builders....etc

This is actually a really good idea. It makes more sense than almost every other opinion on how civ should be. (Well, most opinions mount up to nothing much more than smac bashing.

quote: Originally posted by kolpo on 01-13-2001 10:31 AM I don't understand those comments that say that predeterminated SE adds te replayability. In SMAC was quite always the Hive the strongest computer opponent because his very powerfull start SE settings and could you predict the outcome of all wars between computers. I never got a game where the morgans dominated the world even while that would be intresting to play...

That is because the AI in the civ games blows so bad it's unbelievable. A human player is much more likely to dominate as Morgan than he is as Hive. (Given that he is equally adept at all playing styles.)

I mostly play multiplayer smac these days. (I can win transcendence victories on a huge planet with tech stagnation, arid land, playing as believers. Beating the AI up has always been easy, atleast once you start reading boards like Apolyton.)

Hives style lends itself well to the exceptionally near sighted AI. (It can't conduct war, it can't improve tiles rationally, it doesn't build city improvements that will be the right ones in 20 turns, it was like that in Civ, it was like that in Civ II, and it most definitely was like that in SMAC. And I pretty much figure it will be like that in Civ III.

But I don't think SMAC style SE is the right way to go in Civ III, nor is predefined bonuses. I would much prefer that you got the bonuses depending on how you played. (In SMAC I don't build a navy before I got the Maritime Control Center etc, once I get the bonus I build the associated armies, city styles, whatever.) It would be much more fun having to build and maintain a huge navy while slowly getting more and more navy bonuses. (Along with DRAWBACKS! All bonuses should have a cost. If you get better at naval combat you should get worse at say, land combat. Your naval superiority protects you army...

I want drawbacks with my bonuses, and I want both of em to be dynamic, so that I have to play a certain style, and building on my tabula rasa.

For example:

1/ The first civ that sails a ship around the world (in case of a "cylindric" world) gets a bonus of +1 movement for naval vessals during 100 or so turns as they can use the experience from that expedition to improve navigation techniques.

2/ A civ that has no war during 100 turns get a happyness bonus. Or even more bonus if it is at peace with all. This would give a chance to peacefull players to get an advantage in accepting annoying things (in exchange of peace) like a civ that builds a city on your "home" island. Untill now I would destroy that city but would I think twice if I would loose a bonus because of it. One cound then try to isolate the city instead ...

3/ There could be another way to get a bonus ; By specialising, for example if a civ specialises in naval warfare (like the British did) that they would then get a naval advantage since they can use their vast experience as an advantage. They could then maybe get a chance to build "one"(and I mean this in numbers) unique unit that no-one else has but then not too good a unit as not to upset balance. In this example I would say a super-battleship or so that could shoot first in case of a battle since it would have longer range gun's or something ? This unit could then be used to enhance regard among other nations by being a sort of status symbol.

I have a few other examples but these would require more explenation and I now just wanted to explain my idea...

The idea to give civ related bonusses seems interresting but as some said there's always a bonus that's better than the others and that would make that all would play one or a select amount of civ's.
Another thing is if my country or background was in the selection I would like to play them, but the fact that they might have a bonus that I don't like would prevent that. Anyhow I don't think it would NOT be a good idea ; a civ should be build from nothing and be equal to all others at the start to give all the same chance to "succeed". If there is a bonus system there shound be an option to turn it off.

The most important thing I would like to see in CivIII is a good AI (since this sort of game takes so long I feel it's still not a feaseble "multiplayer" game) :

The AI should have a global strategic insight, like if one civ is gaining a considerable advantage compared to all others ( for example get double the population of second civ) that the AI will see that threat and attemp to get allied against that civ to make a strategic balance in the world.
An interresting AI that will not do stupidities like attack a stack using 1 unit. That the AI reacts according to what you do diplomaticaly.
That as in the real world there's a small chance an AI might dubblecross you and get you offguard.
That the AI uses geography to its advantage like bottlenecks. And that he uses the bombard fuction to its advantage to destroy resistance before attacking a city.

I think there should be a penalty for casualties, like if a number of units get destroyed in a democracy fighting far from home for a useless cause according to democratic values .

I also hope that bombarding a city will (with a percentage of chance) as in the real world cause a reduction in population and destruction of buildings.

Most important of all is GAMEPLAY BALANCE , AI and the have the ability to play all kinds of civ's peacefull , warlike , ecological , etc !

I prefer the option of "buying" special bonuses after acquiring particular technologies and losing them again when the technology becomes outdated. In this respect, very much like mini-wonders.

quote: Originally posted by Patient English on 01-23-2001 09:36 AM "The historical precedent for this would be the English, who were basicly unbeatable until the more than met their match in the war of 1812. " I have to comment on that! From my researches (and in my opinion as an Englishman), the English were neither unbeatable before 1812, nor outclassed after then. The French beat them from time-to-time in the 1700's (in 1781, too, as an American should know). .

1781 - the battle of the capes, off of chesapeake bay, where De Grasse and the French fleet defeated a british fleet sent to relieve Cornwallis, making possible Washingtons victory at Yorktown. unfortunately our textbooks tend to neglect the role of France, Lafayette apart.

quote: "The historical precedent for this would be the English, who were basicly unbeatable until the more than met their match in the war of 1812. "

Off the top of my head, the "English" are the people who occupy the largest part of the British Isles and have been invaded, conquered, occupied (in whole or part) and generally roughly handled by the Romans, Saxons, Irish, Norse, Vikings and Normans to name but a few. If civ3 can somehow model that and still allow them to later grow into an imperial power I will be mightily impressed! Personally I expect we'll never know because most players would have restarted at or before 50 A.D

Off the top of my head, the "English" are Saxons( +Angles +Jutes +Frisians +Whatever) who dispaced Celts (as in Welsh, Britons, Scots, Picts, and Irish) and were for brief periods of time ruled by Romans and Vikings (Danes, Norwegians, Normans).

quote: Originally posted by Biddles on 01-23-2001 07:26 PM Contrary to popular(american) belief, the war of 1812 was merely a sideshow to the napoleonic wars. Besides, nobody won the war of 1812, it ended in compromise.

Actually, at least some of us Americans are well informed. Not really a compromise, more of a standoff that nobody could win. The British Parliament backed down on impressment policies (although ironically this happened several days BEFORE we declared war, due to poor communication) but they got to burn down our capital. Mostly, it was just a morale booster for us due to the Battle of New Orleans, which would have been a decisive victory for us but for the fact it was fought a few days AFTER the treaty to end the war was signed. Although the causes of the war of 1812 sprang from British policy during the Napoleonic Wars, it was not part of it. And it certainly wasn't a sideshow to the Americans.

quote: Originally posted by M@ni@c on 02-02-2001 04:17 PM Where could I find some more information about that presumed war between the British and the Americans in 1812? I, nor my history teacher, has ever heart before of that war or a 'Battle of New Orleans'. That unimportant it must have been!

You've never heard of the War of 1812? Have you heard the 1812 Overture(which wasn't written till a while after the fact)? The song 'The Star Spangled Banner' was written by an American captured by the Brittish durring that war as well. You can look it up on the net or in your local library, or in an encyclopedia, etc. It happened and you must have described it to your teacher wrong if you think he/she doesn't know.

What if I said:
"What about the Russo-Japanese war? I'm not Russian or Japanese, so why should I care?"

quote: Originally posted by Lancer on 01-23-2001 06:31 PM Sure, there were exceptions, don't get me wrong. That's what I meant by 'basicly', as in 'for the most part'. Btw, what happened to DeGrasse and his fleet? The French, the Spanish, the Dutch, and even the Danes, all got crushed by the English at sea, or in port)

In the relevant period, there were four wars between the English and the Dutch, of which 3 were won by the Dutch (including one in which the English had joined forces with the French and two German counties).

quote: Originally posted by St Leo on 01-24-2001 07:09 PM Off the top of my head, the "English" are Saxons( +Angles +Jutes +Frisians +Whatever) who dispaced Celts (as in Welsh, Britons, Scots, Picts, and Irish) and were for brief periods of time ruled by Romans and Vikings (Danes, Norwegians, Normans).

The Celts weren't the first people in England either, and many people from Normandy (France, not Scandinavia) migrated to England after they beat the Saxons. So the "English" are a mix of four tribes, with some Viking and Roman influences on the side.

Anyway... I think the problem with abilities is that... well... to use them correctly, we need to find the ROOT of each ability, not just the historical fact.

For example, take the British Empire. Some have suggested that since they were a large naval power, they should have faster/ more numerous ships. But this breaks down when the British are landlocked. So, we must identify the reasons for Britain's sea power.

1) Britain was a very expantionist country and a colonial power.
2) They are located entirely on a relatively small island.

So, by getting to the root of the ability, we find that each historically based ability is in turned based on a few reasons for the ability:

1) Attitude of the Civ, i.e. colonial or self-centered
2) Geographical conditions, i.e. being on a shore or desert

Some people might object to 1, because this in turn probably has numerous historical roots that would be difficult to analyze. That kind of stuff (origins of a superpower) is the stuff term papers are made of, not games.