why should a tribe called mongols (especially on a random map where they could start in isolated jungle island) be better at something that another tribe called english?

You have 10 'random allocation points' to distribute among your civ and then the computer does the same with the computer generated civ making them better at

Keep all of the civs generic, but allow complete customization through the various files and scenario editors.

quote: Originally posted by Lancer on 01-11-2001 01:02 PM wernazuma, aren't they doing something w/ leaders this time out? Certain leaders emerging that give certain abilities... Wouldn't the personallities of these leaders determine the personality of the civ?

Actually, the tone of the civ might be a determining factor (not THE factor) on the tone of the leader that appears. A militant civ is more likely to produce a military leader but a civ that stresses the economy is more likely to produce an economic leader.

Perhaps if you have a wonder in one of your cities your civ will be more likely to get a certain leader type. "The Great Library has attracted many scientists to East Toohoosis including the renowned researcher..."

I also like the ideas of being able to customise the game including a vanilla 'original civ' option (all start the same) and having the ability to set characteristics with certain numbers of points.

(the only english saying I know that can describe what I think).

Keep Civs Generic. No plus no minus. I prefer to have the exact same propability of greatness or disaster with every civ.

However, unless you've taken the time to learn the challenging intricacies of playing a game that DOES limit certain choices but opens others, then you'll never appreciate that having, say, 12 distinct civs would truly make each game that much more different. And, hey, if you love to win by war, chose a civ that's good at such things. Otherwise, go for total random seeding and see how good you are on-the-fly!

I disagree with Yin here. Making Civs have different abilities is not only unrealistic, it also is lazy. Firaxis is basically conceeding that they can not make more strategies viable for the players, so instead theyy are goiing to give the Civs unique abilities to force people who play them in to strategies which would normally not be viable. That is what they did in SMAC (I am most espicially thinking of Yang and Miriam). Having non-generic Civs also limits multiplayer since some playing styles I and the people I played with obviously prefered (also the Miriam was especially weaker on a larger map) and we could not use them because some factions did not allow them.

And sure you could always choose to play different but then that leaves a weaker computer player. It is just gilt put on the game to impress the easily impressible. I am saddened that Firaxis is sinking to the unimaginative lows of MOO, MOM, AoE, and all the rest (I like those games they are just not civ (also uniques fit better into MOM and MOO)).

Note I have judged based upon pass implimentations of this and I cannot but think that Firaxis dropped the ball on this one (sure it will sell but it won't be as good). While making some of it based upon where you start might sound fun but the one thing about civilizations is that they change. Being locked into one strategy path just limits options, does ot expand them (and it is especially frustrating when it is artificial).

I do see one good aspect in that if it is customisable it will be a boon to scenario designers.

All I hope is that they make it optional so that I can at least turn it off. Anybody feel like asking a question and/or making an petition.

edit once more: I am sure the game withh be fun and plan on buying it. I just think that the best option was not chosen in this case.

quote: I disagree with Yin here. Making Civs have different abilities is not only unrealistic, it also is lazy.

In a bizarre kind of way, I see your point. But surely properly balancing the various civs takes an enormous amount of work. Of course, there's quite a danger involved in that...potentially leading to some civs being played too much (or even banned in MP) while others never get played. This is a real concern, of course, and is why I agree this should be in check-box option, like "Civs inherit historical attributes."

In AoK, they had the catch-all: "All Techs Available." But the funny thing is, almost NOBODY uses it! The plain fact of the matter is that the game is FAR more interesting and complex when having to deal with the weaknesses and strengths given to various civs.

And I find it odd that people who scream for more historical accuracy prefer to play with cardboard cut-out civs!

Notice how in AOK and other RTS forums people are always talking about "races" - when talking about the English, celts, etc - which are actually cultural groups not races? the confusion of language and culture with race is one of the fundamental confusions of the century just past, and one which resulted in tragedy in that century.

Civ, thankfully has avoided that confusion. Everyone starts out the same in 4000 BC, and what your CIV (NOT RACE) evolves into depends on HISTORY not BIOLOGY - what the terrain is, what govt types you choose, the prximity of other civs, the nature of interactions with them, the techs you research, the wonders you build etc. Depending on your strategy and the enviroment in which you pursue it you will result in a very different civ, such that the looking back one might deduce that the difference came from some profound racial origin - BUT becuase you've actually been playing the game since that first settler in 4000BC you know that isnt true

you KNOW that the Americans have high tech weapons because theyve been following a demo-science-peaceful-naval path since they split off from the brits, and that the brits started on such a path to take dvantage of their island isolation, and had powerful midgame science wonders like Isaacs. It only LOOKS like the anglo-saxons have a gene for high tech weapons.

Thus Civ2 is, as a game, a powerful argument for the importance of HISTORY, and a powerful counter to biological/racial determinism.

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 01-12-2001 02:01 AM And I find it odd that people who scream for more historical accuracy prefer to play with cardboard cut-out civs! ...).

Is it historically accurate that the anglo-saxons in 4000 BC had the charecteristics of the 19thc English? Is it historically accurate that they would have inevitably developed those charecteristics regardless of location, govt type, history ?

So that the charecteristics of 19thc england were determined not by the Danish invasion, the Norman conquest, Magna Carta, Henry VIII and the church, the Spanish armada, the english civil war, the Glorious revolution, all things which could have come out DIFFERENTLY, but by genetic inheretance determined in 4000 BC?

That is not making civ more historical, it is making it profoundly ahistorical. It is precisely because I value Civ as a historical game that I dont want predetermined civ charecteristics.

Honestly, after about 10-12 games i felt gradually more and more limited.

Sure, there was temperament- and empire-managing templates connected to the AI-civs in Civ-2. But those you could ignore. You could choose the AI-agressive Mongols for example, and play them as civil and peaceful, with emphasize on science, trade and well-developed city-areas instead.

quote: A "historical" England starting in the Mongolian plains is not going to be too impressed with its naval bonuses or ability to more easily administrate distant colonial outposts

Well ,there's a very simple solution to that. Just program that the English's starting position is always on an isolated island; that the Greek's starting position is always on hilly coastland; the Mongols and Sioux on plains and steppes; the Egyptians and Babylonians near a large river; the Celts in foresty land; and so on...

Assuming that, that the starting positions are similar in each game, it is perfectly logical (because of accumulation of experience) that civilizations will always and in each game(=alternative history) develop the same benefits and weak points. And that has nothing to do with genes or racism, as some people claim.

To further illustrate my examples: it's only logical then that the Greeks and English will each game turn to the sea, so there's nothing wrong with giving them beneits like "free Harbor facility in each city" or "+50% transport capacity" to simulate the unavoidable experience they will gather after decades of seafaring.
As a second example: it's logical the Mongols will turn to horses as means of transport and war, so there's nothing wrong with something like "+25% Attack bonus for mounted units".
You could further expand this by SE factors, such as +2 Research for the Greeks, +2 Support for the Mongols or Celts (their military society resulting out of their harsh starting conditions), -1 Police for the freedom-loving Dutch, etcetera.

If you per se want a 'generic' civ, despite the fact it's historically unrealistic, you can always create your own custom civ. That isn't difficult in SMAC, so neither will it be in Civ3.

MarkG, I tried to vote on the poll half an hour ago, but the first time I entered the wrong username (ACOL's SMAniaC instead of Apolyton's M@ni@c) so my vote wasn't accepted. Then I tried again, but I got some error message. The third time I got a message that I had already voted. But when I checked the results, it showed I hadn't! Is there some way I can still give my vote? Cause, looking at the reactions in this thread, I think my option "1) Yes, like in SMAC" will need all the support it can get.

I believe the more start options a game has, the more playability and replayability it has and will then have a broader appeal and success rate.

I still play MOO2 and SMAC for those reasons.

--

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 01-12-2001 02:01 AM And I find it odd that people who scream for more historical accuracy prefer to play with cardboard cut-out civs!

Isnt it exactly that what Civs with pre-fabricated benefits really is? Cardboard cut-outs?

Also - our history is pretty contradictive, with many "1 step forward, then 2-3 steps backwards" historical examples. Yes, its overal progressive and evolutionary, but mostly in rather roundabout and erratic ways, with many blind-alleys and labyrinthic "We have lost our direction - where shall we go now?" type of nation/civilization crises (and yes, we are all certainly living in such times now, i think).

This is why i simply DONT like the idea of Civ-3 having neither development-team pre-designed civ benefits, nor player pre-designed civ benefits (through pre-game allocation-points).

Its simply historically false!

Its like if a 4000BC people knew exactly where they was heading, from the word GO (and, by the way - here is some 100% static cultural, political, economical and military benefit/trade-off values, that either will be helpful, or disadvantageous for you, the next 6000 years of timeline!) Good Luck!!!

Talk about a "cardboard cut-out" design-approach.

Its like having all those once-and-for-all 100% static values; then let the whole historical timeline again and again, be shaped by those static values.
Isnt it really the other way around? Hasnt value-systems of civilizations again and again have to be reshaped, in order "to better fit the surrounding reality". Hence; "The stone you first threw away, have know become a cornerstone".

The game should reflect this: