NOTE: This is The Column, a regular feature on Apolyton where anyone can write about anything to do with Civilization or the gaming industry as a whole. If you feel like writing, please visit the article submission page.

PREVIOUS ARTICLES

#124 CIVILIZATION III Tim Bromige gets right to his point: what was wrong in CivII can be fixed in CivIII. #123 TPOD & ROACSG: THE PHYSICS OF SUGGESTION In the third and final installment of this article, TheLimey evaluates Firaxis' and Activision's response to Civer input-suggestions on upcoming titles. #122 TPOD & ROACSG: THE RISE & FALL In his article's second installment, TheLimey picks apart the pieces of Civilization: Call To Power. #121 THE SPAMMER'S REPUTATION adaMada wrestles with the question about some users' reputation in the Off-Topic forum. #120 TPOD & ROACSG: THE RECKONING In his article's first installment, TheLimey looks at what should become of Civilization III. COLUMN ARCHIVE

Civilization was an engrossing strategy game which set the standard for the whole genre. When the time came to make Civilization II, the development team was careful to make sure that it was still a great game. In a quote from the Civ2 manual, "none of us wanted to go down in history as "the guys who broke Civilization!"". And they did a superb job. Civilization II updated and improved, enlarged and enriched the great game. In making Civilization III, Firaxis would do well to remember what they did right in making Civilization II. I realize that a lot of the design team has moved on, so I think a refresher may be in order. I think the following things are necessary.

FIXES: Civilization had its problems, and a lot was fixed for Civ2. The combat system was an excellent example of doing it right. It was improved in a way which got rid of the imbalances without making the action of combat more complicated. Under the old system, a republic with Women’s Suffrage had no military unhappiness. A primitive despotism could rule the world, and often did. The list goes on. These problems were taken care of in ways that took care of the problem without damaging the game.

And now we have all sorts of absurdities with Civilization II that need fixing. The habit I have of spies walking blithely all over enemy territory looking for a unit to buy. Spies' ability to smuggle units, and even whole armies in and out of enemy strongholds. The ever persistent ICS... the list goes on. These need to be fixed, and in ways that does’t complicate matters for the player. If I had been playing Civ2, and had a menu asking me what formation to use whenever I attacked, I would have screamed. If it happens in Civ3, I’ll do the same.

SCENARIO EDITOR: Civilization had no scenario editor, and scenario making was limited to mostly hacking savegame files. Civilization II came with a scenario editor, and that opened up worlds for all of us. The sheer mass of scenarios available -- good, bad, obtuse, hilarious, etc. -- bears testimony to the extreme use the scenario editor has been put to. But years have shown up its shortcomings, and we are ready for a better one.

The customization possible in Civilization III should be a quantum jump ahead of anything we have now. The possibilities for custom units, improvements and wonders should be vast. Currently improvements and wonders are merely renamed in scenarios, if that. Additionally, the ability to custom design governments, rules, terrain and so on should be available. it should be customizable enough to turn it into the original Civilization (and all its problems) with the new graphics if I want.

As a matter of importance, I think I’m throwing in with the crowd that is clamoring for user adjustable AI. It’s all well and good for Chris Pine to ask us for tricks to teach the AI (Attaboys to them, that’s something they did with Civ2 as well). But those tricks will pale beside the things Ming or Yin will be able to teach the AI after a few months of playing Civ3. And those will be like a candle next to the bonfire of strategies developed by thousands of Civ players as the years go by. It doesn’t have to be easy or friendly (though that would help), but it does have to be accessible. With it, Civilization III will grow with time and experience. Without it, we’ll be complaining about the crummy AI within a year at most.

GAMEPLAY: The same basic gameplay as before. Civ veterans were able to start playing Civilization II without cracking the manual. The graphics and viewpoint were different, some of the commands had changed, but the gameplay was the same, and I myself was able to just jump right in. It was only after playing for a while that I realized just how much fuller and richer a game Civ2 was than Civ.

Civilization III should be the same in this respect. All of us here at Apolyton should be able to just jump in and start playing it cold. Maybe not play very well, but play nonetheless. The options for richer gameplay should be there -- but available, not required. When we started playing Civ2, we eventually learned to use our spies, engineers, paras, helis, etc. We didn’t have to use them, but we could.

And what about the wannabes? Those games that wanted to be the next Civilization, but didn’t make the cut. Civilization II: Multiplayer Gold Edition, and Civilization II: Test Of Time are merely add on packs, despite being charged full game price for them.

Civilization: Call To Power had a lot of great improvements and enhancements, but actually broke a few things about the gameplay, and some of those enhancements really threw it out of balance. Most importantly, they failed to make the game fun.

Alpha Centauri was a great game that actually addresses a number of problems on the EC3 list, such as borders, and adds some great features. It has some balance issues, such as the humans learn quickly to use the new stuff much better than the AI, but its most important drawback is that it seems a more like a Civ2 scenario with enhanced abilities than a new game. In other words, AC is what civ players could have created if we had a really good scenario editor. I heard some people complaining that they want Civ3, not Civ 2.5. Alpha Centauri is a good example of Civ 2.5.

When I started writing this, I was going to put in my personal picks for new units, upgrades, wonders, etc. But I really don’t know how they will affect gameplay. The same goes for many suggestions on the list. I personally don’t like the idea of a hex based map, but done right, it could enhance the game. Changing the game to an RTS, on the other hand, will almost certainly wreck it. I can make suggestions, but in the end I have to hope that Firaxis will come through.

What I hope is for a game that will make Civ2 look like a pale shadow. If they do it right, Civilization III will take its place in history. If not, we’ll play it for a couple of years and the get back to the real Civ -- Civilization II.

---------
About the author (self-quote): "Civ 1 and Civ 2 vet; have played a little Civnet and Alpha Centauri as well... not very good at any of them".

Want to comment on this article?

The opinions expressed on this page do not necessarily reflect those of Apolyton CS or GameStats. They are just the personal opinions of the writer.