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

172# CIVIII: BETWEEN EUPHORIA AND DISAPPOINTMENT Will civ3 renovate the genre or is it a hopeless effort? 171# EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH CIV STARS!!! Only on Apolyton! The civ stars reveal all their secrets! 170# MOD = MORE DOUGH? "It's simple, we just want good games!" 169# CIV3 SHOULD ALLOW "SCENARIO PARALLELS" Civ2 scenarios converted to civ3. Wouldnt it be great? 168# WHY CIV-SPECIFIC UNITS ARE A GOOD IDEA Snapcase defends unique units COLUMN ARCHIVE

I, like the rest of the Civilization community eagerly await the next installment of Sid Meiers masterpiece. To start each day off I go to Apoloton Civ website to find the latest news for Civ 3, and it is through this outlet that I have gained most of my knowledge of what we are to expect for Civ 3.

The most interesting part of what I am hearing is the enhanced diplomatic and trading systems that were so "bare" in Civ II. If you don't know what I'm talking about let me refresh your memory. According to a few websites including Apoloton Civ website and Firaxis, Diplomacy now has more options then civ II. Not only can you request treaties alliances etc you can now include asking for some gold + techs + maps in one big treaty as well as specialized alliances and attack strategy. Say your playing as England and you have established you kingdom to include several cities, and you have just encountered the Russians. Being this is your first meeting with the Czar you ask for a peace treaty but you press your luck and see if you can exchange maps and maybe hope trade some technology or plan a battle against the Egyptians. Supposedly the leaders face will change considering how outrages or stupid your exchanges will be. This is only mere speculation at this point but there is probably going to be some form of this going on. This system reminds me of the fun board/pc game "DIPLOMACY" where 7 countries circa 1900 AD debate about how to control Europe and near the end stab their allies in the back. Usually a couple players will form "Axis" camps and "Allied" camps and only those sharp enough will see the betrayal coming in advance. I can only hope Civ 3 learns from that game.

The trading system is what really sparks my interest. Civ II had you building a caravan and ships it off to some distant land for some quick cash. This was just what Civ 1 had too and it is understandable considering Civ 1 was a ground breaker and Civ 2 more or less brought the fun (yet simple) aspects of Civ 1 updated for that time. But Cash is just one thing that can be brought out of trading. Civ 3 will focus more on the natural resources, Gold?(probably cash) and luxuries that come from trading. How many wars have been started simple because one country ran out of resources (Japan during WWII) or for another country trying to control the market on one type of resource (China and Silk or even Iraq and the Gulf War). Simply put you need raw materials to make tanks not just the man power and oil and factories. You can't make a tank without Steel. Such a system reminds me of Imperialism II (PC/MAC). Where 6 leading countries of Europe compete for the same resources in the new world and eventually they bring those resources over to the old world to fight the wars and raise cash. I also remember hearing that you can "blockade" a port where a countries resources are coming from and thus cause their economy to sputter. Such a system was key to wining in Imperialism II.

I believe Civ 3 will be a combination of the best of Civ I &II + Alpha Centauri + Diplomacy + Imperialism II. Hopefully improving trade and diplomacy from the originals. After all imitation is the sincerest form of flatter.

---------
Civ player since 1995

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.