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

178# A SPLITTING HEADACHE? All great empires eventually died, why should yours be any different? 177# WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE AT THE BOTTOM OF MY SHOE? Will wants more reality in war, peace and his people 176# DO OTHER PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THIS TRICK? Search and you shall find 175# SMACX ECO-DAMAGE FORMULA REVISED! The Column makes a.... technical turn and lands on Alpha Centauri 174# NUCLEAR WARFARE IN CIV3 Nuclear warfare needs big improvements. Here are some ideas COLUMN ARCHIVE

I've played CivII, Civ: Test of Time, CTP, CTPII and Alpha Centauri. From the civilization genre I've played countless derivatives, including: Conquest of the New World, Might of Orion series, Ascendancy, Star Wars: Rebellion, Settlers series, Caesar series, Sim City series and Pharaoh. True joy is something I experienced only once however, and that was when playing CivII for the first dozen times.

With hindsight and hundreds of gaming hours experience, here's what I think made CivII such a great game: The advisors were a joy! Good humour and real moving human faces brought life to the game. The graphics were simple, bright, vibrant and clear. Tile improvements looked good without confusing the bigger picture. The sounds were good, with each unit having its own sound. The Wonders! From the real world of history, they showed real footage and were a delight to build. Even the throne room kept me guessing. City improvements were uncomplicated and self-explanatory. The time line of research was realistic and gave you time to enjoy building, exploring and conquest. Units were useful, one and all, and combining them for conquest was a thrill. Often, even after hundreds of games, I'd make a wonderful discovery, learning something new or unnoticed. Most of all, it was well balanced.

Most attempts at repeating the CivII phenomenon have made one mistake: they have little or no balance, leaving you to either hate them or love them. Looking back now, I wonder if any of the programmers ever even played a full game. Had they done so, and been left with an aching hand from making thousands of unnecessary mouse clicks, I think most of the bugs and frustrating elements would have been corrected post haste. Let's face it, CivII cannot be reinvented, only improved. It's like trying to reinvent flight. Nothing will ever transcend the wonder of seeing the first planes lift from the ground. That said, flying can be a thrill every single time, especially when there's something new and exciting to experience each time. Frequent flyers will know that eventually it's the small irritations that will transform a flight from a joy to a frustration. It is the same with any Civilization derivative. A true classic will be born only if the irritations can be kept to a minimum, or replaced or handled with charm and finesse. Here's a look at some of my top irritating pet-peeves found in the Civilization series, and my wishes for additions or alterations, which could, in my opinion, again produce such a classic as CivII. Hopefully, it will be called Civ3:

Micro-management on a grand scale: Does anyone out there really get any serious thrill form spending hours per turn, telling every city, every unit, every citizen, every trade route what to do every turn? I find it a real tedious frustration, especially when I find myself doing the same thing over and over again, when it could have been so simple to make the game do it for me. As the number of cities and units grow, micro-management reaches dizzying heights, and should be fine tuned to find a balance between enjoyable management and frustrating repetition.

Research: Should never, ever end. Research in the real world is divided into two phases : revolutionary and evolutionary. Revolutionary discoveries yield brand new discoveries, like flight. Evolutionary discoveries improve on already existing ideas, like jet engines improve flight, constantly making things better, faster and stronger. I'd like to see this kind of evolution in a game. After all, isn't a factory built in 1800 better than a factory built in 1700? Lets have dynamic research trees, which are different every time you play. No research tree in any game looks or feels as good as that implemented in Ascendancy.

Settlers: Settlers should settle only. As time goes by, settlers should gain walking distance and city building qualities. A settler that builds a new city in 1900ad should yield a very different city to the settler that builds a new city in 3000bc. Furthermore, a city built in 1900ad should have the growth and production capability expected from a young 19th century city, able to produce modern defensive units and city improvements in a reasonable time frame.

Cities: Let them grow! Why should a city occupy only one tile? As the city size gets bigger, let it grow over and into adjacent tiles. I like watching cities grow and change shape and looks. Eventually cities will occupy all the surrounding land, giving you less and less tile improvements to worry about. Cities of more than one tile would maximise the resources of the tiles it occupies. A city could look like the sprawling sky view of real cities. Lets include a new type of city : a military base. Providing healing, landing and fortification bonuses normally found in cities, able to produce military units only, with no city improvements or tile improvements to worry about.

City improvements: Should become redundant. After all, a new city build in 1950ad, does not need the same granary and marketplace used in 3000bc, as they're kinda obsolete. Preferably, I'd rather see only 8 or so improvement areas for each city, with only the most modern improvement available for each area. For example: Food; Production; Research; Happiness; Defence; City Growth; Pollution; Engineering. Obsolete improvements should rather have to be upgraded into the newer improvements. The whole idea is to find a way to prevent the need to build obviously redundant improvements. I like tons of new discoveries as much as anyone. What I don't like is the an ever longer and longer list of improvements that should be built to keep up with the enemy. The CTP series, especially, has what feels like hundreds of city improvements. With so many possible improvements, it discourages the building of new cities after the dark ages, as any new city remains weak, underpowered and vulnerable till the end of the game. Civ:Test of Time and Alpha Centauri were the only games to allow you to sell all instances of a city improvement, with one instruction. Building queues are useful but sadly badly implemented in CTP. Too many dialogues and the need to open and move through too many screens to get something done just impeded the advantages.

City plunder: Frankly, when I capture a lowsy, ill-positioned foreign city, I want to destroy it, it's tile improvements and be done. Let me destroy a captured city completely, and quickly, exiling the population to the countryside and surrounding cities. Often during conquest, I'm stuck with captured cites. Nearer the end of games in particular, new cities or captured cities are worthless, often being a burden and another outpost I have to defend. Give the option to reduce a city to a military base, immediately converting all surrounding tile improvements and city improvements to food and money for the civilization. Discovering secrets from captured cities should be limited to implemented technology only. In other words if a city with only a jet fighter is captured, you have no chance of discovering tank warfare. Capturing a city that has a nuclear power plant though, could lead to the discovery of nuclear power.

Territory: In Alpha Centauri and CTPII, there were clear borders surrounding the territory owned by a nation. I like this idea, but not as it was implemented in either game. The biggest problem was trespassing, especially in the sea. Often the only way for troops to reach an enemy territory is through someone else's territory.

Tile improvements: Should not be ugly or give you a headache. In the CTP series and Alpha Centauri, I got headaches looking over my land for improvements to make. And lets be realistic, its does not take 50 years to clear a forest tile. Man has used slash and burn deforestation for aeons and it can be done in a blink of an eye. Likewise, building dirt roads should not be so expensive or time consuming. Lets allow remote resources, so that tiles with special resources can be utilised even if they're not within a city border. Perhaps require that they are within your territory, or connected via roads. In Alpha Centauri, there is an instruction whereby you can build a road from one city to another. That was a great help. And how about bridges, so that lonely islands and continents can be linked? Sound: I can not put into words how disappointing I found Alpha Centauri in the sound department. It was the single most awful, inexcusable flaw I've ever come across. In CivII, I was nurtured with cavalry trumpets, gunshots, booms from cannons, the whistle of stealth fighters and the mighty kaboom of howitzers. From that diversity to the pizz pizz of laser fire and the wee wee of psi units. A unique sound for each unit is essential and makes all the difference. I don't mind if 20 units each have something that sounds like gunfire, as long as they are different.

Diplomacy: Ultimately, you're out to win, and any decent AI is out to win. You are going to be stabbed in the back, eventually. It would be nice though, if you could make a friend in the game and have them stay friends to the bitter end. Real tokens of friendship should extend beyond money and technology. If I attack enemy units which are laying siege to a friends city, I should be making a friend for life. Sadly, in CivII, I found the 'ignore all and conquer all' technique the most effective. CTPII had a better diplomacy dialogue that allowed you to create more complex conditions and demands. For multiplayer, this is pretty good, but the AI in the game never responded well to anything I had to say, even if I had given gifts several times before. In Alpha Centauri, there is a request for a loan, which they pay back with interest. This is unique and is a good way to make or keep friends with the AI without loosing hard cash forever. Moreover, the AI in the CTP series tended to gang up on the most advanced player, regardless of existing friendships. Almost from the dark ages, with no enemies, the AI would be signing pacts against me to contain my aggression, even though there was no such aggression or expansion. Admittedly, it was often already too little, too late for the ill fated nations.

Cultures: Alpha Centauri implements different cultures which have unique abilities. Other games have different nations with unique units. I am not a fan of this as it has been implemented thus far. Ideally it should add extra dimensions and a longer life span to the game. But, all too often, one culture or nation is soon found to be superior in terms of conquest and then the fun is removed from having different cultures. Lets keep them equal in power and use the diversity to add to the life and enjoyment of the game. Imagine having a different set of advisors for each nation. You'd have to play as each nation just to be entertained by them. You'd find a favourite nation based not on who's stronger, but whose advisors and culture you enjoy the most and which entertain you.

Special units: I love the spy in CivII and the slaver in CTP. What happened to the explorer from CivII? Suddenly in the CTP series and Alpha Centauri, exploration no longer exists, and is left up to slow military units. Even Neanderthal man could cross continents in search of food and new habitats. Special units are a great asset to any empire, and should never be discarded. However, I'm not in favour of having lots of special units just for the sake of having special units. If they really do add a new facet to the game, then include them. Sometimes too many units just add frustration and complexity that detracts from the game. In CTP for example, the lawyer and corporate branch should be the same unit. In CTP, there are just far too many, ever so slightly different, special units. No special units should have the power to completely cripple an enemy as I found the Subneural Ad could.

Unit movement: Distances that units move are completely ridiculous. No game I've ever played in the civilization genre has managed to get this completely right. In 1900ad, it should not take half a century to move an army half way round the world. Even in 1700ad, infantry units should be able to move more than one tile. The biggest cause of this is the fixed nature of the movement for units. Id like to see more flexible, realistic movement, bound to the technological nature of the unit, its civilization and the current year. To move an infantryman to the other side of a city takes at least 5 turns. In 1800ad that equals more than 20 years. In many games getting reinforcements to an area of conflict takes so long, the concept of reinforcements has no meaning. Or, by the time they arrive they're so obsolete they're easy pickings. What happened to the goto command from CivII? The CTP series and Alpha Centauri implemented paths which you drag from the unit to their destination. The goto command was still the easiest and fastest way of getting units where you wanted them to go. One extra advantage in using the goto command was that aircraft with limited fuel could be easily sent to a city within reach.

Unit fortification: All units should be able to fortify. In CivII, all land, all air and some special units could be fortified. Possibly the dumbest and easiest to fix problem in the CTP series, was loosing the ability to fortify spies and air units. With many cities and units, I'd have to put tons of spies, lawyers, slavers and air units back to sleep every single turn for hundreds of turns. If a spy in a city helps protect it against espionage, then why cant it fortify? If jet fighters give active air protection to a city, then why can't they fortify? Maybe fortify is no the right word. Fortify implies digging trenches and building walls. But all units can fortify, in some sense. In World War II, war ships implemented special formations and techniques to help guard against U-boat attacks. Throughout history ships have been used to fortify harbours and their entrances, and could stand their ground if needed.

Unit sleeping: Any military unit that goes to sleep should be shot. If a unit is to board the next ship, or a spy is to keep watch then lets have unambiguous commands to instruct them. Sleeping units in cities and sleeping units on board ships have a nasty habit of boarding or unboarding without instructions to do so. Instead of sleep, lets put units on watch. Units on watch should not wake up whenever any other nations unit passes by. Chance are, you'll see this movement at the end of turn anyway. Rather wake them up only when an enemy ends their turn adjacent to the unit. Perhaps implement some watch alert status. If the civilization is placed on red alert, all units on watch have an extended range and wake up easier.

Unit grouping: This is another very disappointing element of the whole genre. Mostly because the wrong way is usually so obvious. I like groups of units that fight as an army, as in CTP. However, the grouping and ungrouping is irritating beyond belief. CTPII improved the grouping and ungrouping mechanism, but then forgot to let the abilities of individual units be available whilst grouped. For example, if a slaver was grouped with infantry, you had to ungroup the slaver before enslaving passing settlers. Duh! Likewise, if 2 units are grouped together, you should be able to pillage 2 tile improvements, not only one. Aircraft carriers should be able to carry many planes, including bombers. This was possible in CivII, but dropped in CTP.

Unit training: In CivII, units could gain veteran status. In Alpha Centauri there are many levels of experience. This is all very pleasant, but it was ultimately of little practical use in Alpha Centauri. Veterans may help to win a minor battle or two, but only superior technological armies or superior numbers can win the war. If the technology of the army changes too rapidly, as in Alpha Centauri, veteran units become redundant. A more advanced green unit could almost always defeat an old obsolete veteran unit.

Unit leaders: Basically generals. Allow any one unit in a group to be the leader. As time passes, those veteran units which have excelled can be upgraded into generals, giving a boost to the battle hardness and skill of the army under their control. Might of Orion II did this fairly well, and it was a thrill to culture and develop highly skilled leaders through the game.

Unit battles: The battle screen used in the CTP series is great. The more innovations that can be included the better. Unfortunately there are still numerous instance where infantry and tanks with air support fail to defeat poorly fortified infantry. In Conquest of the New World, battles went to a grid where you were in control of the units and some savvy was needed to win battles. I wonder if this would work in civilization or whether the battles are best left up to the AI and random chance? What happened to the CivII ability to see at a glance whether a city was empty or not? Surely if I'm attacking a city I'd notice if it was empty?

Unit upkeep: The best change the CTP series included, was to give the whole civilization the task of army maintenance instead of individual cities. I'd keep this upkeep design, possibly reducing the costs slightly. As a percentage of the upkeep, surely seriously outdated units could be automatically updated to the next best unit.

Mayors and Leaders: Unimplemented as yet. After the first few cities have been build, I'd like to be able to train a mayor, and have that mayor build the city as I would. In the next age, I'd like to train a prefect or senator or governor who could oversee groups of cities and report back at regular intervals with queries and reports. Far beyond the current AI implemented auto-build or self-managed city, I'd like the mayor or leaders to be able to watch how I build and learn. Good mayors and leaders would replace or augment the build queue. Perhaps include real human audiovisuals like those in CivII for these leaders as well as for the advisors.

What I know: If I have not yet encountered another civilization, I should not be told if they're about to build a wonder. Likewise an explorer cannot encounter the border of another nation until we've met.

End of turn: CivII had the best end of turn. Those reports I didn't want to see could be turned off. You see the movement of enemy and friendly units close to your own borders. Units should be auto scrolled in such a way that the next closest or most logical unit is activated. In CTP you are bounced around the world from one unit to the next in a disorientating manner.

End of game: The last thing I need in any game is to know I've won, but have to spend another 100 turns hunting down those last one or two villages of an enemy. Surely the AI can tell when it's lost? Different methods of victory are essential, and I'd advocate implementing several more varieties of scientific, wonder and diplomatic victories.

Fantasy units: In Civ: Test of Time, I enjoyed the fantasy units simply because they were so new and different, with new sounds and movement. There's probably no room for fantasy creatures in a real world based civilization game, but they showed the kind of imagination and entertainment value I'd like to see in the future.

Trade: I like the concept of caravans. I also like the trade routes implemented in CTP. Some games like Alpha Centauri don't have trade at all, and are still popular. Recent ideas on requiring trade to obtain resources to build certain things, is a good idea. It forces both parties, even warring parties to trade in certain precious resources. I just wonder if the AI will be able to keep up.

Pollution: Very nasty. I turn pollution off at every opportunity. It's a reality from the real world I could do without in my games. Yes, it's realistic. But in this instance I'd rather escape from that reality, and live in a world with clean industries. If I can't do this then I'd like real ways to implement pollution prevention. Let me set an environment option to strict, and sacrifice, say 10%, of my production and gold to keeping pollution to a minimum. In CivII at least, you can set the engineers to auto and let them clean up the pollution as it occurs. In CTP and CTPII especially, pollution tends to run away from me, and I find it spoiling the game.

Sea and space: I found the idea of space cities and sea cities wonderful. Maybe they did not prove all that useful, or practical in the long run, but it showed imagination. The problem I had with space and sea cities, especially when playing against the AI, is that by the time the technology for space and sea cities was discovered, the game was virtually at an end, and the winner an almost certainty.

Interface: Variety should be the order of the day. Each new age should usher in a new interface. New, easier ways of doing things. As time passes in the game, a player has more cities and more units. New ages should take this into account, by easing or removing the chores the player has. This could be done by using interface mechanisms to give universal conditional commands. However, I'd never want to see an involved macro language, as that might be too extreme.

Reports screens: CivII still ranks amongst the best in this department. With two key presses and some scrolling, I can find out almost everything I could want to know. The city happiness screen had hidden talents, as most often I would use it to check at a glance which cities had scientists or under-utilised entertainers. CTP added the necessary column click, which let you sort the cities by production or size etc, but had no ability whatsoever to check on specialists at a glance. Even worse, CTP II separated the city information and what the city was building. Alpha Centauri tended to display too few cities in one screen, leaving you to endlessly scroll up and down in order to get an overall picture. Al least they did have a report screen that showed units based in cities. Surely it can't be so difficult to get the report screens right? Rules of thumb are: there is no such thing as too much information; the less screens, the better; the more global commands I can give from these screens, the better. It's that simple.

In conclusion, it can be seen that CivII got a lot right. More so than many of its successors. Even small removals or alterations completely threw them off balance. I play a game to have fun and be entertained. Flexing my military and management strategy muscles accounts for a lot of the fun. But the moment I feel like I'm spending most the time performing chores, I'm inclined to feel like slave labour, and loose interest . In CivII, there was just enough entertainment value to balance out the chores. Sadly, the CTP series added so many poorly implemented complications that the chores quickly outgrew the fun. Alpha Centauri was interesting, but the units lacked diversity, imagination and sound, and also suffered from the chore syndrome. If you want to see diversity and imagination check out Civ: Test of Time and Ascendancy. Use the imagination, and be creative. There is no limit to what can be achieved.
---------
About the author: Hunter of the perfect game

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.