Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Third XP: Yay or Nay?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    I say yea, especially considering the apparent quality and amount of new content of BtS.
    If Firaxis is at a loss for ideas for another xp, I'm sure we can open a "suggestions" thread and inundate them.
    Ming's analysis was right-on: if there's enough money to be made, it will happen.
    If past events are any indication, I think we can count on it. How many add-ons were made for Civ2? I can think of Fantastic Worlds, Conflicts in Civilization, and Test of Time, but I don't think any of those approached the goodness of BtS.
    Look at it this way - maybe we will finally get our ninjas in the next xp- you wouldn't want to miss that would you?

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Shrapnel12
      Has anyone ever managed to get an AI civ to voluntarily give up one of it's cities no mater how threatened they are or how much they love you?
      Only when I have them on the ropes and by that point I prefer to continue the war and just finish them off.

      Comment


      • #48
        A major "issue" with Civ4 is that once you have destroyed an opposing civ, you don't have any of the extra unhappiness problems you had before it was destroyed, and that makes it advisable to finish them off. Of course, this is much more probable for a player than for an AI civ to accomplish.

        With a lot of luck, BtS at least compromises on the issue; otherwise there's always the prospect of the next XP, or Civ5.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Brutus66
          How many add-ons were made for Civ2? I can think of Fantastic Worlds, Conflicts in Civilization, and Test of Time, but I don't think any of those approached the goodness of BtS.
          You're just missing one of the four -- Multiplayer Gold Edition (Ultimate Civilization Collection in Europe). First came CiC, then FW, MGE and finally ToT.
          PolyCast Co-Host, Owner and Producer: entertaining | informing civ
          >> PolyCast (Civ strategy), ModCast (Civ modding), TurnCast (Civ multiplay); One More Turn Dramedy

          Comment


          • #50
            Probably the best counter to abusing a diplomacy system is by damage to reputation. If you agree not to destroy a civ if they give you a city and you do it anyway, well then no other country will do it again. It's easy. You get to cheat the system just once, then you're basically a pariah and noone will trust you again. A good example of this is the Vikings scenario in Warlords. You can ransom cities you've captured back to the civ, but if you ever take that city again, you can never ransom a city again. I think Civ2 worked in a similar fashion. I know one thing I'd like to see in an expansion is ways to appease civs that you've pissed off by say refusing to help them or attacking civs that were their friends. Breaking treaties or constantly declaring war on a civ would not be forgivable though. One thing I like to do is extort money from a civ, then declare war on them. The other civs don't recognize this and fall for the same scam. I shouldn't be able to do this more then once.
            EViiiiiiL!!! - Mermaid Man

            Comment


            • #51
              I honestly haven't taken a look at Civ4 since Warlords came out. I found the original game to be boring and poorly designed but gave it a second chance when war lords was released. I'll likely wait a few weeks to see what the word of mouth is about BtS.

              It's a shame because I loved Civ2 and couldn't get enough of CTP2.
              Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

              Comment


              • #52
                I mean, Alpha Centauri is just civilization on another planet. I can see why they made a game out of it when the civ rights were still with Microprose, but I don't think that there's a real big market for Alpha Centauri. I think that I won't even buy it.
                You seem to have never played SMAC and as such your perception of SMAC2 as huge cIV scenario is totally off.

                Try playing the game, then come back to the analysis.
                -- What history has taught us is that people do not learn from history.
                -- Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Oerdin
                  I honestly haven't taken a look at Civ4 since Warlords came out. I found the original game to be boring and poorly designed but gave it a second chance when war lords was released. I'll likely wait a few weeks to see what the word of mouth is about BtS.

                  It's a shame because I loved Civ2 and couldn't get enough of CTP2.
                  Wow. What the hell is wrong with you?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Damn, I hate it when I agree with Kuciwalker.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Well, I feel I need to respond to the allegations that we've run out of civs to add. Perhaps to a Westerno-centric POV giving priority to colonialist European civs, yeah, but most of the great civilizations of the rest of the world haven't been touched yet. The West was quite a backwater until the 12th century, and there are plenty of other civs around the world worthy or at least as/nearly as/more worthy of inclusion than, for instance, the Dutch or the Carthaginians.

                      The following list may look like it spams out on civs most people have never heard of, but all I'm saying is that there are enough for a new XP without significantly diluting the average greatness of the civs already in the game. 8 new civs could be 4 obscure (to Americans/Westerners) and 4 famous ones (e.g. Israel, Hittites, Polynesia, Poland) is pretty close to the way it normally goes.

                      Here's a list. I've put wikilinks next to most to allow access basic civilopedia level information.

                      * Buryats/Evenks/Other native Siberians; if Civ 4 was developed by Russians, there'd prolly be a native Siberian civ, much like there's native American civs in civ series. This is not a good start to the list I here you say, but Siberia, being what is it 1/10th of the earth's land surface currrently has no representation other than the Russians, who are colonialist newcomers.
                      * Champa - fascinating Indo-Chinese civ; prefer to Vietnam; wikilink: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champa
                      * Gaels (Latin name: Scoti) - My academic speciality. Great early medieval European add. Columbanus, conversion of northern England, "How the Irish Save civilization", etc. Essentially the indigenous cultures of Ireland and Scotland. Ireland and Scotland on their own, anglicized prolly, would prolly have good market appeal.
                      * Hittites - Previously in Civ 3; needs no introduction.
                      * Hungary/Magyars - I'd prefer to add them in their pagan/earlier medieval format; IMHO, best candidate along with Lithuania for that other eastern European civ; most powerful eastern European Kingdom for most of the medieval era; wikilink: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyars ; wiklink2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom...he_Middle_Ages
                      * Israel - Ancient Israel only; never suggest adding the unrelated modern state; shoe-in in popularity terms; been higher in demand than most Warlords additions; wikilink: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Israel
                      * Kanem - decent addition; only too similar to Mali if Sub-Sarahan Africa fades into one black blur for you; wikilink: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanem_Empire
                      * Lithuania - Last pagan European state; became the largest state in Europe for several centuries.
                      * Mandara - Wikilink: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandara_kingdom
                      * Mapuche - If the developers had been Chilean, Argentinian or South American in general, they'd have been in instead of the Sioux from Civ I; wikilink: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapuche
                      * Monomotapa/Rozvi - Builders of Great Zimbabwe, prolly better choice culturally than the Zulu, though
                      prolly with less market appeal; wikilink: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomotapa
                      * Poland - market appeal obvious; Firaxis would do well not to ignore the expanding eastern European market, or the appeal of nationalism to the millions and millions of Poles living in North America, Britain and France, as well as in Poland
                      * Polynesia - some dislike because too generalized; I disagree, be one of my top adds, and I don't think would be regarded as second string
                      * Sogdia - central Asia needs represenation more than Eastern Europe; Sogdians perfect cultural candidates; wikilink: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sogdia
                      * Srivijaya or Malays; a first-string addition for non-Eurocentic people; wikilink: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srivijaya
                      * Tibet - would be a decent addition, prolly popular; traits: Mil/Agg ; wikilink: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet#History
                      * Uighurs - people who think they're too similar to the Mongols are way off; a great central Asian Turkic Empire is a needed addition; Wikilink: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uighurs
                      * Vietnam - Less worthy than the Khmer or Champa IMHO, but popular and definitely addable; wikilink: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Vietnam

                      And expanding upon the Native Americans:

                      * Apache
                      * Iroquois
                      * Sioux

                      There really are many more; the list isn't even close to exhaustive. I think it should be obvious that we certainly have not run out of civilizations. Phoenicians were also suggested; don't think duplicating Carthage is any more of a problem than the English existing with the Americans. Other civs such as the Olmecs, Anasazi, Huns and the ancient Britons (led by King Arthur ) would prolly be popular additions. Then you've got all those modern Anglo-Saxon states such as Canada and Australia for market reason, or non-Anglo-Saxon modern states like Brazil. I'd love the Aboriginals added to the game, but because they usually incur such resent (not a real civ), I omitted them from the list.

                      In short, if you want to find another 6-10 civs for an expansion - ignoring all the great leaders who could be added - it'd be the easiest thing in the world.
                      Last edited by Niall Becc; June 26, 2007, 23:36.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Locutus

                        Still, if you really wanted to, there are IMO three MAJOR civs missing from the game: Assyria, Nubia and Phoenicia (Phoenicia is a bit problematic because of Carthage but I think with the HRE and Byzantium there is plenty precedent for them; Phoenicia did contributed more to history than Byzantium, HRE and Carthage combined).

                        Combine those with one or two civs to fill some geographic/cultural gaps (e.g. Poland, Srivijaya, Gran Colombia, Benin) and maybe one or two 'lower tier' civs (Hittites, Minoans, Sweden, Austria, Thailand) and 3rd/4th-tier civs that seem to have a lot of popular support (Israel) and you could add 5-7 more interesting new civs. Beyond the big three you're definitely scrapping the bottom of the barrel though.

                        ...

                        So rather than adding 10 new civs and 6 new leaders you might reverse it for XP3: a lot of new leaders and only a handful of new civs.
                        Regarding the civs you brought up, I like the idea of including Israel, Srivijaya and/or Thailand, the Hittites, Minoans, Poles, Colombians, and maybe the Austrians, but I think the others are just too close to existing civs. Not much - to my knowledge - distinguishes the Assyrians from the Babylonians, and nothing distinguishes the Carthaginians from the Phoenicians: I don't think there was never a Phoenician state, much less a strong one, and the Carthaginians were the most historically prominent of the Phoenician cities. It'd be like having a New English civilization as well as an American one. Sweden is to this day a part of Scandinavia, and was not distinguished from modern Norway during the Viking Age. Based on some of the Ethiopian city names I've seen in screenshots, they're folding Nubia, Kush, and Aksum into Ethiopia, which I think is reasonable.

                        I think the best approach in picking civs for another expansion would be to just fill in cultural/geographic gaps, possibly emphasizing new states like Australia, Canada, Brazil, etc., and/or cultures that might not be regarded as conventional civilizations with big fancy temples, i.e. the Polynesians or Inuit.

                        The biggest omissions to date in my mind are Israel and a Himalayan civilization - obviously Tibet would be the ideal remedy for the Himalayas, although politics might make it a hard sell for Firaxis. Maybe Nepal? I'd suggest the Navajo and a Central Asian civilization as well... (Might be neat if they did more with the land: maybe grant the Tibetans and Incans the ability to pass through mountains and/or build terraced farms, and the Inuit food bonuses in tundra...)

                        If I had to pick another 8, I'd go with Tibetans, Israelis, Polynesians/Maori, Navajo, Srivijaya/Indonesians, Hittites, Austrians/Hungarians, and Colombians/Mexicans.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          @ Niall Becc:

                          Here's some criteria for selecting which civs ought to be included in a Civilization game:

                          1. Does it meet the qualifications and definition of a "civilization," as opposed to simply a culture or a society?
                          Ex. Rome does, the Caribs do not.

                          2. Does it fill a "gap" that needs to be filled?
                          Ex. Babylon does, at least more so than say, Canada, which most certainly does not.

                          3. Can the AI be balanced to a personality diverse enough from the ones currently in the game?
                          Ex. A little bit trickier than the first two. Several of the AIs have distinct "personalities," i.e. the way they react to the human player and each other. Any new civ/leader needs a diverse enough personality to be distinct from the others.

                          4. Is it fun and/or is it familiar or pleasing enough?
                          Ex. People want to see things they recognize, or barring that, something excitingly innovative and new. Most people don't want a Civ game full of CtP-esque "pseudo-civs."

                          5. Is it possible to come up with a good and accurate city list, UU, UB, and at least one leader?
                          Ex. The Olmecs would probably fit, but we couldn't come up with a leader. The Huns might potentially work, except there's no city list.

                          If it can't meet all of these criteria, it probably doesn't belong in Civ.
                          The Apolytoner formerly known as Alexander01
                          "God has given no greater spur to victory than contempt of death." - Hannibal Barca, c. 218 B.C.
                          "We can legislate until doomsday but that will not make men righteous." - George Albert Smith, A.D. 1949
                          The Kingdom of Jerusalem: Chronicles of the Golden Cross - a Crusader Kings After Action Report

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Alexander I
                            @ Niall Becc:

                            Here's some criteria for selecting which civs ought to be included in a Civilization game:

                            1. Does it meet the qualifications and definition of a "civilization," as opposed to simply a culture or a society?
                            Ex. Rome does, the Caribs do not.

                            2. Does it fill a "gap" that needs to be filled?
                            Ex. Babylon does, at least more so than say, Canada, which most certainly does not.

                            3. Can the AI be balanced to a personality diverse enough from the ones currently in the game?
                            Ex. A little bit trickier than the first two. Several of the AIs have distinct "personalities," i.e. the way they react to the human player and each other. Any new civ/leader needs a diverse enough personality to be distinct from the others.

                            4. Is it fun and/or is it familiar or pleasing enough?
                            Ex. People want to see things they recognize, or barring that, something excitingly innovative and new. Most people don't want a Civ game full of CtP-esque "pseudo-civs."

                            5. Is it possible to come up with a good and accurate city list, UU, UB, and at least one leader?
                            Ex. The Olmecs would probably fit, but we couldn't come up with a leader. The Huns might potentially work, except there's no city list.

                            If it can't meet all of these criteria, it probably doesn't belong in Civ.
                            Well, I don't agree that those are the criteria operating in practice for inclusion of civilizations; if the Celts and Native Americans are anything to go by, being perceived as one culture by outsiders or people living later is enough.

                            Besides that, I think almost all the civs I listed meet - nay follow - the criteria you listed.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Niall Becc


                              * Gaels - My academic specialty. Great early medieval European add. Columbanus, conversion of northern England, "How the Irish Save civilization", etc. Essentially the indigenous cultures of Ireland and Scotland. Ireland and Scotland on their own, anglicized prolly, would prolly have good market appeal.
                              ...

                              * Uighurs - people who think they're too similar to the Mongols are way off; a great central Asian Turkic is a need addition; Wikilink: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uighurs
                              The Gaels would be interesting; I think the only issue would be that some would mindlessly point to the Celts. The Uighurs were who I had in mind when I brought up a Central Asian civ, but they might be tough to push through: they're as politically sensitive as the Tibetans but with infinitely less international support.

                              What do people think of the political considerations that go into the game? Maybe I'm overly cynical, but it surprises me that Tibet has never worked its way into an expansion, and I've often thought that fear of triggering Chinese anger - with ensuing business consequences for Firaxis and 2K Games - might be a factor. Far too many Western businesses are all to happy to kowtow to the Chinese government these days, all in the name of the dollar... Could the omission of Israel - which was, I think, in ancient times the political equal of the Hittites, and far more culturally influential - be due to concerns over European reactions to its inclusion?

                              As for leaders, I just wanted to add that I've always wanted to see Phillip II for Spain (deployed the Armada, built the Escorial, built up the New World empire) and Kangxi for China (arguably the greatest emperor in Chinese history, facilitated cultural exchanges between West and East, consolidated Qing control).

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Wanderer1


                                The Gaels would be interesting; I think the only issue would be that some would mindlessly point to the Celts.
                                The Celts in the game are essentially Gauls/Southern Britons from the pre-Roman era. This doubles up on France and England. The Gaels/Scoti however are from the only two non-represented areas in Western Europe. I would absolutely love them to be included, but I know the modern anglicized Scots or Irish are far more likely to be included in any future game.

                                Originally posted by Wanderer1

                                The Uighurs were who I had in mind when I brought up a Central Asian civ, but they might be tough to push through: they're as politically sensitive as the Tibetans but with infinitely less international support.
                                Oh dear ... I hope the developers wouldn't really pander to the ethnic propaganda of a dictatorship. Besides, the Mongols' inclusion prolly wouldn't go down too well with those guys, and they are in.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X