Civilizaton Abilities

[Tingkai]

As much as I am enjoying this thread, does anyone else find it funny that we're arguing about the relative merits of different civ-abilities when we don't even know how Civ III will play? How do we know the value of getting a free scout when we don't even know what a scout does or how much it costs?

As for attributing abilities to different civs, SnowFire hit the mark when he was talking about possible combinations. The Gods wanted each combination covered so we invariably end up with ones that don't connect with reality. If you don't like the pre-sets, change it in the editor.

Not that I want to put an end to this discussion. I don't know how the game will play, but I know that I'll have the Iroquois set on militaristic-commercial to reflect historical accuracy. They spent all their time fighting for the fur trade. As for the Russians, I think expansionist-religious is right. They traded Orthodox Christianity for the religion of communism.

[TechWins]

Not only because the concept failed for me in Alpha Centauri.

I didn't even like the way it sounded even before I played the game. Having negative effects is not something that should be put inplace. That is why I feel these effects will work out fine. If they don't I'll turn them off.

Seeing the discussion here, there is already disagreement concerning the accuracy of the alloted traits.

For the most part there has been agreement about changes needed to be made for the civ abilities. The only disagreements so far are Russia - Scientific and Japan - Militariastic. These disagreements are irrelevant anyways.

Also, I am not sure whether the concept does justice to historical biases. Many of these traits are more in place for a limited timeframe, not for *all* of a civ's history.

I would say they are fairly accurate. The Aztecs are militariastic, the Chinese are scientific, the Indians are religious, etc... What they tried to do is depict the two most traits that applied to each civ the most while keeping them balanced in terms of how many people are x ability.

I get a sort of cartoon-esque feeling from these special abilities.

Could you explain how?

I can only that you will be able to randomize these features (civ abilities). It would be nice seeing the Russians as a commercial and religious one game then the next game see them as a militariastic and industrious civ.

Every possible two check civ ability combination has been covered which will balance the game. This feature is not something that is going to make the game very unbalance, neither are civ-specific units. It's only going to add flavor to the game truely creating the ultimate civ experience.

On a side note I used to believe that I would be one of the people who would not use civ-specific features as an option, now I believe exactly the opposite.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by TechWins

I didn't even like the way it sounded even before I played the game. Having negative effects is not something that should be put inplace. That is why I feel these effects will work out fine. If they don't I'll turn them off.

...

Could you explain how?

I can only that you will be able to randomize these features (civ abilities). It would be nice seeing the Russians as a commercial and religious one game then the next game see them as a militariastic and industrious civ.

Every possible two check civ ability combination has been covered which will balance the game. This feature is not something that is going to make the game very unbalance, neither are civ-specific units. It's only going to add flavor to the game truely creating the ultimate civ experience.

Re: AC - That is true. There are no negative effects in Civ3. Maybe that will make the crucial difference.

Re: cartoon-esque - I think it exaggerates some supposed nation-wide traits/stereotypes, rendering the gameplay less realistic. You could also assume that the history of the world is just one of possible ways -who knows what the russians would have done should they be located in Africa. It should depend on the environment too, not just 100% 'trait'.

I hope the nature of the traits makes them 'ok' for Civ. In AC, the traits (green-loving, religious, money etc) made me yawn. While in Civ, the aggresive/expansionistic specs of civs have always played a beneficial role. So perhaps the change isn't so drastic after all.

I think randomization adds little to the concept. In this case, a civ is just a label, and their characteristics unpredictable until you meet them. Hmmm come to think of it, it might indeed add some flavor to random games.

I too hope that the gameplay is balanced. I *really* do. That's what makes it or breaks it, for a large part.

[El hidalgo]

I like what I see so far. One interesting thing you could do with this is use it to make your own minor civs. Give one civ zero abilities, and give the others 2 or 3 or even 4 each. True, the disadvantaged civ can grow to become quite advanced nonetheless, but it will be more difficult.

[Urban Ranger]

Tingkai,

"New Gold Mountain," isn't that Hawaii?

"Per Ardua Ad Astra" (Through hardship to the stars) is oddly familar...

[ChrisShaffer]

Every possible two check civ ability combination has been covered which will balance the game.

Not quite - there is no militaristic-scientific civilization.

[seer_98]

Hmmm.... of the special ability combinations possible (6! / 4! x 2! = 15), one is missing (Military + Scientific) and two are duplicated. (Military + Religeous = Aztec + Japanese) (Commercial + Expansionist = English + Germans)

[Tingkai]

Urban Ranger: very impressive. . Who says Latin is a dead language. Not that I know it. Per Ardua Ad Astra is the motto of the RCAF. It's been translated to me as meaning Through Adversity to the Stars. An appropriate motto for Civ.

New Gold Mountain is not Hawaii.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS


It *did* say that, before I realized it was an old table and pushed the new one out

Dan

thank you dan.

i thought my eyes or mind or a combination of the two was fading fast.

[KrazyHorse]

The Germans&English and the Aztecs&Japanese share the same abilities. Personally, I'm going to go for the Greeks: Commercial and Scientific.



This is me, thinking about how quickly I'm going to get through the entire tech tree with trade and science benefits.

[Stefu]

Maybe Germans as Militaristic-Scientific? All right, that may be bit too Nazi/V2/Dr. Strangelove/Wernher von Braun stereotypic, but still...

[KrazyHorse]

Maybe Germans as Militaristic-Scientific

The Japanese are more (stereotypically) militaristic/scientific in my mind. The Germans should be changed to scientific/industrious. The German work ethic and drive for efficiency is a standard stereotype, isn't it? That would match them up with the Chinese.

[KrazyHorse]

Did anyone else notice that the civs are colour-coordinated in the Abilities screen? The groupings seem to be geographic in nature.

Northern Europe:
English
French
Germans
Russians

New World:
Aztecs
Iroquois
Americans

Asia (excluding Russia):
Japanese
Chinese
Indians

Mediterranean:
Romans
Greeks
Egyptians

The civs we couldn't put anywhere else:
Zulus
Babylonians
Persians

[Provost Harrison]

As a long time SMAC player, I am all for the idea of civ special abilities. Of course Firaxis had to pick two attributes and make sure they weren't overlapping. Britain (English) has always been a large trading power and very expansion orientated in the past, so it makes sense they are these two. You could argue the finer point of whether the English are more scientific or industrious. But in the end, game play balance has to take priority. It is perfectly accurate to describe the English as these attributes. They could be anything.

So thumbs up to this idea, in my opinion

[Juggernaut]

Russia: Expansionist and Scientific. Darn their leader had to be so ugly though.