Predefined special abilities: a near miss?

[Urban Ranger]

Admiral,

I don't see any reason for adding huge complexity to the game for little gain. If you want real realism, no civ should start out with any unique traits. These should be formed as the game progresses. Suppose in one game you conduct a lot of battles, then you become militaristic.

That, however, will make all 16 civs into one, other than cosmetic differences they are all the same.

The unique abilities are supposed to differentiate civs from each other, by choosing prominent traits of these tribes/nations.

The civ-specific abilities are fine as they are, there are more important things to fix than what I reckon is "colour" (you can turn them off, afterall, IIRC).

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The unique abilities are supposed to differentiate civs from each other, by choosing prominent traits of these tribes/nations.

It´s about slightly different strategies suited for each civ. Added replay value. 16 distinctive civs instead of one civ with different colours. I like it. And yes, if you don´t like it, you can turn it off.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I don't see any reason for adding huge complexity to the game for little gain.

That could be true. A bit of complexity is inevitable, the benefit should be checked, IMHO

If you want real realism, no civ should start out with any unique traits. These should be formed as the game progresses.

I disagree: after all you start with an advanced tribe, who already had developed some trait (and you must simulate this by random or preassigned)

Suppose in one game you conduct a lot of battles, then you become militaristic.
That, however, will make all 16 civs into one, other than cosmetic differences they are all the same.

I see your point, but not: they start different, they have different tactics during time, they act similarly during war but starting from different point.

The civ-specific abilities are fine as they are, there are more important things to fix than what I reckon is "colour" (you can turn them off, afterall, IIRC).

More important thing to fix? Maybe, we can ask Yin26 too

But if I turn off this I lost also Unique Units and Golden Age, so I must take an "all-or-nothing" choice: I would prefer to tune this and keep all the others.

Anyway, we know this will not change very likely into any patch or expansion pack, so you can be happy and I'll live with the game as it is

[Urban Ranger]

More important things to fix? How about:

1. AI
2. AI
3. AI



I am not sure if most advanced tribes are predisposed toward one thing or another. It will be controvesial one way or another.

[Adm.Naismith]

Now that news (see "Developer update: wonders" on Civ3 official site) show how intricate the Specific abilities are with Wonders, Golden Age, etc. I see how difficult can be to keep in control all the interactions beetwen Abilities and all the relevant part

Firaxis is changing "on the road" Abilities of China to fit with the Great Wall to trigger the Golden Age.

I hope they are doing a great balancing job, because anything wrong can crash all the building

Another risk of this design (as happened in SMAC/SMACX) is that it limits the practice possibility to add/expand the original set of civ with new truly original and quite differentiate bunch, expensive to balance once more from scratch...

[Kc7mxo]

I disagree that this will add an "interesting" facet to the game. Because you will always know how civs will react. What point is there in that? A civs abilities should NOT BE RACE RELATED.

To implie that certain races are supior at certain things implies that we are all subspecies of humanity with different inherent abilties.

The special attributes firaxis is putting in are culturally based, work ethic, miliatrism, all relate to your cluture. And cultures change too friking fast to make this a foundational piece of the game.

And yes, I know we can turn it off. And I will. I just wish that they hadn't wasted time messing with this.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
And yes, I know we can turn it off. And I will. I just wish that they hadn't wasted time messing with this.

Firaxis doesn't add tons of new features to the old skeleton of Civ 2 IMHO; they added Unique units, Civ specific abilities (from SMAC), Golden Ages... missing all this will be a deep cut on half of innovations.

Give them a try; swithing off is a step near to the Big Off Swith of Always: don't buy the game

[Sandman]

I reckon your civ should gain 'skills' or 'traits' based on the actions and experiences of the player.

Your Babylonians start out with wisdom (instead of science) and polytheistic religion.

At the end of the game they could have skills like science, atheism, agriculture, guerrilla warfare, overseas trade and roadbuilding.

Building lots of roads gives the opportunity to learn roadbuilding, which the player may or may not accept.

There should be a maximum number of skills, so that the player must discard obselete ones.

And it should be possible to trade skills with other civs.

Unique units should reflect your skills- so a civ with tank warfare will be able to produce more sophisticated tanks than the other civs.

[Kc7mxo]

"""""""""""""""
Give them a try; swithing off is a step near to the Big Off Swith of Always: don't buy the game
"""""""""""""""

I may give it a try. The problem is that you're right. If this is the only addition they're making, why should I buy it? I may not. But one purchase more or less shouldn't hurt Firaxis.

But you know what I think is dumber than civ attributes? Great leaders. I don't need no stinking leader in my civ. He has the lifespan of what, three turns? Oh wait. Maybe he's immortal too! Wow. I hope he doesn't try a coup. ick.

One new concept I do like though, is the trade. It looks great! I hope it works as well as I hope.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
"""""""""""""""
Give them a try; swithing off is a step near to the Big Off Swith of Always: don't buy the game
"""""""""""""""

I may give it a try. The problem is that you're right. If this is the only addition they're making, why should I buy it? I may not. But one purchase more or less shouldn't hurt Firaxis.

But you know what I think is dumber than civ attributes? Great leaders. I don't need no stinking leader in my civ. He has the lifespan of what, three turns? Oh wait. Maybe he's immortal too! Wow. I hope he doesn't try a coup. ick.

One new concept I do like though, is the trade. It looks great! I hope it works as well as I hope.

LOL I too have an inherent, anticipatory dislike of the "great leaders". Not only is it unnecessary and unrealistc, and imho not much fun (another random quirk), but I also dislike the concept of personal glorification.

[Adm.Naismith]

I have a mixed feeling about Great People in Civ III.

If Firaxis cutted another option and limit them only to Great General for military purpose, my thumbs will probably show down (of course only playing the real game will prove me right or wrong).

If they are really extended the concept to Great people of Art, Science, Exploration, etc. I'm more optimist.
I'm not for personal glorification, but that's an old problem related to glorification of people still in their life, where politic power and showbiz often glorify the wrong person.

History usually clean up things a bit, so I'm confident we can have a list of great people of the past that own the right to be mentioned in Civ III