Ancient Times in Civilization

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

I was reading in another thread (forgotten which one), but it listed a few problems, and one was how fast the early stages of the game go by. Well, i thought I would do another thread, this one on that specific topic.

It is rediculous, that during the early stages of the game, meaning, ancient times, have to go so fast, I literally press SPACE BAR and ENTER (or RETURN) more then I play the actual game, again I say, Its rediculous!

It is a fact that humans have existed for now 6 melleniums (6 thousand years), and 4 out those 6 have taken place in B.C., yet when I play civilization, I go through it as fast as I would about 10 years in modern times!

Firaxis, this has got to change, the ancient era of civilizations is my favorite time (first is middle ages), and I wish to be able to enjoy it in civ3, in stead of rushing through it!

Well, thats all I have, anyone else have any comments?

[Optimizer]

Agreed! More ancient gameplay!

I agree. In a small map game, the time after 1850 AD makes about half of the turns. There is a lot more action in the late game, which makes it take even longer time.

Well, now I can expect the comment "If you want realism"... Shall we abbreviate that one IYWRPTTAD?

I am a realist, and I believe things can be done to make more out of the pre-industrial era. A radical idea could be to make all turns ten years before 1800 - five years after. To make this work, one could:
* make the default starting date 3000 BC
* reform movement system, so that exploring costs movement points
* insert realism by allowing a significant science/production boom in modern ages
* have more ancient techs, units and wonders
* increase the travel time to AC (or equivalent winning condition)

[joseph1944]

If they make the game to long, there will be the bunch of guys yelling their heads off. If they make the game to fast, there will be a bunch of guys yelling their heads off.
I'll said this a bunch of times, Firaxis can not win, no matter what they do someone will yell about it.
Yes it would be nice if the old days took a little longer. Something in Civ 2 depending on how you manage/make discovery, you can sometime build Musketeers before you can build Pikeman.
In CTP 2 w/WesW Mod the Ancient, and Middle ages are now quite long in term of game play. It take awhile to get through them.

[To_Serve_Man]

Boo! Hiss!


I am in great opposition to your views. The early part of the game (pre-Musketeer era) is VERY boring.
Like any good arguer, i'll give my reasons for my dislike of this part of the game:

- The Units are horrible. Slow moving, Low attack, slow to produce, many(in Civ2, i cant say this for Civ3) had bad graphics, some become obsolete in several turns, some have no function or use.
- No Diplomacy!
- No Strategy (Small number of cities/explored land/techs available)
- I cant build bridges
- No Economy
- Limited Naval 'Stuff'
- Huge waiting times (to irrigate, build mine, etc)
- Aquetducts

The only thing the early game has going for it is the small amount of micromanagement.

I guess the arguement is: Do we (the gaming community) want Civ3 to be a Story/Cinematic Game, or a game full of goals.
An example of a Story/Cinematic game is Europa Universalis, or Tropico, or SimCity/The Sims, were you can play some game, and tell good stories to your friends who play the game.
Example of a game full of goals would be: Age of Empires, (any RTS actually), First person shooters, Mario Bros.

I want Civ2 to be a Story/Cinematic game. When losing isnt as bad as it seems, its the stories that come from, the game that count, but I dont think the Early game (Pre-Musketeer era) has that ability.

[Optimizer]

Let's MAKE it fun then!

If you don't like the early game for those reasons, why don't think up ways to give it more action?

Diplomacy - IMO the map should be littered by civs in the beginning. You would not feel alone.

Strategy - you should be able to choose between a peaceful/warmongering path earlier in the game.

Economy - those Special Resources will affect even the early game.

Ships - I would really like improvements here! Ships should be earlier, faster and cheaper. From bronze age until railroads, ships should be the preferred means of transportation for coastal civs. If I get my hands on Civ 3, I will promise to make a modpack that favours sailing.

[hexagonian]

Part of the problem is that you start out with minimal things to do in the beginning - a settler and that's about it. You have to build from that point.

If you want to make the Ancient Age more important, then you need to fill out the tech tree with more advances, more units and more improvements. Simply stretching out the length of time from advance to advance will not ease the boredom, because you then have limited choices in what to build

Personally, I find the early game more interesting than the latter game, because if you manage your empire correctly, you never need to play out the Modern Age.

[Steve Clark]

Sheesh. If you want to make the Ancient Age (or whatever Age you prefer) longer with shorter time increments and an expanded tech tree, then build or play a scenario. Why do some folks here in this forum have no clue as to the power of scenarios and expect the main game to be everything?

The main game will and should be purposely vanilla. That will allow for creation of Ancient [or fill in the blank] Age scenarios with time going by month by month (if you wish) and a complete remake of the tech tree with every single unit and terrain customized (like what Kull did with his Ancient Age civ2 scenarios).

Why even bring up scenario-specific features for the main game?

end of

[Grumbold]

I'd be all for a 'fast start' option where your two starting settlers will create size 4 cities already containing temple, market place, granary and 1 pikeman. That cuts 60+ turns of tedium out of the beginning of the game right there even if you still have to research the techs to build those buildings and units anywhere else.

The early game diplomatic void can be filled in a number of ways. Minor nations were a big hope for a while but I'm beginning to worry that FIRAXIS have gone more for making the world a smaller place instead.

[tniem]

Originally posted by hexagonian
Personally, I find the early game more interesting than the latter game, because if you manage your empire correctly, you never need to play out the Modern Age.

Amen to that!

[meriadoc]

It's been awhile since I've played Civ2 (Diablo2 is my current interest) but I seem to remember that it had an accelerated startup option where you started with a few cities and advances. I'm sure that a similar option could be implemented into CivIII. However, would it be worth it? I know that if the option did exist in Civ2, I never used it, and probably because I never trusted the AI to put my cities where I wanted them. I am, afterall, approximately ten million, seven hundred sixty-five thousand, three hundred and two point seven times more intelligent than my computer.

Hold on please....
muffled scraping and fighting sounds in the background.... "get back in there".... "no I won't".... "I said, GET BACK IN THERE".... "ouch, stop, wait".... SLAM

Okay, I'm back. I had to take the egotistical side of me and put it back in it's place.

[To_Serve_Man]

Two things to say


First - Hey meriadoc, i live real close to you! Like a 2 minute drive! Thats neat.


Second - I'm all for making the Ancient (beging) time of Civ3 more fun. Its kinda like a see-saw, Begining of game, nothing to do 'cept press enter. End game, TOO much to do!

Personally, I find the early game more interesting than the latter game, because if you manage your empire correctly, you never need to play out the Modern Age

I agree that a correctly managed empire early on can help later on in the game and making it easier to win, but its still not fun.

[Your.Master]

Re: Ancient Times in Civilization

Originally posted by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto It is a fact that humans have existed for now 6 melleniums (6 thousand years)

Unless you believe a certain religion to the letter of it's generic holy text(s) or you have a very unorthodox alternate view on the origin of humans, the number is closer to 30 000 years. I'm not challenging religious beliefs or anything, but that's the number that evolutionists go by right now.

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Re: Re: Ancient Times in Civilization

Originally posted by Your.Master


Unless you believe a certain religion to the letter of it's generic holy text(s) or you have a very unorthodox alternate view on the origin of humans, the number is closer to 30 000 years. I'm not challenging religious beliefs or anything, but that's the number that evolutionists go by right now.

I am not an evolutionist, I am christian, I dont want to start another argument again about humans and how they originated, so I wont say anything except that I said 6 thousand years because that is what I believe, and I hope that every other christian does too, since that is what the bible teaches.

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Ways to make it funner

Here are at 3 easy ways to make ancient times (the beginning stages of the game) longer, and hopefully more enjoyable:

1. Enlargen the early stages of the tech tree.

2. shorten the years per turn from 20 to 15 or 10.

3. add more ancient units.

[Grumbold]

That on its own doesn't help if you still start with 1 settler and have to develop your first city which takes 10+ turns to produce anything. You still hit end turn over and over with - if you are lucky - one or two exploring units to move each time. To improve the beginning you need to begin with one or more developed cities while retaining the ability to pick for yourself the site they start on.