I think a progressive change is best.

[Provost Harrison]

I think I mentioned this in another thread. Too many people are expecting a complete and utter overhaul of Civ2. But the changes from Civ to Civ2 were subtle, and included more of an extension of the game, not a change of the central game mechanisms. And improvements on user interface and graphics. So what are people expecting either? Are people just being malcontents, and are never going to be happy with what they get? If they change and mess with it too much, you will get another CtP, and there are a lot of people who don't want that. Subtle, well calculated changes are in order, ie, combat system, trade, diplomacy, etc. Not basic fundamentals of the game.

[Sean]

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree Provost. Give me the game I love, but with more/better features, and without the annoying elements of previous versions (within reason of course).

Though one worrys that we might all just get bored of the civ model....Highly unlikely

[Provost Harrison]

Well this is it, it needs invigoration, not overhaul. Civ2 was invigoration, not overhaul. And because of it, Civ2 was a better game than Civ1. And I don't say that lightly as I played Civ1 for many, many years before Civ2 came out in 96.

[Paul L]

Well we already know that there won't be a complete overhaul.

Still the changes between civ3 and civ2 will be bigger than between 2 & 1. Culture/borders/resources are completely new concepts while the only new concept introduced in civ2 was 'reputation' with hasn't much impact anyway.

[Grumbold]

I think people expect more because, as well as the long time gap, they see the genre as including other games. So rather than Civ I - II - III it has been Civ I - Civ II - CtP - SMAC - CtP2 - Civ III. Now there is certainly no way to force them to put in all of the good ideas that the other games premiered, but equally they should not be completely ignored as if they have nothing to do with Civ. It is foolish to ignore a step forward because it wasn't introduced by a "true" Civ game. The others had no compunction about borrowing the best the Civ series had to offer. Underneath it all there will still be the settler founding cities and scientists pushing you up the tech tree from barbarian to space age democrat.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Paul L
Well we already know that there won't be a complete overhaul.

Still the changes between civ3 and civ2 will be bigger than between 2 & 1. Culture/borders/resources are completely new concepts while the only new concept introduced in civ2 was 'reputation' with hasn't much impact anyway.

Sorry, "reputation" as the only new concept? Probably my "memory fault" erase some Civ 1 features, because I don't remember so

Feel free to correct me; it seems to me that some new concepts added in Civ2 where:

- Trades and goods market
- Units "strenght bar" and damaged unit concept added
- Unit "morale" rookie/veteran status gained in battle or by barracks
- Quite different rules for road and railroad effect
- Different Wonders effects and limits
- Different graphic model, flat vs isometric (but I can agree it's not necessary a different game concept)

I agree with you Civ III doesn't seem so far a main overhaul, and I'm afraid it will be a great miss: my opinion is you can already see the consequence on E3 and previewers opinion, where they mostly seems to ignore and dismiss Civ III as a minor sequel.

I bet only a very limited players population will note the game: I still hope we will enjoy it, but mass market will look to others, most "state of the art" game.

I own a car I enjoyed a lot, but now it's becoming old and I'm looking for a replacement. I liked the company of my current car but, guess what? They have the same model of car, just tweaked for the fourth time. Enhanced? No, aged!

What was very good 6 years ago is out of standard now, no matter how much you can modify the original model: you must start from scratch, with a new design.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Paul L
Well we already know that there won't be a complete overhaul.

Still the changes between civ3 and civ2 will be bigger than between 2 & 1. Culture/borders/resources are completely new concepts while the only new concept introduced in civ2 was 'reputation' with hasn't much impact anyway.

Actually the initial concept of borders was featured in SMAC. They will use some of the concepts of this I would expect, especially the nature of upgrades which would be a good idea (you pay for military upgrades in cash). So it maybe a bigger jump than from civ1 to civ2, but remember it isn't purely a jump from civ2 to civ3, there has been SMAC, and all they have learnt from that, in the middle.

[Paul L]

Feel free to correct me; it seems to me that some new concepts added in Civ2 where:

- Trades and goods market

yes, but trade remained the same as in civ1 in principle, but that's may be because I didn't take the commodities into account (only important for the one-time-bonus)

- Units "strenght bar" and damaged unit concept added

forgot about that, although it was merely a solution for the phalanx/battleship problem and didn't change combat too much

- Unit "morale" rookie/veteran status gained in battle or by barracks

that was also in civ1

- Quite different rules for road and railroad effect

again not that much different, but I was glad I didn't have to build railroads everywere around my cities

- Different Wonders effects and limits

not a new concept i my idea

- Different graphic model, flat vs isometric (but I can agree it's not necessary a different game concept)

I agree not a different game concept


so, compared to the cultere, borders, resources, trade we will have in civ3 (and possibly a new combat model en minor civs???) not that much was changed in civ2

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith
Feel free to correct me; it seems to me that some new concepts added in Civ2 where:

- Trades and goods market
- Units "strenght bar" and damaged unit concept added
- Unit "morale" rookie/veteran status gained in battle or by barracks
- Quite different rules for road and railroad effect
- Different Wonders effects and limits
- Different graphic model, flat vs isometric (but I can agree it's not necessary a different game concept)

The strength bar and morale upgrades are two facets of the same idea: upgraded combat system. The main problem was still there: 10 tanks should be able to take a city where a single mech inf is defending. They couldn't because Civ I&II didn't take account of the increase in attacking power which joint action can have. Civ III does.

The roads, railroads and Wonders changes were all tweaks on the original plan. Now, 24 minor Wonders have been introduced, a completely new category, while there are only 12 "old-school" Wonders.

The misnamed "isometric" view makes no difference whatsoever to gameplay. None. All it does is rotate the axes 45 degrees.

The commodities market in Civ II was just a tweak. You still built caravans and sent them to enemy cities; you just sent them to whichever one your trade advisor told you would give the biggest bonus. In Civ III, there aren't any caravans. Trade is even more important, unless you want to face your generic warriors against iron-requiring swordsmen. Colonies: Gotta love 'em.

I agree that Civ III didn't come up with the border system, but this is still a change which removes one of the major annoyances of Civ II: when the AI planted cities right beside mine. I hope that the "creeping border problem" from SMAC is resolved. This problem is what allowed the strategy of pushing your neighbors' borders further and further back by building a city just on your side of the frontier. Hopefully a peace treaty will fix borders.

One word: culture. I play peaceful and perfectionist, and I think that such a playing strategy should be rewarded. The game's called "Civilization" and not "The Golden Horde". Also, it's been consistently shown throughout history how difficult it is to subdue a hostile nation. People have long memories.

Oh yeah. Eye candy. Fully animated 3-D units. Beautiful, classical style maps. Animated leaders. Nice city views. Sid's face on my advisor screen. Animated leaders.

Finally, Civ III is multiplayer by multiple methods right out of the box. I never MPed because I would have had to buy MGE separately. I couldn't play half of the scenarios out there because they required Fantastic Worlds or Test of Time. Two free scenarios? Give me a break. We're getting a dozen this time around. We may or may not be able to play 16 players on the same map. Civ I&II were virtually identical. Civ III is based on the same concept, but has been significantly altered, in my opinion.

[TechWins]

What was very good 6 years ago is out of standard now, no matter how much you can modify the original model: you must start from scratch, with a new design.

You better tell the car compaines that still make and SELL the same great car model from over 40 years ago.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

What changes would I like to see

For my part, I don't neccesarily want a radical departure from the Civ model. That said, however, there are a couple of features which, if added, would make my enjoyment of Civ III absolutely COMPLETE. These are (aside from those which are already being included):

1) A much improved combat model featuring the following aspects;
a) Simultaneous combat between multiple units (ie. true army combat).
b) A combat engine which accounts for the effects of terrain, weapon/target range and unit speed on combat.
c) A model which factors the effect of distance and time away from home-ground on unit morale/attrition.

2) A real "sense" of interaction between an empire and its citizens (eg. better civil war/revolution model and a chance for parts of your society to attempt to "block" your attempts to study certain techs; build certain improvements; sign certain treaties and start certain wars.)

Anyway, not a really long list, is it?

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by TechWins


You better tell the car compaines that still make and SELL the same great car model from over 40 years ago.

I beg your pardon, sir: wich car model are you mentioning? (bar from any Collectionist model, that - by itself - doesn't count).

I don't pretend to be a great expert of car, but I can't really remember any example of car same model of 'sixties (here in Italy, at least).

But I'll like to see any opinion about my note:

I agree with you Civ III doesn't seem so far a main overhaul, and I'm afraid it will be a great miss: my opinion is you can already see the consequence on E3 and previewers opinion, where they mostly seems to ignore and dismiss Civ III as a minor sequel.

Looking at recent E3 Apolyton news I feel bad taste: more and more the turn base strategy is ignored, the RTS seems to be the only product line able to attract reviewers and (mass) players attention.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Sorry guys, I forgot to mention a third thing I'd like to see:

3) A Movement Point allowance system that takes into account the length (in years) of a turn.
i.e. At the beginning of the game, units should have much higher MP's, but this should come down over time!

Thanks for listening.

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[TechWins]

I can't really remember any example of car same model of 'sixties

Well, here's one the Ford Mustang. Yeah it has changed a lot from the first model till now, but if you look at the changes from year to year there aren't many differences just improvements each year which has lead to the newest model. It's like Civ if you look at the changes from Civ to Civ2 you can find some but not a lot it's same way with Civ2 to Civ3. If you look at the differences between Civ to Civ3 you can find many.

[polypheus]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
Sorry guys, I forgot to mention a third thing I'd like to see:

3) A Movement Point allowance system that takes into account the length (in years) of a turn.
i.e. At the beginning of the game, units should have much higher MP's, but this should come down over time!

Thanks for listening.

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

Your idea is not good because this would achieve greater "literal realism" but would sacrifice "historic realism".

If at the beginning of the game, units had much higher MPs, than it would be possible for empires to grow and expand and explore enormous distances and also fight enemies at enormous distances that simply defy historical and common sense!

With greater MPs at the beginning of the game, it would be possible to create the equivalent of the British Empire or have geographical knowledge of the world of the 1800s in only 500BC!

But with MPs the way they are now and with turn rates the way they are now, the overall historic progress of the Civ3 world is much more realistic even if literal movement rates are not.

Please do not confuse "literalism" with "realism". (Please read my rant "Literalism vs Realism" if you want a more detailed explanation.)