Randomizing Various Aspects

[TechWins]

I don't like your suggestions. What should really be done is to balance the races. Your solution is simply a short-cut to avoid balancing them. If everything is random, why even have races? Why not just have one civilization that has tons of options?

Ok what people don't want is to play against the same type of style from the same civ each game. This is being hypothetical: when people pick the English each game as an opponent they don't want them to play the same way each time. Meaning they don't want to see the English playing as a war hungry civ each game they would like to see them play as a war hungry civ one game then just as a peaceful expanionist the next game and so on. It's just to create some variety into each game.

Believe it or not, having unique civs will actually improve game replayability as long as it is balanced.

I disagree. Civ's motto is kind of to re-create history not to re-play out history the same way. Having civ-units can't be balanced out right if you don't have a civ-specific unti for each age. Which isn't possible with some of the civs that are included. I'm diffently glad Civ3 will have an option to not include civ-specific units.

[KoalaBear33]

NOTE: Everything I say here is for multiplayer only.

Originally posted by TechWins


Ok what people don't want is to play against the same type of style from the same civ each game. This is being hypothetical: when people pick the English each game as an opponent they don't want them to play the same way each time.

See this accomplishes nothing. What that will do is to make all the races the same and it will just be like as if there was only one race. I don't want that. If races were balanced then what people would do is to pick another race if they wanted something different.

What I am suggesting is something that is new to turn-based strategy games so I'm sure some of you won't like it. I think the best system is one that is used it RTS games (in particular Starcraft). In these games you have different races that are completely different. Each race is different and has its strengths and weaknesses. People pick a race based on what they like and what they are good at. There is a greater replayability and variety because you are guaranteed to meet all the races and the various strengths and weaknesses. Under your proposal, it won't matter what race you pick. It would be as if everyone was playing the same race.

I want the differences to be something more than cosmetic (ie. graphical). The only thing that needs to be done (under my scenario) is that balance must be ensured. The Zulu, for example, can be a formidable military (not sure what their real bonuses are) but as long as the Chinese can keep up (say in trade or something) then people will pick both. So basically the players will end up picking a race that suits their style of play and hence diversity will be ensured. You might think that military is the best for you and pick the Zulus but I might like building an empire through trade and will pick Chinese. On top of this, once you master a particular playing style (say military oriented), you will want to try out another style (say economic orientation). This basically means that you will choose another race this time around. Under your system, one won't see too much of a difference when they switch strategies and no one will have any incentive to play another race.

I disagree. Civ's motto is kind of to re-create history not to re-play out history the same way. Having civ-units can't be balanced out right if you don't have a civ-specific unti for each age. Which isn't possible with some of the civs that are included. I'm diffently glad Civ3 will have an option to not include civ-specific units.

I am not concerned about short periods of the game. As long as something is useful in the whole context of teh game, it will be balanced. For instance, the musketeers (haven't read up on which units are special; assume these are special for one race) might seem like they might not match the later units like the civ-specific tanks. But this doesn't matter. As long as the musketeers provide a huge bonus in mid-game, the person that uses them will be ahead by the time late-game rolls around (if you know what I mean).

After all, you are playing the WHOLE and not portions of it! So as long as the bonuses are reasonable and balanced it is all right. I think the system that you are proposing will be detrimental to online play. If strategy games are to move forward into online games, the systems must change. Longevity and replayability are key for online games. People will play a game 1 to 2 years and will want to have different experiences. If there was only "one race" as you are proposing, the game will dissapear after an year.

KoalaBear33

[TechWins]

I want the differences to be something more than cosmetic (ie. graphical). The only thing that needs to be done (under my scenario) is that balance must be ensured. The Zulu, for example, can be a formidable military (not sure what their real bonuses are) but as long as the Chinese can keep up (say in trade or something) then people will pick both. So basically the players will end up picking a race that suits their style of play and hence diversity will be ensured. You might think that military is the best for you and pick the Zulus but I might like building an empire through trade and will pick Chinese. On top of this, once you master a particular playing style (say military oriented), you will want to try out another style (say economic orientation). This basically means that you will choose another race this time around. Under your system, one won't see too much of a difference when they switch strategies and no one will have any incentive to play another race.

The personality of each Civ will be different. If the Mongols were to be in the game, they would have a militariastic point of view every game. With randomizing the personalities, the Mongols one game could be militariastic then the next an econonmistic point of view. This would leave players with not knowing what type of AI personalities there will be for each civ. Giving the game some sort of variety for each game.

I am not concerned about short periods of the game. As long as something is useful in the whole context of teh game, it will be balanced. For instance, the musketeers (haven't read up on which units are special; assume these are special for one race) might seem like they might not match the later units like the civ-specific tanks. But this doesn't matter. As long as the musketeers provide a huge bonus in mid-game, the person that uses them will be ahead by the time late-game rolls around (if you know what I mean).

It's not balanced to have a Civ get a bonus in a certain part of the game. Each civ should be at equal terms for capabilities throughout the whole game. There can be no balanced system put in place for Civ3.

[KoalaBear33]

Originally posted by TechWins


The personality of each Civ will be different. If the Mongols were to be in the game, they would have a militariastic point of view every game. With randomizing the personalities, the Mongols one game could be militariastic then the next an econonmistic point of view. This would leave players with not knowing what type of AI personalities there will be for each civ. Giving the game some sort of variety for each game.

You will only have the same variety if you keep picking the same race over and over again. Besides I still don't see how you can improve variety except in any meaningful manner. That is, if there are 4 races in a game then you will have 4 types of personalities. What you are asking for is kind of like trying to have multiples of the same races. This diminishes the uniqueness of the game IMO. The other thing is that certain combinations can useless (eg. say a military oriented race gets a trade oriented personality)--but this is a minor thing IMO.

It's not balanced to have a Civ get a bonus in a certain part of the game. Each civ should be at equal terms for capabilities throughout the whole game.

Balance does not mean that things have to be identical! If races get bonuses that apply to certain time periods it doesn't necessarily mean it is imbalanced. As long as the aggregate impact is the same for all the races over the whole game then it is balanced.

There is no reason why something has to apply throughout the whole game. In fact, having time specific bonuses can significantly improve gameply. For example, if there is a race that is good at mid-game then you would have to try outwitting that race in early game or try to prolong the game to late stages. So basically you don't wnat to mess around with that race in mid-game. If you were the one playing that race then you would try to leverage your strength during the mid-game. Doesn't this increase more strategy than a system where everyone gets their civ-specific units in late game or something like that?

KoalaBear33

[polypheus]

The suggestion to randomize the assignment of Civ-specific units and AI personalities is primarily geared towards single player games. It would adds much to replayability to have many aspects unknown at the beginning of the game and revealed later in the game.

At least for me, I don't want to know at the very beginning of the game what kind of specific units or personalities a Civ possesses but instead I prefer to find out as the game progresses. Randomizing their assignments should take little work to implement and is a very good way to increase gameplay and replayability in the single player game.

Admittedly this may not work as well in multi-player games for some. But in that case, those randomizing options could be turned off for those who feel don't prefer it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KoalaBear33
I don't like your suggestions. What should really be done is to balance the races. Your solution is simply a short-cut to avoid balancing them. If everything is random, why even have races? Why not just have one civilization that has tons of options?

The real problem with online games is when everyone starts doing the same thing. I guess this is why you want randomized things. This way at least everyone won't pick the same race. Even then, this doesn't solve anything IMO. If one strategy or tactic is dominating then everyone would go for that anyway. So the only real solution is to balance things properly. Balancing strategy games is tough (just like RPG games) but if online success is to be achieved balance is paramount. Believe it or not, having unique civs will actually improve game replayability as long as it is balanced.



KoalaBear33

Ah hah - just as i predicted - once we have civ specific units, people will start talking about "races" (like they do with all the RTS's) instead of civs.

Grumpy old guy policing the language.
LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KoalaBear33
NOTE: Everything I say here is for multiplayer only.



See this accomplishes nothing. What that will do is to make all the races the same and it will just be like as if there was only one race. I don't want that.

In the SP games i play there is only one race - the human race. people settle in different places, their rulers make different strategic decisions, and through the course of history they develop into different civilizations.


Go ahead - call me politically correct - I dont care.
LOTM

[KoalaBear33]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

In the SP games i play there is only one race - the human race. people settle in different places, their rulers make different strategic decisions, and through the course of history they develop into different civilizations.

Yeah I'm used to using RTS terminology. Anyway, there ARE races in Civilization. The Iroquois, Indians, Zulu, etc are all different races. But you are right in saying that we should call them civilizations (all the Europen civilizations are the same race)...

KoalaBear33

[KoalaBear33]

My main concern is multiplayer. I have never played a strategy game online so I don't know how good/fun it will be. If your concern is single player then I don't have a problem with randomization. Having an option in single player is all right with me...

KoalaBear33

[Grumbold]

The whole beauty of Civ is that you all have the same potential, it is what you do in the game that crafts your civilisation. What's fundamentally different about the Indians and the Iroqois in 4,000 BC that will dictate their potential in the future? Nothing. Just because Civ 3 are giving the nations a historical leader each should not rigidly fix those nations into always behaving like they did under that one particular leader historically. I really don't understand where you are coming from, Koala.

[TechWins]

The suggestion to randomize the assignment of Civ-specific units and AI personalities is primarily geared towards single player games. It would adds much to replayability to have many aspects unknown at the beginning of the game and revealed later in the game.

This is what I'm trying to get Koalabear to understand. I guess he doesn't quite understand what we mean.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KoalaBear33


Yeah I'm used to using RTS terminology. Anyway, there ARE races in Civilization. The Iroquois, Indians, Zulu, etc are all different races. But you are right in saying that we should call them civilizations (all the Europen civilizations are the same race)...

KoalaBear33

No the indians are not a race - they include dark skinned native peoples in the south, lighter peoples from the northern mountains, (pardon me for privileging skin color as a marker for race, despite anthropoligists preference for blood type, etc) and various invaders, afgans, mongols, persians, etc in historic times.
They are a CIV, not a race.

Zulus are one cultural/linguistic group that developed a state in the 18th c, among black africans. While of bantu language, they may have absorbed khoisan elements.

Iroquis were a confederation of tribes, all american indians. ultimate "racial" origins of amerindians a matter of dispute.

"race" is a very questionable category in social science today. I prefer civ.


and no, the fault is not yours. It is the inevitablle reult of civ speicifc units


LOTM