What should we know about the other CIV's?

[ember]

I was wondering what kind's of information we should be able to gather about the other civs in the game.

I thought SMAC gave excessive information, as much as knowing exact logistics and troop movements (well, maybe ok with spy sats, and computers, but not before)

CIV and CIV II gave absolutely abysmal amounts of information out. Infiltration of the enemy (at least for basic stuff) did not require a dedicated spy unit, you would just talk to the peasants you chased in the filed!.

At the very least you should know the composition of any stack in your units ZOC.

The basic geography of any civ you have trade with.

The basic sizes and improvements in any city you have a military presence near, a border near, or trade with or through.

The detail and accuracy (and timliness) should improve as the game progresses, maybe even reaching as high as SMAC levels for modern times.

For ancient times there should be chance that any piece of information is wrong. Some, such as exact pop, treasury size, unit experience should be given a random error (maybe in Gaussian distribution, for all you stats fans out there. That way you would have to double check any intelligence that is critical with a real spy.

[Wiglaf]

The detail and accuracy (and timliness) should improve as the game progresses, maybe even reaching as high as SMAC levels for modern times.

For ancient times there should be chance that any piece of information is wrong. Some, such as exact pop, treasury size, unit experience should be given a random error (maybe in Gaussian distribution, for all you stats fans out there. That way you would have to double check any intelligence that is critical with a real spy.

Civ, as a strategy game, has always been more of strategy, tactics, and diplomacy, and less of luck. Granted, battles are resolved with some chance, and faction leaders can be erratic.

So here stands Firaxis, not knowing what to do with recon. Personally, adding a luck element to what you know would be realistic, but might not be fun. If I attack a city because the game says it's weak, but it turns out strong, I'd feel pretty cheated.

Better than no recon at all, I guess. Still, the more sure and pure a strategy game is, the better.

[death_head]

I would consider that part of a strategy...Civilizations have risen and fallen based on weird, random events...

[Wiglaf]

The boardgame Axis and Allies is a bit hampered by the fact that it has die rolls to determine battle outcomes. Sure, some battles are won by a bit of chance, but not all of them, and not in that way. The same applies to civ3. If it wants to be a true wargame, it has to involve thinking, not luck.

[Dida]

The info you should be able to get about a foreign Civ, is
their # of cities, total pop size, total industrial output, total economic strength, and limited military info. , govt type, leadership style,

[Inverse Icarus]

in an earlier thread, i stated that i would like seperations of military branches, for example "we have a stronger navy" or "our airforce kicks their asses"

[Recurve]

If there's intelligence, there should by rights be counter-intelligence (spies can be turned).

New Wonders - MI6, CIA or KGB
New Units - Rubber Armor, Rubber Fighter (yes I am joking).

[Dida]

Originally posted by UberKruX
in an earlier thread, i stated that i would like seperations of military branches, for example "we have a stronger navy" or "our airforce kicks their asses"

yeah, military should be composed of four branches. Army, Navy, Air Force and Strategic Nuclear Forces.

[ember]

What really bothered me is the information you should have, like what an adjacent stack has in it. Maybe not the health bar levels (that would be subject to randomness), but at least the fact there is a phalanx along with that catapult, that would be painfully obvious to even the most ancient army. Same for the contents of a city. you ask the merchant in "does rome have a cathedral?" If you own teh city they trade in to make a living, they are going to tell you.

The randomness would never be enough to make a major city seem small, but would be more on the scale of, may not notice the phalanx is badly injured, or only count 2 phalanxes, when there really are 3. After engajing in a battle the info would get that much better.

[Dida]

with spy plane or spy satellite, you should be able to figure out what units are in a stack and what units are in a city.

[Dr Strangelove]

The amount of information you can get without reconnaisance should increase with time. During the ancient and medieval eras things should remain about the way that they are. It would be neat if whenever you encountered a civ in those eras you received a crude, stylized and nearly useless map of the region of the new civ. It would be nice if there was some way of having a random chance of receiving information about other civs' cities, forces and plans. I think that with the age of discovery the general outline of the map should be revealed. Perhaps one of the effects of Magellan's Expedition could be to reveal the general outlines of the 3 or 4 major oceans. The invention of advanced flight should allow every player to see the cities and geographic features of the whole map, since by the 1930s aerial cartogrphy had mapped virtually the entire globe. The Apollo space flight wonder should allow the construction of spy satellite networks, giving the owner the location of all units on the map.

[Urban Ranger]

IIRC, a player can send a diplomat (or spy) unit into a city to acquire information about it. However, IIRC, you don't get to retain that info, which seems to be silly.

I agree with the counter-intelligence idea. Enemy spies can be turned, fooled, or caught.