Check "The List" Against the Game!: Volunteers Needed (All of Poly Welcome)

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
I just don't see why he's so eager to take credit for a game he's crusading against.

well, if you remember, yin is sid

[Sarxis]

Geezuz!! I finally read that list, and all I have to say is:

Good luck! I hope this religious crusade of yours has a point.

[Faboba]

BORDERS
-Summarized by Yin-
namk26@hotmail.com

1. DIPLOMACY TOP

Looking at the responses, there can be little doubt that gamers want borders to be negotiable. In short, borders should reflect complex diplomatic relations.

1.1) FIXING BORDERS: "There needs to be a provision for fixing the borders diplomatically so the constant land-grabbing isn't possible. This should only be possible in relatively modern times, as borders should get more and more fixed as time and technology move forward" (Bell).

1.2) SEA YOU SEA ME: "Perhaps a passing of a 'Law of the Sea' type resolution would automatically grant all nations a 200 mile control of the seas around their nation, say 2-3 squares surrounding any land square in their nation" (NotLikeTea).

1.3) PEACE and WAR: "When you have peace, the borders are automatically sealed between your two countries. No one may gain territory of the other side. Non-aggression will automatically cause a 'Border region' when both countries have ANY sort of claim on that area (in the 8 square part of every nation), while the 3 square radius of a city production always stays in the older city owner hands. The border region is a dead area, none may enter it or build upon it. In war, it's all game along the border line" (Harel).

1.3a) War? Only if you're caught: "I don't think entering enemy territory should be a declaration of war; I think being spotted in enemy territory should be a declaration of war. Otherwise there's no sneak attacks. Which brings me back to the ever observant armed border guards . . ." (Bell).

1.3b) Perhaps only special units can cross without being seen?: "You can't enter a nation with a legion and NOT be noticed. Entering an enemy space with a normal unit will cause war. For sneak attacks, use sneak units: spies, guerrilla-type units" (Harel).

1.3c) Well, we should be era specific and add the element of chance: "In the days of yore, you could easily move in and silence the local populace without alerting the country's military or leadership. As late as the mid 1800's you could land a large army and keep it from being officially noticed until it attacked. Maybe if there was a random chance every turn you across the border that your unit would be discovered?" (Bell).

1.4) BORDERS AS A NEGOTIABLE COMMODITY: "I think borders should be another bargaining tool. In the diplomat screen you should be able to move the boards around and offer the new arrangement to the other civilization. (i.e. you move the border) so you have more land (maybe including a city or two) in exchange for something" (Blue Waldo).

1.4a) Land, therefore, a commodity: "Allow buying, selling, and trading individual pieces of land. This would allow simulation of: The Louisiana Purchase, The Gadsden Purchase, The Polish Corridor, The Alaska Purchase, etc." (HolyWarrior).

1.4b) And the cities on that land…:"I believe there should be the ability to buy land and cities from other civilizations and sell it as well…maybe even set up an auction of sort for the cities…You should be able to enter into diplomatic talks and set new borders; these might, or might not, include cities" (Cartagia the Great).

1.5) AIR DIPLOMACY: "I think that borders should also extend to air units. That means that you aren't allowed to fly through another civilization's territory without an alliance or permission from them" (Mo).

1.6) PARTITIONING: "This would be a temporary alliance between two or more nations that would be used to divide up another civilization. Under the agreement each would set up borders in this new civilization representing what they wish to take. Then there would be a temporary alliance between the nations as each went to grab these cities" (Cartagia the Great).

1.7) EXPLORATION: "…borders resulting from exploration of a territory. Any foreign military unit crossing them should be considered as an act of war. That also would help the diplomatic contacts: Instead of bringing your diplomats to a city, you should open negotiations when it touches the border. Any other diplomat incursion should be considered as a spying act" (parclet).

1.1 I think has been adopted but theres been no confirmation I can see. It seems unlikely, however that two nations in a peace treaty will culturally score terriroty from each other. The phrase "mutally respected borders" springs to mind.

1.2 From all I've seen this has been ignored ( and I can't say I blame them..... don't like the idea )

1.3 I think in parts thats been adopted, in parts ignored.

1.4 I'm pretty sure this has not been adopted however the commodities within borders and the cities themselves are negotiable ( as possibly are colonies )

1.5 Air units now no longer move as before so you won't have them passing through anyone elses borders.

1.6 I'm pretty sure this has been ignored - it's much to complicated though and interesting idea.

1.7 As borders are not far from cities it is possible this has in fact been adopted, careful examination of the game will be required and that will have to wait till an Ap gets a copy.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
Probably every idea a tbs game designer could possibly think of has at some point been mentioned on this forum. This doesn't necessarily imply that every thing the Firaxians come up with is copied from Apolyton.

To some extent, I really agree with you. The list is (was) so full of suggestions pulling the game in every conceable direction that is very difficult not find something that apply to the final game.

Hell, I should simply list the Civ II features and find so many are still the same... Call it a conservative sequel or whatsoever.

OTOH, a similar thread already started months ago, about the shorter "Essential Civ III (improvement) List".
It seems a more feasible task to build on that, but again I'll wait to see the game working for real before guessing.

Also already confirmed detail about the game let me in doubt... call it over lacking trust

P.S. About Yin26
The man is not a "flat" one IMHO. He has many dimension and facets: as a diamond you can turn him and see flare of different colours as some dark inclusion who probably make him not perfect. His wife made a choice that must be reckon as brave to said the least

But we already learn how strong where and are Korean people, do we Yin?

[Faboba]

2. ARMED BORDERS TOP

In keeping with the spirit of giving borders more meaning, players debated the idea of arming their borders:

2.1) BORDER TROOPS: "You should be able (for a cost) to monitor borders with a small detachment of troops. These troops don't show up on the screen but function as spotters and maybe a tripwire force that can cause minor damage to an enemy unit crossing the border. On the turn after the border has been breached at a certain square, though, it returns to a normal border and units can pass without harm. That part of the border will not 're-arm' until all enemy units are out of your territory. Also, to keep people from overusing armed borders, in addition to the cost there is a random chance (that increases as time passes) of one of your troops taking some pot shots across the fence and causing a diplomatic incident. The effects of this depend on your diplomatic relationship with the other country, ranging from a slight hit to relations to the beginning of a war" (Bell).

2.1a) But is that redundant?: "I succeed in doing the same thing by building a fort and sticking a unit there. That protects three squares. One problem that I see is deciding who gets what square when arguing with an AI civilization. If only one square is overlapped by two opposing civilizations, who gets it? Is that area declared 'No-Man's Land'?" (CormacMacArt).

2.1b) Redundant?: "This allows you to watchdog your entire border without tying up your troops or sending them out of your cities (and thus making your people unhappy). Also, there's no ZOC involved in them, and there isn't a full-scale battle involved if someone tries to enter your empire. Think of it as a cheaper, weaker, automated way of posting a unit and fortress every three squares around your border" (Bell). [Working in Korea, I've seen the importance of a DMZ as a means both of deterrence and potential diplomatic disaster. Such situations would add great depth to the game. (Yin).]

2.1 confirmed - border troops are in the game and so still are forts. Troops may be instructed to control borders while forts, with their greater than normal ( or like Civ 2 ) zones of control allow for important locations to be controlled and prevent enemy units from passing.

3. GOVERNMENTS/TECHNOLOGY AND BORDERS TOP

3.1) GOVERNMENT DETERMINES BORDER BEHAVIOR: "At the beginning of the game, you have Ancient government types. There are no borders under these governments. Next, you move to Medieval governments. These introduce borders, but they are similar to the ones in SMAC and are thus fairly flexible. It is possible to fix borders between two civilizations with at least Medieval-level governments, but they will still move when a city is taken. Also, you can appropriate a square of territory by moving a military unit over the border and giving it a conquer order. You can not arm borders under these governments, but you can order intruders to leave, like in SMAC. Finally, Republic, Democracy, Marxist, Fundamentalist, and Fascist governments are considered Modern. Under these governments, borders are flexible only when they would extend into unclaimed territory (by the time you reach these governments, your borders with other civilizations should be fairly well defended anyway). You can not conquer individual squares under these governments, but taking a city still moves the borders. You can also arm your borders although this incurs a slight diplomatic penalty. For any border between two civilizations with different levels of government type, the more advanced one takes precedence in the stability of borders. However, no matter what the government on the other side of the border is, only Medieval governments can conquer territory, and only Modern governments can arm borders" (Bell).

3.1a) Another vote for borders by era:

· Ancient: 3 squares land 1 sea.
· Renaissance: 5 land 2 sea.
· Modern: 7 land 3 sea (ember).

3.1b) A bit more detailed: "What happens to cities from different nations that are only 6 squares apart (a perfectly allowable distance for the 'ancient' distances) when the period changes? One possible solution would be for those borders to remain in place, while only uncontested borders would be allowed to expand. Another question is whether an advance or time triggers the border expansion, and whether it applies to all civilizations at the same time, or civilization by civilization as the technology is discovered. IMO, it should be triggered by an advance and be based on a civilization to civilization basis. The first civilization to discover the advance, be it radio or telescope or whatever, should have the benefit of having their borders expand first" (mhistbuff).

3.1c) Are borders possible before Map-Making?: "It would make it a lot easier to discuss borders in diplomatic relations..." (NotLikeTea).

3.1d) Border Tech a "Red Herring"?: "In the early game, nobody is going to care if there are somewhat overlapping borders at the outskirts. When it really matters, they will become important and the technology will be there. That is, unless you 'grab' too much and tick off your neighbors. This conflict is fun."

3.2) WHAT CAUSES BORDER SHIFTS IN THE MODERN ERA?: "(1) Wars, and capturing territories, (2) Diplomacy, trading land for peace, dividing up a conquered territory among victors, (3) Civil wars, and (4) Merging of states. Only #1 is present in SMAC, with a slight version of #2 (giving up a colony for a cease-fire). #3 and #4 are the most important these days, and are totally un-represented in any CIVILIZATION game" (NotLikeTea).

3.3) SEA BASES ALL AROUND?: "An inland base/city could not, at least in olden times, control the sea, since it would not be able to get any ships out in case of aggression. So, how about, until the advent of advanced diplomatic relations, only coastal cities could control sea borders? If you want to be REALLY strict, you could restrict it further - in Ancient times, only coastal bases with a port could control sea borders" (Chowlett).

3.3a) A different take: "In SMAC, land and sea borders were considered separate. This is bogus. All cities had control of offshore waters even in ancient times. A city's radius is the same, regardless of land or sea" (HolyWarrior).

3.1 Confirmed negative. Borders are the same irrespective of government ( we're not sure about anarchy as far as I know but I think it will still be the same - there's no editor option to change border size )

3.2 I think this point is mostly in. You can trade cities, thereby borders. You can get more land through warfare, you can "merge" states by the peaceful assimilation of low culture cities and I'll bet that civil wars are in it like they were before ( or BETTER ) and this will obviously lead to a border change.

3.3 Again borders are not known to change depending on what techs the civ has so even if there are sea borders ( which asaik there aren't ) then they will not change when later in the game you have more refined dimplomatic options ( which asaik you don't get anway - it's the same throughout with the exception of before you have writing and before you have an ambassy )

[Faboba]

4. BORDERS AND TERRAIN TOP

4.1) GO WITH THE FLOW: "How about having borders conform to terrain features, i.e. rivers and mountain ranges? These natural barriers are things that are defensible by the 'armed border' guards as suggested by Bell. For example, when you build a city/fortress/outpost in a valley, you gain claim to that whole area (within reason). In order to gain more land on the other side of the river, you have to build a settlement on that side" (russellw).

4.1a) Conforming to the landscape: (assuming that the border is with unclaimed space.) "A city will establish borders in an 8 square radius around it on a featureless plain. The smallest a radius can be is 3 squares. No matter what terrain is within three squares, it is claimed by that city. Between 3 and 8 squares, a border will conform to a river that exits the 8 square radius. So, if a river is 4 squares away, your territory will stop at that river. The same goes for mountain ranges. The first square or line of mountains within 8 squares is inside your territory, but beyond that, it's free land. Borders also extend into the sea for 2 squares off the coast (or bombardment range, if it is over 2 squares.) A sea border can not be armed, but trespassing is handled just like a land border. Sea borders extend from any piece of land you have claimed. No other land types have an impact on borders" (Bell).

4.2) OCEAN BORDERS-A WEAK LINK?: "How many times have I built a fleet, sailed it into the heart of a rival empire and right up to their capital and blown them away? No reaction from the target civilization as I deploy, even though the assault force (particularly the carriers and transports) is extremely vulnerable. Need to fix this, even though it will mean giving up a pet tactic" (Alexander's Horse).

5. A MODEST PROPOSAL TOP

5a) Cities, forts, or airfields should mark Borders.

5b) You should be told when any unit crosses your border.

5c) You should be able to have a border guard, like the Canadian Mounties, that can act as spies on passing units and help you see a few blocks past your border.

5d) Borders should be locked from change between nations at peace or when allied unless a specific diplomatic deal is made.

5e) Borders should start from Day 1. Even ancient civilizations knew when they were crossing into foreign territory.

5f) The borders should be visible by outlines in your nation's color, and should be able to be turned off/on like the map grid. (reddawg151)

6. BORDERS AND SCENARIO PLAY TOP

6a) "If you play Germany in WW2, you want to have your real borders" (crusher).

4.1 As best we know borders on land are irrespective of terrain type and are halted by sea. It is however unlikely that anyone will have claim to the middle of a large range of mountains as cities can no longer be built there, so if the old europe map is copied exactly that big lot of mountains being the himilayas will be unclaimed in the centre ( you can probably build colonies in the mountains though to represent mining colonies. This is realistic as there are many example of people mining for gold in mountains in a mining colony and then bringing it back via road to the city. )

4.2 Again afaik there are no sea-borders so the rest of Horse' point falls under the AI ( which section I left out as we know NOTHING about it.

5a and 5f are confirmed - Borders are shown in the civs colour on the map ( the whole civ's terriroty for that matter ) and it is cities which effect borders ( but cities alone afaik. Colonies don't so why should forts and as it's culture and forts have no culture....... )

As for 5e the first borders will have appeared at the latest 10 turns into the game ( palaces generate I cp/turn and it's highly unlikely that NO ONE will build where they start. )

5d - Borders are locked by peace treaty in that they cannot be conquered while still at peace but borders can change because of culture ( not sure if this is for a city you are not-affiliated with or if you can assmilate those you are at peace with. Despite my comments further up the page thinking about it now I realise probably the later )

5b - Not be confirmed or denied afaik but probably not ( it's silly really - you have to see it to know it but you'll probably have units watching your borders ANYWAY )

5c - Well you CAN tell units to patrol the border so.......

[Simpleton]

It would be interesting to see the percentage of things Firaxis did include from this list. I guess it could do one of three things: 1) Be high and make a lot of people happy. 2) be average and please/displease no one. 3) Be low and cause anger!
If I had to predict it would be (2) average but that's just a guess.

[campmajor!]

Is this really important? The List was so big I didn't bother to fully read it. I am sure Firaxis was smart enough to do read it thoroughly. That is why it took so long to make civ3!

But the List was most of the times trying to capture real life in civ. Though that would make it more realistic, it would also make it much less fun....

The most important thing now is: Did Firaxis make it fun? Were the additions they did include fun?

I believe it will be an improvement over civ2. Because of the new concepts it will provide a new challenge. But until I have actually played civ3 I will not give my final judgement over civ3.

[yin26]

His wife made a choice that must be reckon as brave to said the least

LOL! I don't think a day goes by when she doesn't wake up and wonder: "Lord...what have I done!?"

Faboba: I really appreciate your detective work! Please don't get bored too fast.

Let me be clear: This is not some 'religous crusade' for God's sake. A heck of a whole lot of people put in ideas on this thing. It was WORK, people: WORK.

Nobody involved would ever jump up and say: "I personally made Civ3 better!" And though I often get accused of supposedly trying to say that, I remind you: A strong collective effort was made here...and it's just awfully interesting to see how much our ideas then are reflected in the final product.

AND DID I EVER SAY THAT FIRAXIS DIDN'T COME UP WITH MOST OF THESE IDEAS ON THEIR OWN? Lord. Give me some credit. Whether they came up with them independently or not, it will be fun to see how much of what the fans were thinking back then are reflected in the game.

If you were not involved in that process so feel this is somehow not relevant to you, I'd respectfully disagree since the PROCESS of trying to give ideas to Firaxis certainly ain't over. If you are at all interested in seeing this or that in an x-pack or a new game from Firaxis in the future...you'll get a sense of a bit of what that might entail.

Also, and I must stress this: There were just general threads that clearly caught the eye of Firaxis...there was the 'Essential List' that also had a big impact...there were other forums...and there were the people at Firaxis ultimately making the game with or without us.

But it's the 'with' us part that I find interesting. And I stand by the title of that list: "If only two ideas..."

Finally:

Is this really important?

Is Civ3 really important? Not really. It's just a game. Are ANY of these threads really important. NO. But if you come here for the sake of a game, a thread such is this is certainly important to the people who were involved and likely even to many who are being exposed to it for the first time.

However, if all this bores your or if you doubt my whatever you doubt...then there are plenty of other threads on this board. Feel free to ignore this entirely.

And just one last thing:

I just don't see why he's so eager to take credit for a game he's crusading against.

If you can still misunderstand me after all that I wrote above, I suppose there aren't enough words in the language to convince you otherwise.

[Nikolai]

Religion and SE is definately out(sad, as those topics was my favourite readings! ).

I can't post all that, since I if I did, would be banned ASAP!

2. THE CHEAT MENU AND GAME SECURITY
And right behind all the free information we can get through the above things, there is always the cheat menu. Most people love the cheat menu, and nobody really wants it eliminated. However, better security is needed. Here are the issues that were raised:
2.1) Password protection on multiplayer was a great idea. But if you use the scenario menu and flag the scenario option, you can then use the cheat menu to view the board, or even change the rules. Some people have been saving the game, and then loading it onto a second computer so they can view the whole world while playing a multiplayer game. Why not offer the same protection? If you want to use the scenario options, have it check to see if there are any passwords. This won't stop designers from doing what they want, but it would stop the blatant cheating.
2.2) The next point is one you can't probably do anything about, but most people brought it up. The reloading of a game to avoid and replay a "bad event" is always discussed. It's ok that you can do this, because many people do it. But, is there some way a "no cheat" option can be selected at the start of the game that would not allow reloading? Again, it is probably impossible, but many people would like to see this option. Another suggestion was to use a random number generator that would set things up a few turns in advance. Many games use this feature. It limits the advantage of resetting until the desired results occur.
2.3) The cheat menu is nice. And it's really nice that if you use it, it is recorded in the game. But most people just go to cheat, look at the map or whatever, and then reload the game so it isn't recorded. Again, probably impossible to do, but anything that would even make this harder to do would help.
2.4) The password coding is too easy to break. Several people have come up with ways to read or cancel them.

AFAIK, none of these is confirmed(I think the cheat menu is removed...).

[yin26]

Markos:

yin remembering his constructive side...watch this guys, it wont last for much longer...

yin is misunderstood

Hmmmm...I'm pretty tired of being negative. I have a moratorium on negative comments until I have the game in my own hands (which will be several months). However, I reserve the right to be negative if Firaxis refuses to patch the game or something.

[yin26]

Religion and SE is definately out

I, too, was rather fond of the SE stuff in SMAC if it could have been improved...

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
I just don't see why he's so eager to take credit for a game he's crusading against.

Does Yin say the game will suck? Not from what I have read.
Does Yin say the game is not worth the money? No.

Does Yin say that Firaxis PR is abysmal and could have been done better? Yes.


It really helps if you read what is said and not what you *think* is said.

Reading comprehension, it helps!

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Anunikoba
Geezuz!! I finally read that list, and all I have to say is:

Good luck! I hope this religious crusade of yours has a point.

Hmm, reading comprehension really helps, maybe more people will learn that...

This thread is about finding all the things Firaxis DID listen to their fans on (or appeared to listen to), to show just how much input the folks here did add to the game.

I don't see how this would be considered a "religious crusade" unless of course you missed the point of the thread (which is obvious ).

I think it's a great idea to improve morale if fo no other reason than to say "hey, look we suggested this, it made it in the game, we could have caused the game to be better!"

As for the people who still don't get the point...

[yin26]

Ozymandous: Many, MANY thanks. (...more than you know...)

By the way, an interesting news item from waaaay back. Enjoy!

(11 February 2000, 13:18 EST/Civ3) "If just one idea from the hundreds contained here makes it into Civilization III, we will know this was all well worth the effort."That was the main philosophy behind The List, as Yin was writing in the introduction of version 1. Well, I'm glad to say that the list was succesfull. I'll just quote Tim Train from his latest post:
"There are already several things taken from the list in the prototype or Design Koran (we're tired of design bibles around here). Many more are to come. All the anti-cheat stuff was extremely helpful, and just about every section has items we've adapted. It feels silly to list just a few things out of a 500 page document, but here's a representative sample:

1. Minor Nations that you deal with along the way.
2. More complex fortification \ siege warfare system, including multiple levels of city walls and specialized siege engines.
3. The Martial Law button is a popular idea, possibly along with a 'put in jail' button whose effectiveness changes with your government types.
4. Dozens of things from the interface, diplomacy, and combat sections"

Tim explained that while you would love to, he wont be able to be very active on the forums either due to lack of time but also cause some things could change. He made clear though that The List is indeed used by the team as reference during the development.

I still thank Tim for that feedback, since it was one of the only directy comments we ever got despite knowing we were being listened to at various points along the way.