Disenchanted

[Velociryx]

To answer the question 'bout limiting the amount of stuff you can do in a given turn....I think it'd increase strategy....you'd NEED to plan ahead more, in order to make sure that the goods you need to get the job done (production level at a certain point, the right force mix to take a rival's city, or whathaveyou), would be at the ready when you were ready to strike/proceed. Of the stuff I've been reading about in MOO3, that strikes me as among the most innovative and interesting!

-=Vel=-

[randomturn]

Vel, great post. I echo all your sentiments. Love Civ3's potential and hope that the (relatively) small steps necessary to get it over the hump will be taken.

Much of the complexity that was stripped from SMAC (gov't type, workshop, diplomatic) should be put back in. If it's too much for casual gamers make some of them them pre-grame options.

It can't be said enough times: the game will just die without scripting and mod-making.

End-game tedium must' be addressed, and aggressively. Stacked movement for units and workers. An option to sell all of one improvement type (for when you've just captured Pyramids or Hoover) was in ToT but lazily omitted from Civ3. Formalizing "vassals" perhaps a la SMAC would help immeasurably; perhaps that could also be the answer to fixing the diplomatic victory fiasco.

Trade is still amuck. I have commented on this elsewhere, but it is bizarre to the point of utter distraction when you solicit an offer for something, then add to your side and the AI becomes less likely to take it. The system is an arbitrageur's wet dream.

I continue to believe that coming in second in the Great Wonders race is too painful and punitive. There must be some kind of consolation commensurate with the number shields you have accumulated to build that Wonder. If this is driving hard-core gamers crazy, imagine what it's doing to Civ newbies. This won't make the game any easier, since it would help human and AI alike -- and it would still preserve the reasonable goal of preventing humans from grabbing all the important Great Wonders.

Civ3 is still slightly out-of-balance in a number of categories though the patch helped). Play balance more than maybe anything else had been a Sid/Firaxis hallmark. These fixes will probably continue to be patch-addressed.

Conquest: you hit it on the head -- difficult and tedious. Here's the thing: it should be difficult (I think it should be even more difficult). It should not be tedious!

As I said, I am committed to helping Civ3 realize its potential if I can be of help. The sad fact is, I hardly play it anymore. Last night I actually started a game of SMAC. But I am optimistic that Firaxis will do what it take to make this almost-reat game truly great.

[Velociryx]

Hiya Random!

URGH! Yes....I must agree with you about the anomolies in the trade deal diplo screens. Fixing that, and borrowing from a truly *outstanding* idea I've seen elsewhere on the board would be to have your "Trade Advisor Screen" have a hotsheet of who's clamoring for what goods, and what their basic offer for them would be. At a glance comparison shopping....that'd be sweet.

-=Vel=-

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by randomturn
I continue to believe that coming in second in the Great Wonders race is too painful and punitive. There must be some kind of consolation commensurate with the number shields you have accumulated to build that Wonder. If this is driving hard-core gamers crazy, imagine what it's doing to Civ newbies. This won't make the game any easier, since it would help human and AI alike -- and it would still preserve the reasonable goal of preventing humans from grabbing all the important Great Wonders.

Would it be possible to allow a civ to still complete a wonder even after another civ finished but at a drastically lesser effect. The civ to finish the Wonder first would get the full benefits of the Great Wonder, the other civ that completes it second would get lesser benefits as if it were a Minor Wonder. I know this kind of defeats the concept of Great Wonders being unique, but it does adress the problem. In real life, if both the Egyptians and the Greeks were building Pyramids and the Egyptians finished first, would the Greeks tear theirs down and make hoplites instead? If the Greeks spent 100 years building a massive pyramid and built almost the enite structure except for 10 stones on the very tip, would they tear everything down to build hoplites? Wouldn't they place the last 10 stones and maybe use the Pyramid for something else?

Of course if we wanted to keep Wonders unique and say fairly realistic, a better approach would probably be to make each Wonder civ specific. This would of course require a complete overhaul of the entire civ special abilities system. Instead of making civ abilities predetermined, they would be gained through Wonder constructions.
The advantage is that it would not impose special abilities on the civs. This is something that many civ players protested about. The player could choose whether or not to spend the time and ressources building a Wonder to gain a certain ability or whether to devote the ressources on something else.

[Heliodorus]

Vel, your optimism is inspiring to me, and your creativity impressive. Your analysis of the game is also spot-on. So thanks for rushing to the forefront of the community on our behalf.

That Firaxis weighed in here, to me, is really encouraging. I have always wanted to believe that Firaxis cared, and hoped for more evidence to point to such concern. Yesterday's beta announcement, and this post by Jeff, qualifies.

I do wonder about the practical issues regarding what is possible to implement, given existing code, difficulty of modifyications, and the all-too-real considerations of time and money. But I continue to wait and try to be optimistic.

One of the things that for me would go a long way to alleviating late game disenchantment that hasn't (as far as I've seen) been mentioned is to figure out why the AI is fun to compete with in the ancient era, and why it's not in the modern era, and to fix that, specifically in regard to warfare. The AI's ancient military mind seems to far surpass it's modern military mind, especially with the AI as an offensive threat.

Otherwise, all that has been said regarding ideas for improvements look interesting.

[Arrian]

Wow, Vel, now I know where you've been spending your time lately. I must say that I largely agree with you, particularly about the late game.

For me, the middle ages are fine - I tend to do lots of fighting there. It's the industrial and modern ages that need help. Some of it has to do with the tech tree - forcing you to research more of the modern age techs, for instance. Part of it is DEFINITELY the UN. I really enjoy the trading system, but it can be a little wacky at times... like when you ask them what they'll give you, change it, and then put back exactly what they offered and get "they would never accept such a deal!" Huh?

A personal gripe is the pollution thing. I want to be able to create stacks of 8 (or 4, if I'm industrial) workers, and task them to pollution cleanup. No "2 workers to each polluted tile" here. I want that pollution gone - NOW, and without me have to move workers manually, across a continent.

Minor upgrading thing - last night I upgraded 61 Tanks to Modern Armor. Next turn, I had to press "f" 61 times. If they were fortified, THAT's the way I wanted them! If they were not fortified, fine, I'll deal with them.

I have already discussed pushing the AI to build barracks and upgrade units in the "unit strength by era" thread, so I'll leave that alone.

I think I like the "protectorate" idea. I think I like it a lot. One of the major problems with late-game conquest is that it hurts your empire, overall. You gain worthless cities. You lose whatever money you were getting by selling things to the civ you conquered. For them, the cities were productive, and so they could pay you. For you, they give you 1gold/1science/1shield. I like the idea that you could go off and conquer Japan (for example) and then, instead of keeping the Japanese cities, setting up a "new" friendly-to-you Japan... and then sell things to your nice vassal/protectorate/commonweath/whatever (sound somewhat familiar?). Of course, there would have to be negative possibilities there, like rebellion...or even just a demand for independence... if you refuse, you fight, and it's a diplomatic faux pas - your rep takes a hit if you don't give them independence. "Conquest should be hard, not tedious" - well said. I avoid late game wars generally, because they aren't fun. They tend to be easy, militarily, but annoying and unrewarding. And the "You have acheived a domination victory" pop-up doesn't seem to justify the effort.

As for "wealth," perhaps having a factory in a city should lower the ratio of shields to gold. You know, like you're producing consumer goods for sale.

The editor definitely needs improvement, but my understanding is that Firaxis knows that and is working on it. Scenarios with all the options you had in Civ II (plus more, hopefully) would increase the self life of the game considerably.

I agree that some in-game info needs to be displayed more easily... like when you're trading - I want to know exactly what I'm trading, to whom, for how long, and for how much, all on one page. I wish the endgame replay showed more than city founding, capture/destruction, and wonderbuilding. How about "So-and-so declares war on so-and-so" and "Peace between so-and-so and so-and-so?" Minor, but I would like it.

You should be able to trade units to a civ - so long as they have the tech to use them... or maybe are at least in the right era. I don't want to be able to give an ally Modern Armor if they're in the middle of the industrial age.

I love this game - for me, it is immersive... but I've been playing Sid Meier games since the 1987 release of Pirates. I support attempts at improving what is, for me, already a great game. If any of my ideas or comments help in that process, great.

-Arrian

p.s. Firaxis as Edward I "Longshanks" of England? How silly. What is with the personalization of this thing?? What I mean is, why are people taking this game so damn seriously... and if they don't like it, why is a personal affront?? J.H.Christ! Vel isn't going to mount his warhorse and go take on the marauding Firaxian army, and by vanquishing that army, create a perfect Civ III!

EDIT: To clarify about late-game warfare & the protectorate idea. I don't want to change the fundamental idea that bigger is not always better. The reason that I, personally, like the protectorate concept is that late in the game, when I'm dominating, the AI starts to get jealous. Often, they pick a fight I don't want, and I am forced to slaughter them. Having done it, I'd like to be able to set up a friendly vassal state, which, if treated properly, will be preferable to my other options (razing their entire civ and allowing the others to resettle or capturing their cities and dealing with the corruption hit).

[Velociryx]

Heliodorus! Thanks for the compliment and kind words, bud! It's been said many times that Firaxis is a small company, and lets face it, Civ is a HUGE, wampum big game....there's no way that a small group of guys, programming and meeting in isolation can come up with as many possibilities and ideas as a large group (fan base). Just isn't gonna happen, and that's why, IMO, these kinds of forums are so vital to the health and vitality of the industry.

With the formation of a public beta group, it appears that they've reached the same conclusion, and that's a good thing!

Steve Jobs (Apple Computers), brilliant as he is, made a HUGE mistake in the early days of computing. He was HELL BENT on holing up in the confines of his company and making computers his way. It was his way or no way....nevermind what the customers wanted or clamored for, cos he had all the answers.

Yep...and that's why Apple's market share is hovering at....8....9%? Me....I love Apple's....consider myself to be a closet Apple fan, actually, but even as recently as the iMac, it's clear that Jobs' priorities have not changed....the iMac was rigidly built, few options (this may have changed later....I refer to the opening weeks of iMac's availability), and, IIRC, no portable media (3.5" disk drive....which the customer base had been BEGGING for!). How easy would it have been to add? Easy.

Was it?

Nope....cos Steve had all the answers. His way or no way, you know.

::sigh::

Too many good games suffer that same fate, and it doesn't have to be that way.....which is one of the reasons it took me all of about two minutes after reading here this morning to get my application mailed off to Firaxis....

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Hey Arri! Yep....been playtesting various elements of my proposed Mod-with-no-name, and as I've been testing different things, it became increasingly clearer exactly what it was that bogged the game down....the lack of builds and choices, the lack of anything to do besides fight....the ease of building absolutely everything.

One cool thing that I'm hoping to do with the mod is introduce something I really liked in smac....the punishment sphere. Fact was, there were times when it was useful, but times when you'd be NUTS to build it....it really packed a major whallop of a downside! As it stands now, there's little strategy to when to build what, but what if you had a city build that doubled or tripled your city production but whacked you for -10 or 12 culture per turn AND hurt your city's defensibility? OUCH! Now all of a sudden, you gotta think about that and weigh the benefits....

Those are the kind of tradeoffs that are largely missing from the game, and it's stuff like that (among other things), that would really add depth to the experience.

Glad you like the Protectorate idea! I actually jumped up out of bed last night to post it....it just....floated gently into my head, and once it landed there, I knew I had to share it right then!

-=Vel=-

[DickK]

Vel,

Don't have the time for a proper reply to your thoughtful post but I agree with your assessment. The more I play Civ3, the more I get a "so close but no cigar" reaction.

After playing Civ3 almost exclusively since it was released, a couple days ago I went back and started a game of SMACX. The comparison is stark -- Civ3 may have the more advanced AI but SMAC is clearly the better, more polished game. I don't think SMAC will ever be properly recognized, sadly, the SF setting seems to put many folks off. None-the-less, the richness of the game really shows in SMAC with the incredible job that was done tying things together into a "real" world that had history and characters with personalities that mattered within the game. The voice actors, SP movies, the "book quotes", etc, etc, make it hang together and really make the experience fun. Civ3 has so much potential and yet it falls short of the standard Firaxis set with SMAC. They moved the bar way up with that one so maybe it was unrealistic to expect they could meet/exceed that high standard. We all know SMAC's flaws as well, so many of us expected Civ3 to incorporate the improvements of SMAC, carry them forward into the Civ series and be even better.

Like you said, Civ3 is a very good game as it stands, but I'm disappointed that it doesn't currently reach the level Firaxis set with SMAC. Let's hope that can and will be changed. Only time will tell.

[Arrian]

I just had an idea.

What if, instead of giving the AI crazy production bonuses, you gave it:

Free, automatic upgrading of its units upon receipt of the proper technology (clearly an upper-level-only thing, perhaps optional at startup).

Also, part of me rejects the idea that I can spend 40 turns building pyramids, only to switch to the Great Library at the last moment. Now, I do it all the time, but I really should take a production hit, and so should the AI. Building the palace for a while and then switching to a wonder is bs too. HOWEVER, if the AI gets big production bonuses, then this has to stay. What I want is a AI that gets more subtle (elegant?) bonuses, instead of the brute force cheats it gets now.

Perhaps, if you get beaten to a wonder, but wish to complete it, you get either:

A greatly weakened version (either much weaker effects or early expiration) or
A wonder that provides nothing but culture.

I'm still unsure about the 4 and 40-turn tech caps...whether it helps or hurts the AI. I think it might be hurting it, as only the humans seem to understand how to manipulate the tech/tax slider to maximum effect. By the modern age, I've usually got thousands of gold in my treasury, and the AI is nearly broke.

Also, to improve gameplay on chieftain and warlord, I suggest that the human should be given bonuses (like the AI gets on Monarch and up) instead of the AI getting handicaps. The result of the current handicap system is a bunch of totally useless AI civs... tech development slows to a crawl, they can't really trade with you because they have no money... it's kinda boring, and you struggle to get into the Modern Age, whereas on Monarch level (highest I've gone yet), I tend to hit modern times in the 18th or 19th century.

-Arrian

[Morganstern]

I agree that Vel has analyzed the issue at hand "spot on." The game is good, but . . . it lacks the immersion I experienced when first playing MOO2, SMAC, and particularly CIV2. My take on the gap here is that the game lacks what writers refer to as "suspension of disbelief," where the story is sufficiently immersive to make the reader forget someone is writing it.

I'm not sure what the computer game equivalent of that is, but it's missing in CIV3. When I can't develop cities on an island apart from my original continent due to the lousy corruption model, I instantly lose my total focus on the game, and am now distracted by thoughts about the game designers imposing an arbitrary rule concerning production capabilities a certain distance from the capitol city. Rules like these, and there are several in CIV 3, distract from the flow of the game. My immersion is gone, and soon enough the game is turned off. My experience is that I can rarely play CIV3 for more than an hour and a half at a time, and sometimes can barely manage 45 minutes. Now perhaps that's healthy in many ways, but it wasn't the case with the other games mentioned above, and doesn't speak well for the game design.

Like Vel, I still enjoy this game and always return to it, but I regret the loss in the judgment calls that were made by the design team that nearly eliminate the addictive and immersive qualities otherwise found in the CIV series.

[BanastreTa]

Vel,

Great idea, and great post-I think it hit the nail right on the head for what some of us who are somewhat in-between the "whiner" and "fanboy" position--just to use the two common pejorative terms for the love it and hate it groups, let's not start a flame war--are thinking about the game.

It's a good game, I think. A fun game even. I'm definitely still playing it (well, not now: law school exams are upon me!). But there is a maddening, hard to place disappointment. A feeling that several details could have been implemented better, or implemented at all, and those details begin to add up. I still enjoy it (less so than those first few wonderful games, I seem to have settled into the same "fun but not quite immersive" category). I find no need to rant or to niggle about little things that don't really matter. I also think that most people who claim it is perfect or as revolutionary in this day as Civ 2 was in its day are either being disingenuous or deluding themselves (I'm reminded of a post I read on another message board yesterday. One of the most prolific "fanboys" admitted that she had gotten bored with the game soon, but that it was her own fault, not Firaxis'. Really, I think this poster would be apologetic if Firaxis shot her dog.)

I applaud any efforts to try to overcome the poorly implemented details in the instant game and make Civ 3 what it should be. I don't have a huge amount of experience with the technical implementation of mods, but I'm an idea man, and I hope I can contribut some stuff myself. I agree, it can be fixed--and maybe with not as much work as some people think! This idea, and others, I think can make for a game that will, at the very least, keep us satisfied until Civ 4!

Regards,

BT

[Alex]

Vel, beautiful words! Now that you are applying to the public beta program, I think we can finally dream about a truly great Civ3... as it should be in the first place.

I agree with you about Civ3... I like the game a lot, but its potential is greater than the game itself. Maybe, as was pointed out by another poster, the whole civ formula became a little tiresome. The old concept of moving units and building things has to be revamped.

One thing that strikes me as puzzling is why many of those great concepts found in SMAC were not incorporated into Civ3... One of the possible reasons is that the designers wanted to create a "Civ - light", aimed at more casual players. If that was their intent, I would have to say that they were successful, but at what cost?

Something has definitely to be done about the late game boredom... And a lot of things could be tweaked. Espionage, diplomacy, more things to build, different concepts for the tech tree, new concepts to warfare... An expansion pack or Civ4?

I like your idea about "Protectorates". It could bring a whole new array of strategies to the game. And I think that random events could be implemented.

Civ has always been about decision making, and there simply is no decision making in Civ3 once you reach a certain point in the game. I do not have a problem with micromanagement, but micromanagement without a goal is just hard work.

All in all, I expect Civ3 to be greatly improved... it surely has a great potential to realize.

[Velociryx]

More thoughts:

First, again, thank you to everyone who has been reading and responding. One thing I've noticed is that this thread, which speaks directly to the weak spots in the game, still has a four star rating.....will that hold? I have no idea, but most threads of this type have been slammed with 1-2 star ratings pretty early on, so that tells me we're off to a shining start!

About the lack of decision making:
This is very true, and it starts in the ancient era. Recently, over in the strat. thread bearing my name, we were discussing this very thing. As the tech tree stands now, there really are only three viable beelines on standard maps (and one on 'pelago maps).

If you're playing 'pelago, you rush for map making. That's it. Sadly, that's not strategy!@ Where's the choice in that?! There IS none.

If you're playing standard maps, you get a bit more choice....three, to be specific.

You can either rush for Iron Working (preferable if you're a scientific civ, since you're one tech out) and do a quick Ancient Era swordsman strike.

OR

You can make for horseback riding (esp. useful for the Japanese) and do the same as above, with a "Mongol Horde" type of attack

OR

You rush for the Great Library if you're a peace-lover.

That's it. There ARE no other viable tech beelines in the ancient era. Trust me. Better still....DON'T trust me and try some beeline besides those on Emperor level and report back here with your findings. I tried *repeatedly* to make any other beeline pay, but it doesn't.....it just doesn't work. (edit: one POSSIBLE exception would be a beeline for Monarchy, on the thinking that it's an often neglected AI research path....this should give you tradable techs when you meet the AI....trouble is, that it leaves you with few truly valuable early game techs if you don't find someone to trade with straightaway, which makes it best suited for Pangea maps....easier to simply sword/horse the opposition to death andn TAKE their techs on those settings).

Again, three choices does not make for much in the way of replayability!

Fortunately, this is one of the things that can be addressed via modding, and in fact, that's what we're seeking to do with the mod I'm proposing. We've not gotten all the new techs hammered out just yet, but here's the general bent of things in the ancient and middle ages eras....

1) Re-balance terrain-type starts (this means bananas are back in jungles, forests are more productive (should help Tundra starts, among others), Deserts get Salt Flats (more shield production)....all of this in an effor to make the game PLAYABLE if you get stuck in a crap-starting position. Hand in hand with this, is the weakening of early game plains (see below).

2) Wheat stalks do NOT start off appearing on the map! In fact, they do not appear until the middle ages (Crop Rotation....Jethro Tull...LOL). Cows do not appear on the map at game start. You want 'em....gotta research Animal Husbandry (Ancient tech). Hills can be irrigated, mountains produce one more shield when mined, plains cannot be mined (but so far, grassland still can).

3) Diplomacy has been added as an ancient era tech (one of the last you can research, actually), and THIS is where embassies have been placed, and comms. traded. Explorers have been made available with Map Making so people can actually USE them!

4) Sick to DEATH of the AI violating your borders? Kill them without starting a general war! How? We're adding new "no color" units that you can build. They're cheap in shields, but cost 1 point of pop., creating....you guessed it, more strategic tradeoffs!

5) A new naval unit has been made available (Coracle) with pottery (meaning it's immediately available to Expansionist Civs). Coastal, 2 moves, carries one unit.

6) Barbarians are MEAN! Default units have been changed (tentatively) to: Swordsmen, Knight, Privateer (beefed up!)

There's more, but that's just off the top of my head. Anyway, the net result of all this is: MORE STRATEGIC CHOICE!

Get trapped on a small island? No problem, the answer is one tech away!

Want to grow faster than your rivals...beeline for animal husbandry!

Warmonger? Hey....you've still got ironworking and hoseback riding available (along with a possible new addition "Cavalry Tactics" which will make a 2/2/2 horse unit available to you!

Peacenik? You can now either gun for the GL straight off, or go for those colorless units and defend your borders without incurring the wrath of everybody near you!

In-game, there are now TONS more strategic decisions to make! How bad do you wanna find out what's in that goody hut? Is it worth possibly unleashing a hellish lotta swordsmen?

OTOH....if you DO unleash swordsmen, can you lure them into chasing you till you get near a rival civ's cities? (never was a viable strat before, but it is now, as my own playtesting can attest to, and a GREAT opening shot in a war!)

How many times have you laughed off a "barbarian uprising" consisting of 4-6 horsemen? :: evil grin:: I can promise you that in 3000 BC if you see such an uprising with my mod, you'll have a reaction, to be sure....but it prolly won't be laughing.... Barbarians inspired FEAR and TERROR historically. They don't in the game as it stands right now, but they will....believe me....they will....

A bit later in the game, you get more of everything. More wonders, more governments, more CHOICE! You WON'T be able to easily build everything under the sun, and in some cases, you won't want to....you'll have to weigh your options carefully and proceed based on the best information available to you at the time. Isn't that, in the end, where the magic starts? I think so.....I hope so....If our mod is to meet with success anyway....

Oh! Another thing being kicked around: Making a whole new class of amphib. units and making them available with other units of each era ('cept Ancient). These guys would be worse at attack than the best attackers, and worse at defending than the best defenders of a given era (very well rounded units), so it'd take more of them than a straight on land assault, BUT, given the strength of an amphib assault, isn't that as it should be? Again, more options....more choice.

The age of sail has been moved to early in the middle ages, extending the life of wooden ships and making sea worthy ships available earlier. Again, more strategy for the player.

My policy with the mod is a totally open door one. The things I've mentioned above are either in, or being kicked around. If you approve, or if you hate it, c'mon over to my website where it's under development and chime in.

All I can say is that we're doing the best we can with the tools currently available, and that work will continue whether I get on the beta team or no.....as the editor improves, so will our options (at present, we are unable to add in government-specific units or wonders....hopefully, that will change soon...our fingers are crossed, cos we've already got some ideas tabled!)

-=Vel=-
The Renaissance Portal

[Capt Dizle]

I hate to have to assume my usual position but..

I have to throw a bucket of cold water on all of this. A beta tester is nothing but a software tester. There is little or no chance that anyone at Firaxis will be interested in doing any serious recoding of this game.

Vel, no one at any game developement company has ever abandoned their game concepts because a beta tester had a better idea. LMAO!

They might steal an idea or two for the next game though.

Any idiot can see the gross flaws of Civ3. No plot, no story, no conflict. Tedium. The whole culture/mega coruption thing was and is unforgivably horrid.

If the developers were honest they would admit that this game was not fully developed. They would just come on here, Sid himself, and say "We never got the job done."

There are only three possiblilities. 1. Someone was jerking off when they were supposed to be working, 2. The publisher's deadline was too soon or 3. The head developer left.

Of course we all know the 3 is correct. Brian left, Sid is sick of Civ (and frankly has no clue as were to take it) and so they cobbled together a team of "might be good game developers someday" types and did a rush job.

Which I can never forgive because this was CIV3 not some B movie.

Now, any number of us can come up with better ideas in twenty minutes than those found in this game.

I wish Sid and the Firaxis folks had the charactor to fix this but they don't. Sid could probably afford it. He could pay for it out of his pocket in all likelyhood.

But he won't.

jt