We are doomed. We want a more complicated game, but the casual gamer doesn't

[Willem]

Originally posted by cavebear
I always thought that one of the weaknesses of Civ2 and Civ3 (never played Civ1) was that where the units attacked *from* was irrelevant, especially for the longer-range offensive units (archers, cannons, etc). If you are attacking with a cannon from a mountain, it's not like the cannon suddenly rumbles down the mountain and out onto the grassland to fight.

Considering that the combat is just formulas with values and probabilities, it shouldn't be all that hard to take into account. It would add a lot to the decision-making complexity of combat without making the game actually harder to *understand*.

Well they had that ability, bonus value for elevation, in Alpha Centuari, so I don't know why they didn't expand on it in Civ III. You could even add a bonus for attacking from a road. It would certainly make sense to me, especially the Archer thing. In the past they were used a lot as ambush units, hidden in the forests. It would make them much more useful.

[gnomos]

Originally posted by Willem


As they stand now, they're almost useless IMO, especially Archers. I stick mine up in the Mountains and use them mainly for lookouts. I rarely use them offensively since the first enemy unit that comes along they're gone. Only the fact that Mountains have such a high defence value gives them a chance of surviving an attack.

Well, stack them with a pikeman.

[Willem]

Originally posted by gnomos


Well, stack them with a pikeman.

Yes I can do that, but that's not the point. They're an offensive unit that at the moment serves no purpose. You're much better off using a Knight or a Swordsmen rather than a Longbowmen. At least the Knight/Swordsman stand a good chance of surviving an advance, but the Longbowmen has virtually none. If they had some special ability, like a Forest bonus, they'd be useful in at least certain situations, but right now they're kind of a waste of shields. Except in Mountains that the AI doesn't generally attack anyway. I can have a war raging all around my Archer up there in the peaks, and not once will the AI attack it.

[Willem]

One thing that just occured to me. If Archers/Longbowmen could attack without automatically advancing if they win, then they'd come in very handy. And that would fit with their ranged ability as well. The problem with them now is that their defence rating is so low that as soon as they're out in open and away from a fortified position, they're sitting ducks. Anything can take them out. With that ability, they'd certainly be useful providing support for a Pikeman who's guarding a resource colony. He could take out anything that comes near and never leave himself vulnerable to a counterattack.

[Dark Shed]

Getting back to the original topic

As someone who probably falls into the casual player category (I find Warlord more than enough of a challenge ) I think there is a difference between complexity and difficulty. Complexity means to me having more elements to consider in the game and I wouldn't see this as a problem at all. Difficulty to me means the impact of making the wrong decision on the outcome of the game (make one mistake and you're dead meat) - this is where I have a bit of a problem as I like to at least have the option of having a nice easy game when I get back from the daily grind, I can let off a lot of steam devastating the opposition . So basically I think they could have made the game easier at the lower levels and just as hard at the higher levels and added complexity and we would all be happy (well most of us).

[MonsterMan]

Instinctively I would say, all units should have a retreat-if-won combat option. As it is now, I use some wacky strategies.

"No general, don't attack that lone impi; go through the conquered city and attack the stack next to it, that way the winning units will defend the city the next turn."

Either that or units that have one over another in a stack shouldn't retreat, but instead fight to the death. But since you can't order slow units retreat if things get bad, which would be a necessary feature with such a rule, I opt for the first idea.

But it might be hard to implement, because you don't want a pop-up every time you win a battle. Does anyone have any ideas on the matter?

[Willem]

Re: Getting back to the original topic

Originally posted by Dark Shed
As someone who probably falls into the casual player category (I find Warlord more than enough of a challenge ) I think there is a difference between complexity and difficulty. Complexity means to me having more elements to consider in the game and I wouldn't see this as a problem at all. Difficulty to me means the impact of making the wrong decision on the outcome of the game (make one mistake and you're dead meat) - this is where I have a bit of a problem as I like to at least have the option of having a nice easy game when I get back from the daily grind, I can let off a lot of steam devastating the opposition . So basically I think they could have made the game easier at the lower levels and just as hard at the higher levels and added complexity and we would all be happy (well most of us).

But that's sort of my point. Doesn't it add to the difficulty of the game that after building/experimenting with a unit, you end up having it wiped out the first time you send it out in the field? Even if you didn't know how it worked, if it had some sort of ability that ensured it a reasonable chance of surviving under certain circumstances, you wouldn't have wasted the effort that at the moment would have been better spent doing something else. Like building a Knight.

And after all, this is a strategy game and the more units you have with special abilities, the more varied the strategies you can develop. For me it's much more satisfying to think that I kicked his butt because I outsmarted him, which isn't hard to do mind you, not just because of sheer numbers.

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by cavebear
I always thought that one of the weaknesses of Civ2 and Civ3 (never played Civ1) was that where the units attacked *from* was irrelevant, especially for the longer-range offensive units (archers, cannons, etc). If you are attacking with a cannon from a mountain, it's not like the cannon suddenly rumbles down the mountain and out onto the grassland to fight.

OK, the surface area of the world is 510.072 million sq km.
The largest possible Civ3 map, and therefore the smallest possible size per tile, is 256x256 = 65536 tiles
On a 256x256 map, each tile = 7783.0810546875 sq km
Assume a tile is square => a tile is about 88km across.
Again, any smaller map yields even bigger tiles.
Not even Robin Hood could shoot an arrow over 1 km. So, can you see how it makes no difference what terrain type an archer unit attacks from? The combat is obviously taking place in the defender's tile, the attacker having marched into it for the occasion.
Same with your cannon - max range even of a battleship main gun is well under 88km. Anything prior to WWI was strictly "line of sight".

[GePap]

What's civ about

As Dark Shed, said, lets get back on topic. Civ is not a wargame, ,never was ,never will. Well, you may ask, why is war so prominent then? War is prominent because it is one of the most basic and most important interactions between states that there is, period. Still, the aim is not just to make war, but to build a state that may one day become a civilization of its own. I have always argued for a good combat system, and my feelings on that are in various, now long forgotten threads-but making sure every unit has the appropriate combat bonuses for each situation is the sort of complexity that would damage this game. Far more important to making sure each and every other military unit works in concert, blah, blah, blah, is that the large macro systems (governments, scientific advancement, culture, economics) are well modelled. It is the macro ideas that matter, since you can't get more macro than civ. Think of it, most games try to simulate what happens to either an individual, or a small group of people, in a few hours or minutes, in a small space. Only strategy games try to simulate large spaces, large timespans, large pops., yet most don't even try to simulate all of HISTORY, which is what civ does. The type of complexity that would do this game some good is a more detailled econopmic model, more detailed government types, and better ways of simulating how sceintific advancement goes on and so forth. These are the things that matter, not wether this game makes sure to give scottish highlanders the best possible terrain combat bonuses for hills or so forth, which really matter s very little to the long march of the achievements of mankind.

[Willem]

Re: What's civ about

Originally posted by GePap
As Dark Shed, said, lets get back on topic. Civ is not a wargame, ,never was ,never will. Well, you may ask, why is war so prominent then? War is prominent because it is one of the most basic and most important interactions between states that there is, period. Still, the aim is not just to make war, but to build a state that may one day become a civilization of its own.

True, but there have been a lot times in the history of various civilizations that the life or death of that culture was determined by a strategic decision. How much of the influence of Greece was the result of Alexander's strategic genius for instance? So adding more such decisions within the game would just be mirroring what may have happened in real life, and make for a better simulation.

Far more important to making sure each and every other military unit works in concert, blah, blah, blah, is that the large macro systems (governments, scientific advancement, culture, economics) are well modelled. It is the macro ideas that matter, since you can't get more macro than civ. ...

The type of complexity that would do this game some good is a more detailled econopmic model, more detailed government types, and better ways of simulating how sceintific advancement goes on and so forth.

I agree with you there, it could use much more work in that area, especially with these new cultural rules. My god, no Concert Halls, Art Galleries etc. etc. The concept of culture as it is now is extremely superficial IMO. The same goes for the economic system. They could have turned the trade thing into something really dynamic, but it's so simplistic as it stands now. I'm not sure if you ever played Colonization or not, but I really liked some of things they did with industry and trade. It would be great to see some of those aspects used in Civilization, rather than just building a Marketplace and a Bank. Hell, they even took out the Stock Exchange!

[Zachriel]

Re: We are doomed. We want a more complicated game, but the casual gamer doesn't

Originally posted by Dissident
Apparrantly they believed people wanted the game to be simpler. At first this seemed like a good idea. But I think we know how that turned out.

I would like more depth, but the learning curve is important too. A lot of people still can't get a grip on cultural reversion, which isn't that hard, but is subtle.

There is an evolution to the game, as long as people are buying. [b]I think the basic game engine is wonderful.[b] There are many more things they can do, but it has to play on the average computer, by a reasonably intelligent consumer, in a reasonable amount of time, and be created with a reasonable amount of money, so they can turn a profit, and do a patch, an update and a sequel.

Games do not list a minimum IQ on the label. They're supposed to be fun.

[CharlesUFarley]

Re: I totally agree with CharlesUFarley :-)

Originally posted by MonsterMan
Especially about the editor.

The tech tree, civilopedia, units and civilizations should be completely open. By that I mean that I can add a whole new time period (future & distant future) with as many techs in them that I want. I can also split industrial into renaissance and industrial if I so desired, and reorganize the tech tree as necessary.

I should also be able to add as many units as I wanted, and define icon graphics for them etc.

Civilizations could be added as I chose to add them, which means specifying city square images, new palace styles to fit their culture, their own leader heads, their own diplomacy responses etc.

These new features would be the most important ones in a new patch or add-on, and ensure that Civilization III continues to thrive in the hands of the modding community -- and sell copies.

A good comparison can be made with The Sims, which has thousands of components that can be downloaded and keep the game fresh. That game has been in the top ten sellers list for *years*... or so it seems to me.

Precisely! It's all too funny to me, because I've argued with just about everyone one time or another regarding what should be featured in Civilization and what should not. But the truth of the matter is, this wouldn't be such a rooster fight if Firaxis did the difficult, and provided a fully customizable product in the first place.

Harcore Fan: "I want stacked movement and a complex and detailed editor!"

Fanboy: "Oh shut up and quit being a whiner! Civ3 is fine the way it is!"

Because with a fully customizable editor/scenario design tool anything can be achieved, and instead of the game catering to one group of consumers it will instead have the ability to meet each and every individual's "Civilization Needs". And I haven't said all of this yet because I was too busy arguing with everyone to maintain the grasp of my real issues with Civ3. But the thing that pissed me off the most was the "lack of" a fully customizable game, like Civ2. Instead they raped it of the finer Civ2 qualities with limitations and too many bugs. But MM you said it, a fully customizable game with no limitation whatsoever would open the doors to everyone, not just the casual consumers. In my opinion, a game product is only as good as it's hardcore community. Without a game community or fan clubs the product would be thrown into the gauntlet of "will this product have a future" and we all now that games come and go, but the games that can be 'refreshed' with upgrades and expansions keeps the game alive. But bare in mind, if this new expansion only has a few new leaders/civs and techs for another $30-$50 I won't buy it, we want "customization freedom" so we can create our own visions not a cheap fixer-upper so they can cash cow us some more.

Charles.

[CharlesUFarley]

Re: Re: We are doomed. We want a more complicated game, but the casual gamer doesn't

Originally posted by Zachriel
There are many more things they can do, but it has to play on the average computer, by a reasonably intelligent consumer, in a reasonable amount of time, and be created with a reasonable amount of money, so they can turn a profit, and do a patch, an update and a sequel.

Games do not list a minimum IQ on the label. They're supposed to be fun.

See thats one of the other issues I argued so often with so many people, is whether or not it is possible for Firaxis or any game developers to maintain profit while comitting to a balancing act between timetables, quality, what the fans want and so forth. I strongly believe that yes they can! My father is a hardcore software developer of 12 years for a major law firm in Canada and he works with a few dozen different platforms and programming languages. And when in discussions of what was possible and what wasn't there was very little that (in his words) a software developer could or could not do. So in short, any type of game with a wide variety of graphics, simulation, interactivity and most importantly detail can be achieved but with hard work and long hours at the office! Obviously there is more to software development than meets the eye, and clearly I don't know everything about marketing, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out the truth of the matter "anything is possible with hard work". And contracts with companies like Infogrames (in this case) could have been better negotiated to maintain quality, demand and reputation of a game that has a lifespan of over a decade now. That's not something that should have submitted to a poorly drafted contract. And not to say that the developers aren't somewhat responsible (if not all) for the overall development and design of the finished product, I am sure they could have spent more hours at the office and used a little known elementary saying "E" for "Effort".

Charles.

[OneInTen]

It's my observation as a software developer that spending more than about 8 hours a day on writing software is counterproductive. If your team is doing all nighters to try to get something done it's really time to step back and ask why they're working such long hours, rather than jsut trying to work harder and harder without finding the real problem.

IT is supposed to be about knowledge, and as such it makes much more sense to work smarter, not harder.

Finally, I find it pretty offensive that you suggest Firaxis (and with the insinuation about programmers in general) should be working longer for no extra pay. The Firaxis employees are humans too, who have lives, families, interests, etc. They're not robots who just sit there all day for you. Just because you don't feel 100% satisfied with the game does not mean that they're lazy bastards who need to be whipped into working harder.

[Libertarian]

Argumentum ad misericordiam