Civ3 Game Design Discussion Thread

[notyoueither]

re SMAC concepts

Is it possible that Firaxis did not want to give up intellectual property rights to Infogrames by incorporating the better SMAC concepts, like SE?

To clarify. Inforgrames owns Civ. Wouldn't rights to any ideas put into civ3 go to Infogrames? So they can still use them, no matter who they farm civ4 out to.

Firaxis owns SMAC, right? Don't they have some interest in maintaining whatever rights they may have to limit the use of their ideas by others?

Am I making sense?

Salve

[cassembler]

****************
you have been struck by the soon-to-be famous BEER BUMP!!!
****************
:beer:

Good thread.

I would like to point out the fact that I'm pretty freakin' sure Firaxis ain't gonna let us down... I imagine they'll have to patch the game at least once more before they can implement a multiplayer add-on, just a hunch...

I feel some map editing improvements comming our way...

[Bill9999]

Re: re SMAC concepts

Originally posted by notyoueither
Is it possible that Firaxis did not want to give up intellectual property rights to Infogrames by incorporating the better SMAC concepts, like SE?

To clarify. Inforgrames owns Civ. Wouldn't rights to any ideas put into cvi3 go to Infogrames? So they can still use them, no matter who they farm civ4 out to.

Firaxis owns SMAC, right? Don't they have some interest in maintaining whatever rights they may have to limit the use of their ideas by others?

Am I making sense?

Salve

Yes, you are making sense, in all reality, this could be absolutely true. The common gamer just doesn't understand the legal mumbo-jumbo crapola. No one on the gamer end will truthfully know how the legal side was worded, and I am sure no one involved wants any legal battles over intellectual property, and I am sure that came into play at some time in the design process. Probably more than you and I could imagine. But as a gamer, ask yourself, "Do I Care?"

Do I care whether one company or another has intellectual proprty rights to a name? If it is that big of an issue, and it causes designers and programmers to hold back, even a little, I say publish an absolute crap game, ruin the Civ name forever, then lauch the same game concepts under a different title with everything that it should be.

Hmmmmmmmm.........

[Kilroy_Alpha]

Regarding Armies:

The truth is, armies are only slightly underpowered in the game. If they were much more powerful the first person to build an academy could overrun their neighbors (well, provided they can afford to devote one city entirely to producing armies). This would cause a major balance issue. The problem isn't with the armies themselves, it's with the Great Leaders as a whole. They are overpowered. I would suggest that Great Leaders be allowed to only lend a certain amount of production to a city (perhaps adjusted for whatever era you're in), rather than just building anything you want in one turn. This would make armies more attractive, not because they're so powerful but because the alternative is no longer so lucrative as to make it the only option. Anyway:

Armies: increase attractiveness by implementing some of the suggestions above, don't overpower them though

GLs: hurry improvement should really mean "hurry improvement," not "finish improvement."

Regarding Resources:

Everything Vel said is gold.

Governments:

The model used in SMAC was the best ever. Throwing it out was plain stupid. End of story.

Diplomacy:

My only complaint with respect to diplomacy is that you can't demand resources as a condition for peace with a civ you're at war with. You have to wait 20 turns. You can try to demand it after you make peace but they'll just laugh at you. Suck.


Also, one thing the people at Firaxis always say is that "when realism and fun conflict during the design process, fun always wins." That's good in principle but what does it mean? It means less realism. And why is the Civ series fun? Realistic simulation of the story of a nation from it's conception to the moment it launches itself into space. There's a big conflict here, one that is not easily resolved. A good start would be to focus on realism a bit more, even if it appears to detract from the game. In the end the game will be appreciated more. And who defines fun here anyway? Most fans of the civ series want it to be as realistic as possible - for them, that's fun.

[Alex]

Vel... as usual, hitting the nail in the head.

Civ3 has a lot of problems, but the main one, for me, is that the player is severely crippled in its choices. As you said, play this way or die. We all know that the civ series has always been recognized for its decision-making... Shall I build a courthouse or a longbowman? What if I decide to attack my neighbor?

Now, in Civ3, it is all very simple: I HAVE to build a courthouse, otherwise the corruption levels will be all too crippling. Where is the decision-making?

BUT... and this is really important... I like Civ3, I still think it is a good game. Sure, it could (and should) still use some improvement, but when? How? Firaxis is silent about that. I'm starting to think that there will be no improvements, other than the expansion pack, which will bring a lot more of everything, and that is not a good thing per se, as you have pointed out in another thread.

I still have hope, but barely...

[MarkG]

Re: re SMAC concepts

Originally posted by notyoueither
Is it possible that Firaxis did not want to give up intellectual property rights to Infogrames by incorporating the better SMAC concepts, like SE?

To clarify. Inforgrames owns Civ. Wouldn't rights to any ideas put into civ3 go to Infogrames? So they can still use them, no matter who they farm civ4 out to.

not true i believe

all infogrames has is the legal right to create games with the name civilization in it. after the deal with firaxis, they also have the exclusive rights to publish and distribute civ3. they do not own the code, the design ideas or anything like that

this is why activision was working on a civ game 2 years before geting a license for the civ name, this is why firaxis was legaly able to do smac, even 80% of the ideas behind are from civ1/2

[notyoueither]

Re: Re: re SMAC concepts

Originally posted by Bill9999
Hmmmmmmmm.........

Hmmmmmmmm.... indeed.

Especially if as the developers of Civ3 Firaxis maintain some rights to reuse concepts from the design.

Hmmmmmmmm.... SMAC starting in 4000bc on Earth with SE, Culture, Resourses, etc, etc, etc.

Launch the SpaceShip, land on AC. Hope that some of your Allies from Earth also launch to join you so you do not have to face Planet and the Aliens alone....

Hmmmmmmmm....

I'd buy that for a dollar.

Salve

[notyoueither]

Re: Re: re SMAC concepts

Originally posted by MarkG
not true i believe

all infogrames has is the legal right to create games with the name civilization in it. after the deal with firaxis, they also have the exclusive rights to publish and distribute civ3. they do not own the code, the design ideas or anything like that

this is why activision was working on a civ game 2 years before geting a license for the civ name, this is why firaxis was legaly able to do smac, even 80% of the ideas behind are from civ1/2

But along with their rights to the name must go the use of concepts.

Or are rights to concepts of no consequence?

So Firaxis owns the code? They can do anything they wish with game concepts? Excelllllllent.

Salve

[Alex]

ICS came into being because it was just more efficient to gain extra income, science, and building power by founding more and more cities, rather than fully developing existing ones.

Yes, but the reason why it was more efficient is that 10 size 1 cities produced more than 1 size 10 city. Therefore, it would not be enough just to add more improvements and things to build... that would not necessarily be more attractive to the player.

[Capt Dizle]

Excellant thread. I agree with most of the points made here.

I think it is pretty obvious that when the original team left that not enough time was left for a new team to come in and really polish up the game. Besides that, the new team could never replace the experience that left. Finally, Sid did not jump in and immerse himself in the project.

There is little or no choice of strategy in the game. Pretty much the same techs, same city improvments, fewer units. Taking the spy unit and caravan unit out of the game really hurts.

I have said it before, if adding culture then specific city improvements and wonder should have been developed. We are building the same improvements that we did in Civ2, now we get happiness and culture out of a temple. That is lame. Should be one or the other. Players should be faced with a decision in city building. Now, you more or less just build all of the stuff in each city. That is not interesting, not fun.

Speedbump techs are not fun. Every tech should do something. Building fortifications should be important but its not.

Curtailing air power was good, some of the combat changes are good. Some of this stuff is just unfathomable. Who wants to move 150 units individually each turn. Armies are a joke.

The unique units don't really cut it. Some civs have good ones and some don't. Gee, the English really rule the seas don't they.

Getting back to the topic, I think that game design was done by committee. I believe that one enitity told another what to put in, the other did it. That won't work, the person or persons doing the construction have to be able to make changes on the fly or the project will suck. I think it went like this. The design team made a list of things to put in, others (including Sid) had some imput, then the designers went to work. From that point, they either ran out of time, or didn't change because they were married to the list (Sid expects it so we have to deliver) or, maybe, the design team just sucks.

Maybe a little of all of that.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Alexnm
Yes, but the reason why it was more efficient is that 10 size 1 cities produced more than 1 size 10 city. Therefore, it would not be enough just to add more improvements and things to build... that would not necessarily be more attractive to the player.

Exactly. I think that one way to fix this is to make population a bit more important in production. There was a thread a while back that discussed "manpower". I am a strong proponent of making population more important in both production and military. if the player needed population to build an army (recruitment idea hehe) then larger cities would be more valuable than lots of smaller ones. 10 size 1 cities would be weak production centers and would not be able to support a decent army whereas the 1 size 10 city could support a large army! This would kill ICS for good.

If you want to reduce ICS through a corruption model at least make it reasonable. Corruption can depend on number of cities but not number of cities AND distance. That is overkill!

shameless plug: if you are interested in a cool alternative to corruption, check out my new thread at http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=41387

[Willem]

Re: Civ3 Game Design Discussion Thread

Originally posted by Velociryx

Each resource is given a value between 400-900. Each time you build something requiring the USE of that resource, the value drops (the amount of the drop is dependant on exactly what is built). They player gets a general sense of where the value is (a range: 100-300, 300-500, 500-700, 700+, but does not know the precise amount left available to him. This fosters greater strategic USE of said resources, and can influence your desire to trade your excesses. Also, some resources are renewable (ie - Horses. If your herds begin to grow thin, simply don't build anything requiring the use of them, and they'll grow back at X per turn (to a maximum of whatever the initial value was)).

I agree that, though a great idea, resources weren't implemented very well. However I think your idea is a bit cumbersome and I suspect that it would require more coding that you may realize. A simpler way would be to make more of the resources but they can only supply x number of cities, so the more empire grows, the more you will need. This would give the player more of a role in managing resources since he/she would have to set priorities in the case of a shortage, i.e. I have 10 cities but only enough Iron to supply 5 of them. Which ones do I give the resource to?

This approach would also make for much more dynamic trading arrangements as well. At present, if another civ already has Iron say, there's no opportunity to trade off the 2 extra that I might find myself with. It would be much more realistic this way as well. e.g. The US isn't dependant on Mid East oil because it doesn't have any, but because it uses far more than it can supply for itself.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx


Specialists:
In SMAC, the late-game specialists were all but broken! Specialists, combined with SMAC's supply crawlers enabled you to totally circumvent the corruption model (since specialist outputs are unaffected by it) and raise your cash and research rates through the roof.

Not to mention that they've gone back to the same Specialists that have been around since the first Civ. I thought it was great in SMAC that they evolved over time, and I have to wonder why nothing like that was attempted for Civ III. They could even have created ones that affected other areas other than the standard three. Like a Technician that helps boost production, an Agriculturalist that boosts food production etc. Looking at society today, I see more and more people becoming specialists in one way or another, but that's not reflected in the game at all.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Armies: Yep....I quite agree. Too weak, and too expensive.

Again I agree. What were they thinking? I don't really find that Armies are any more powerful than the individuals inside, so why is it so bloody difficult to get one, and why so many restrictions? In my own game, I've created 4 different Army units, each being able to carry more than the previous one, that are available as time goes by. And much, much cheaper to build! And I think it's great! I've just finished building an Army of 10 Riflemen so I now only have 1 unit to move around instead of 10. This alone goes a long way to solving the stack movement problem.

And it's not like the AI doesn't use them. In my current game I noticed that the French has an Army composed of 10 Swordsman, as well as a couple of smaller 5 unit ones, poised on the edge of Indian territory and ready to attack. (I'm glad it's him and not me )

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Why the decision was made to NOT include stacked movement (and given that SMAC *DID* have stacked movement we can only assume that there was a conscious decision made to leave it out for Civ3 (unless everybody at the company suddenly got amnesia). -=Vel=-

I didn't realize SMAC had stacked movement, how do you get it to work? As for other comparisons with SMAC, the Diplomacy options are very limited in Civ III. e.g. Why can't I interceed on a civ's behalf in order to stop a war, when I could do so in SMAC? For that matter, why can't I ask another civ to act as a spokesperson when my enemy refuses to see my envoy? There could have been so much more done along those lines.

And what ever happened to those classic words: "I demand tribute for my patience." It seems that I have virtually no options in order to goad another civ to get peeved enough to strike first, aside from refusing one of his demands. And that only happens when I DON'T want to go to war.