The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Originally posted by Libertarian
I submit that whoever might presume to lecture Vel on the strategy components of Civ3 ought to put up or shut up by opening a thread in the Strategy Forum that proves itself superior to Vel's famous series.
Couldn´t agree with you more, the nerve of some people...
I don't see how firepower added strategic depth, if the idea is that that strategic depth is a matter of more choice. Firepower as it worked in Civ 2 merely made combat results more predictable: the stronger unit was more likely to win. A higher degree of risk in individual battles doesn't reduce the amount of thinking that goes into winning a war.
'Firepower as it worked in Civ 2 merely made combat results more predictable: the stronger unit was more likely to win. A higher degree of risk in individual battles doesn't reduce the amount of thinking that goes into winning a war.'
erm, well, i thought that stronger units should be more likely to win, is a man with a stick (warrior) gonna ever bean a man with a gun (rifleman).
also, in Civ2, you did have an idea of who was gonna win a battle, but so do military leaders, they aint gonna attack a fortified mech infantry ontop of a mountain, they know they will loose, so they attack the rifleman in the plain fiarly confident they will win.
And Civ2's veteran units were way better then what Civ3 has.
eimi men anthropos pollon logon, mikras de sophias
this right here is where we differ
first off i will define a few things
Happy day! A post that started out disagreeing with me, but that I agree with anyway. Mostly. The important bits, anyway.
AI: Has some correlation to strategic depth, but is more of a measuring stick than anything else.
"roughly equal in terms of difficulty." That's why I find the AI so important.
And I think that's why we differ on SMAC and Civ3 (I think Civ3 has more depth.) I bet I just find SMAC easier than you find Civ3, while for you Civ3 is easier. Of course, I restart Civ3 more often thatn SMAC to get a less favorable starting position. (I think I do this more in Civ3 because I can more easily judge the value of my starting position within the "very early" phase of the game.)
Ok now let me give particular examples of where the Civ genre failed when it comes to strategic depth. My first example is culture.
You mean the "Culture" that's generated almost exlusively via city improvements you'd prioritize anyway? Gosh, what could be wrong with Culture?
Culture is a wonderful new system in Civ3 that should add to the strategic depth of Civ3, yet it falls far short of its potential.
As an aside, I'm inclinded to completely ignore any review of Civ3 that discusses Culture for more than a paragraph but fails to mention Strategic Resoruces or Luxuries. I just don't think Culture is a big deal.... though it could certainly be developed into something that would offer a strong counter-strategy to DrFell's Genocide method.
1) Add in cultural specialists, call them poets or artists (musicians, actors, etc. take your pick) and make them function in the same way as tax collectors and scientists do. (i would recommend all specialists to produce either +2 or +3 of each resource)
As long as the AI could handle it, I'd like this to be the primary way you generate culture.
Originally posted by Libertarian
I submit that whoever might presume to lecture Vel on the strategy components of Civ3 ought to put up or shut up by opening a thread in the Strategy Forum that proves itself superior to Vel's famous series.
Ooo oooo! How about I mail you copies of a Phds. in "games theory", "military science" and "general scrumptiousness" instead?
Originally posted by Libertarian
I submit that Tarq is not arguing, but rather lecturing.
-----
Evidence
So he disagrees. Whereas Vel gave the reason Civ2's model was more advanced ("Civ2's combat model is more advanced because it contains the FirePower aspect."), Tarq merely takes a posture, straining the argumentum ad numerum gnat and ignoring the firepower camel.
Because I consider firepower a flea. I simply did the "numerous" thingy because I know that the FP issue is "old news." I'm sure everyone made up their minds years ago.
Dodging Vel's point, Tarq ties strategic depth to the starting position, effectively contradicting nearly every point he'd made so far.
And such a good argument that is. I feel now that if the point made is a subtle one, you ignore it. I may as well air my bias against "strategy threads" here, too. I generally find them to be far, far too vauge. I think they're really better called "technique" threads, since proper strategy is so dependent on an individual games exact state.
Once again, if Tarq has something substantive to offer on the matter of strategy, then he ought to offer it.
First - This isn't a so-called "strategy thread". How would a detailed discussion of my "strategies" (techniques, I say) help? I've mentioned some strategic options, Vel discussed them, I responded in what I thought was an appropriate manner (more pointing out Vel's "if I fight I win" assumption than the sarcasm) ... what more do you want?
Taking potshots at someone else's post by stripping it line-by-line from its context and then just basically exercising the cyber-equivalent of sticking out your tongue merits little more than a raised eyebrow and a sigh for having wasted a mouse click.
I agree. I'm glad I don't do that. I'm also glad I don't want to spend my time discussing you, as you seem to enjoy discussing me.
Hiya Tarque! Nope...not implying that you "suck" at Civ3 at all...simply pointing out cause and effect. You said yourself you often see yourself dealing with poverty in your games, and I pointed to two very likely causes OF that poverty. The fact is, you NEED your FP if you mean to grow to any sort of viable size on a standard map, and you need it sooner, rather than later. Thus, to run, or let the FP build naturally when you could speed it along by starting a fight, generating a Great Leader and speed building it IS the way to go. My point to you was simply that, given the state of poverty you yourself pointed out, these were the most likely reasons you were seeing it.
:: shrug:: Maybe you really DID get a lousy start though, and running was the only option. Don't know...wasn't my game. I can tell you that of all the games I've ever started, regardless of my position, I have never run into an AI that couldn't be subdued....thus, my statement that running was the weaker strategic choice.
There ARE some things that do provide a measure of strategic depth in Civ3....resources play a part in that, but it's very easy/linear to acquire said resources if you don't begin the game with them. Early game, horses and iron are the two kickers, and yet, if you find yourself without them in the early goings, you can build a mixed force of Archers/Spearmen and simply make your first AI city capture one that gives you either of the resources in question and denies the same to your opponent. Thus, the presence of those things on the map DO provide a *measure* of strategic depth in the sense that they will, in certain cases dictate the direction and focus of your attacks, and due to the random nature of their appearance on the map, this will change from game to game.
Likewise, Culture provides a measure of strategic depth, though in practice, it's more in an intangible form than the rest, since a cultural win (which could be among the most interesting ways to win) is, by virtue of the implementation of the culture model, among the most boring.
Also....I agree that even the more advanced features/aspects of other 4x games combat models do not stack up favorably with "real" wargames and their systems, but then, since we ARE talking about 4x games ('member....you said yourself, this IS a Civ3 forum), then such games can be safely left out of the comparison, yes? And, if we DO limit ourselves to a discussion of 4x games when comparing the relative complexities of combat systems....well, you can feel free to believe that Civ3's engine leads to a variety of subtle, deep strategic and tactical choices, but simply believing so will not make it true. Denying the versatility in modelling of FP in Civ2, bringing into the argument non 4x games like Chess and "real" wargames will not make it so, either, IMO.
In any case, the main goal of playing the game is to have fun. If you are having fun playing Civ3, then it doesn't truly matter if it has a great deal of strategic depth or not.
I have presented to you some of my reasonings why I feel Civ3 does not.
It's clear you disagree with them, and that's okay. Feel free to disagree with them. (And I'm not going to add anything further on that point to my post, since Lib, Korn, and others have already done so. And by the way, thank ya guys!).
One thing I'd ask that you not do though, is to imply that I have not given Civ3 a fair trial in my mind.
Before you do that, I'd invite you to head over to the Strategy section of these forums and have a close, careful look at the Vel's Strategy Threads on that forum.
Therein, you'll discover the width and bredth of my own strategic thinking on the game, along with a GREAT many contributions by a whole lot of other Civ3 players.
Unfortunately, given the overall lack of strategic depth in the game, from this player's perspective, I did not see the need to continue that strategy thread series. Perhaps as more patches are added, and more things change in the game, I'll revise that opinion, but for now, I think we've got the basics covered.
It's not about me (and others) pining away for the days of the SMAC-design philosophy, it's about comparative systems. You gotta compare 4x to 4x. Comparing 4x to chess, or 4x to a classic wargame is not a valid comparison. Given that SMAC was designed by the same group, that makes it a VERY valid comparison, though folks who disagree are all too quick to jump on that as saying we're "whining" for SMAC days.
The fact of the matter is that, more than two years after SMAC's release, radically new and different strategies were being discussed on the SMAC board.
Civ3's strategy section has slowed to a trickle already.
I'd say (again) that the proof is in the pudding.
-=Vel=-
The list of published books grows. If you're curious to see what sort of stories I weave out, head to Amazon.com and do an author search for "Christopher Hartpence." Help support Candle'Bre, a game created by gamers FOR gamers. All proceeds from my published works go directly to the project.
Originally posted by Velociryx
Hiya Tarque! Nope...not implying that you "suck" at Civ3 at all...simply pointing out cause and effect. You said yourself you often see yourself dealing with poverty in your games, and I pointed to two very likely causes OF that poverty. The fact is, you NEED your FP if you mean to grow to any sort of viable size on a standard map, and you need it sooner, rather than later.
Maybe we're just having a misunderstanding because I put that "poverty" statement poorly. All I meant was that my approach toward Civ3 is different from my approach to Civ2. Maybe "attitude" is a better word. While in Civ2 I might think something like "I've got LOTS of surplus resrouces (units, cash), I can spend them rather freely, and don't have to worry much about how I spend each gold piece or unit." While in Civ3 games I'm more likely to think something like "I've got lots of surplus resources (units, cash, Resources) but I still need to take some care in how I use them."
:: shrug:: Maybe you really DID get a lousy start though, and running was the only option. Don't know...wasn't my game.
(Take note Lib.)
I can tell you that of all the games I've ever started, regardless of my position, I have never run into an AI that couldn't be subdued....thus, my statement that running was the weaker strategic choice.
This is going to sound catty, but: How many games? On what difficulty level? And why didn't you fiddle with settings in the editor to "legislate" against your too-effective strategies?
Counting the games I restarted, I've played, well, lots. And on Emperor and Diety (I'd often rather have to restart to get a worse position than play on Deity, where the AI's "cheating" becomes too obvious for my taste.)
There ARE some things that do provide a measure of strategic depth in Civ3....resources play a part in that, but it's very easy/linear to acquire said resources if you don't begin the game with them.
Have you noticed how often you describe various (most?) game activities as "easy", Vel. As I said to DrFell: If you could easily beat anyone in chess would you then say it has little strategic depth?
Early game, horses and iron are the two kickers, and yet, if you find yourself without them in the early goings, you can build a mixed force of Archers/Spearmen and simply make your first AI city capture one that gives you either of the resources in question and denies the same to your opponent. Thus, the presence of those things on the map DO provide a *measure* of strategic depth in the sense that they will, in certain cases dictate the direction and focus of your attacks, and due to the random nature of their appearance on the map, this will change from game to game.
Sorry I left in that whole thing, but... RIGHT! I agree. And _thats_ why I restart so often. To get a good "strategically deep" map. Remember, I have stated that I think starting position is very important to a Civ3 game's amount of "depth."
Likewise, Culture provides a measure of strategic depth, though in practice, it's more in an intangible form than the rest, since a cultural win (which could be among the most interesting ways to win) is, by virtue of the implementation of the culture model, among the most boring.
I agree there. I've been fiddling with the Culture settings to try to make Culture more interesting, but with indifferent success. It's often difficult to judge the effect, for one thing.
Also....I agree that even the more advanced features/aspects of other 4x games combat models do not stack up favorably with "real" wargames and their systems, but then, since we ARE talking about 4x games ('member....you said yourself, this IS a Civ3 forum), then such games can be safely left out of the comparison, yes? And, if we DO limit ourselves to a discussion of 4x games when comparing the relative complexities of combat systems....
Full agrement....
well, you can feel free to believe that Civ3's engine leads to a variety of subtle, deep strategic and tactical choices, but simply believing so will not make it true.
Nope. I simply don't think that the systems in SMAC or Civ2 (or 1) were so much better that they _do_ allow "subtle, deep strategic and tactical choices." while Civ3's doesn't.
Denying the versatility in modelling of FP in Civ2
I'll let others argue this, if they wish. I talked about this more than I wanted to in the decade that Civ2 came out.
It's clear you disagree with them, and that's okay. Feel free to disagree with them. (And I'm not going to add anything further on that point to my post, since Lib, Korn, and others have already done so. And by the way, thank ya guys!).
Aww. I agreed with what Korn said, and Lib is now avoiding discussing anything substantial.
Unfortunately, given the overall lack of strategic depth in the game, from this player's perspective, I did not see the need to continue that strategy thread series.
I'd just like to mention that I've played Civ3 longer than you have (you've stopped, right?) , and it wasn't untill very recently (and after some fiddling) that I decided that Civ3's strategic depth wasn't less than Civ2s or SMACs.
Good naturedly, I say: "I don't want to imply that you havn't given Civ3 a fair trial, I want it to be explicit."
Actually, that mild as that is it's still harsher than I mean it to be. Everyone differs on the amount of fiddling/testing they're willing to do with a game. (And if someone already has a game they love like Civ2 or SMAC then I suspect that one's willingness to test/fiddle with a new game is going to be reduced if the game follows a different design path.) And if, as I suspect, its the "grand" strategic _diversity_ that you miss, then that really is a matter of taste, not a flaw in the game or in the player.
The fact of the matter is that, more than two years after SMAC's release, radically new and different strategies were being discussed on the SMAC board.
Civ3's strategy section has slowed to a trickle already.
I'd say (again) that the proof is in the pudding.
Alternate interpretations are possible. For example, I think its because the various "strategies" available in SMAC are far more diverse, and, as a rule, more obvious/less subtle than the strategies in Civ3. And "good strategy" in Civ3 is often more a matter of properly executing a particular "grand strategy" than properly choosing one. So if someone wanted to argue that this means that Civ3 has more "tactical depth," but less "strategic diversity" and thus less "strategic depth" I think a good case could be made.
It's not about me (and others) pining away for the days of the SMAC-design philosophy, it's about comparative systems. You gotta compare 4x to 4x. Comparing 4x to chess, or 4x to a classic wargame is not a valid comparison.
(I've tried to do so only when applying some general statement. For example, chess seems to contradict the statement (implied or otherwise) that a large tech tree is _necessary_ to give a game good strategic depth.)
Last edited by Tarquelne; February 17, 2002, 14:10.
Oh well... I think I'll leave this thread too. If Vel isn't comeing back I'm just left with people I agree with discussing things that really should go in a different thread, and Lib (whom I disagree with, but "Tarquelne's style of argument, independent of what he actually says" is really a matter for another thread too.) Oh, and KX. I'll just have to do without.
One more for the road, and then I'll stop trying to convince you to my pov.
Strategic Depth as it applies to 4x games: Like it or not, it's all about the tech tree. Note that this does not apply to strategy games across the board (Chess, for example), but again, if we're gonna talk about 4x games, then, given the 4x games presently on the market, it can fairly be said that techs, and the acquisition of them (whether through research, diplomacy, trade, etc) DRIVES the game. Games with an intricate tech tree allowing for multiple in-game approaches have, by the very definition of the genre, relatively greater overall strategic depth than games with more simplistically designed tech trees.
Note too, that a "deep" tech tree need not be one with a great many branches....only a large amount of diversity. Take EU, for example. One of the DEEPEST games currently on the market, and yet, it's tech trees are completely linear. What makes the difference here though, is in the fact that there are four trees in which to pour what research you have. (I've got some problems with specific parts of EU's research game, but that's a topic for another thread entirely).
Re-starting the game until you happen to come up with an interesting start does not mean the game has strategic depth....it means that, with sufficient tweaking in the editor, and a sufficient amount of patience where restarting is concerned, you can "force" the game to give you a satisfyingly "deep" experience. This though, is hardly the same thing as a built-in, deep gaming experience. You see that, yes?
As to the amount of games I've played....perhaps 100 all the way through, and maybe pushing 500 partials. I started on Regent, and worked my way up to Diety, playing most often on Monarch cos I regard the in-game experience as the most fun on that level. Played at Emperor and Diety, I find the game to be *entirely* linear in its approach....that is to say, early warfare is about the only way to reliably keep the AI on your starting continent in check (which tosses every notion of strategic depth right out the window....I quickly grew tired of having every game play out like a beatdown, and found that on Monarch, some more peaceful strats actually become viable alternatives to that).
With regards to my saying that various things in Civ3 are easy, what is implied in that statement is the word "linear" That is to say....there's one strategic choice that is clearly superior to every other. This is the very opposite of the definition of strategic depth, and one of the main reasons I disagree with the notion that having your strategy dictated to you via your starting position provides MORE in the way of strategic depth. Simply put, if you start in the corner, you WILL fight your way out of it, and you will do so early. Doesn't matter if you're a peaceful builder at heart....the start dictates that you will be a warmonger early on (cos it's the hands down best approach to take). There is no in game mechanism that provides a viable alternative. One choice = No strategic depth.
-=Vel=-
The list of published books grows. If you're curious to see what sort of stories I weave out, head to Amazon.com and do an author search for "Christopher Hartpence." Help support Candle'Bre, a game created by gamers FOR gamers. All proceeds from my published works go directly to the project.
I agreed with what Korn said, and Lib is now avoiding discussing anything substantial.
Inasmuch as I am discussing matters of substance all over the forum, ought I to take it that you have redefined substantial to mean "of interest to Tarq"?
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatum." — William of Ockham
I am still astounded that Civ3 is viewed as strategically shallow.
On combat- I certainly was one of the persons must angrily shouting about how FP was gotten rid off, and how changing HP and A/D levels in the editor would not make up for it. I still belive that- but the comabt system has implemented changes that do add lots of depth- Bombardment. The ability to decimate defenses with no loss to yourself by actual siege practices, like sitting outside and bombing, is a HUGE change from Civ2, and with the system as is, Bombardment is actually more powerful in Civ3 than SMAC. In civ3, you can devastate a base with bombardment to a level that you could not in SMAC- where bombardment did not destroy either population nor base structures. When Civ3 can make scenerios- it will be the first game in which , if a WW2 scenerio is made, strategic bombing would be meaningfully recreated. The importance of roads in this game, and the fact that bombardment destroys them, adds to strategic possiblities of war. You can now, theoretically, weaken an enemy severely by simply bombing one tile of land, without it ebing a city. The fact that ground units can't destroy high flying aircraft forces one to build air defenses, like in real life- One could not simulate the current war in afghanistan with Civ2, unless one made aircraft super-powerful- otherwise some 'terrorist' fortified on a mountain could have taken out an F-18. In this game, that would never happen, and the need for 'northen allience units' to still kill them would also be crucial.
While lack of FP makes combat results more unpredictable, bombardment makes long-range warfare trully possible. That is a fine trade-off in the sense of adding strategic depth.
Resources- resources also add huge amounts of depth- Land, including land that is totally worthless in terms of setlement, becomes crucial. Imagine a game in which you need oil, and the only oil is deep in a tile in a frozen wasteland far away from all settlements? Back in Civ2, going into that land would never have been an issue, but here in Civ3, it is. The whole world matters, not just the areas worthy of fine cities. How many times would you have gone to war in Civ2, or even SMAC, for some bit of god-forsaken land? In Civ3, as in life, those little wastelands now do matter, and you might fight long wars to get them. The idea of luxuries, of going to war to gain land just to get some bit of table condiments, did not exist in civ2. Here in Civ3, you will go to war for table condiments, becuse having that table condiment might mean more gold available for your army. This adds depth- as does the trading system. I find myself wanting to make trades, even constly ones, with the A.I., including civs that I can crush like a bug, simply because the time neede to get the stuff by force is not worht it. In Civ2, it was always worth it.
One big complaint is the A.I., and here is where a major flaw in the Civ3 as shallow argument comes up. The fact that the A.I. is weak is not a problem of strategic depth, but of game difficulty- game difficulty=/ strategic depth. In fact, the weakness of the A.I. is probably a function of strategic depth. In Civ2, a few choices are open to the A.I., so choosing among them is something the A.I. can readily handle. In Civ3 it is given much more varied and consequential matters to deal with- the problem of stupidity comes from the fact that the A.I. has yet to grasp the choices.
Imagine an A.I. that knew how to use bombardment offensively?- who was a more savvy trader? It would make the game vastly more difficult than Civ2 ever was.
The problem then isd not Civ3's 'strategic depth', but that the A.I. as is, has not been able to handle the choices.
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
I submit that whoever might presume to lecture Vel on the strategy components of Civ3 ought to put up or shut up by opening a thread in the Strategy Forum that proves itself superior to Vel's famous series.
Classic argument from authority, Lib. That ranks right up there with the ad hominem and strawman tactics everyone accuses everyone else of doing.
Vel doesn't need you to defend/kiss up to him anyway.
Tarquelne is making some very good points, not just "lecturing." So is Vel.
Originally posted by Tarquelne
Again that focus on tech....
I don't understand how you can isolate the tech race from the rest of the game. "The game isn't difficult exept that I sometimes fall way behind in tech. Otherwise I rule."
You just read too much into the "sometimes". Anyway, in another thread, I compared Civ 3 to "a glorified chess board where all the chess pieces are tossed onto the board at random". Therefore, "sometimes" you may very well be checked mated before making your first move, and vice versa. The random factors just play too much of a role in the result that it reduces the importance of the skill factor, and emphasizes brawl over brain. A warrior that gets promoted to a leader after being attacked by a barb conscript is worth a thousand shields/golds (the cost of buildind a grainary in all of your cities and their maintenance).
I may as well tell a joke on Civ 3 grand strategy depending on the starting position since I don't see anything more interestng to talk about. This is going to be my last post on this topic.
This is my strategy when I play an expansionist civ and I land on Hawaii. Since my scout and worker cannot get out of the city without falling into the Pacific ocean, my strategy is to let them sit at the city gate and call to all the babes passing by:
To Joan:
"By reading the tea leaves, [cough.. down you cleavage, cough cough...], I can see that fate calls for us to ride the same surf. So, why don't you give me Navigation so my worker and scout can visit you at Moulin Rouge ?"
To Elizabeth:
"Hey you with that pointy back scratcher attached to your face, why don't you stop by and scratch my sunburnt back ? On the other hand, just give me Pottery then I won't need to use your face to scratch my back."
To Catherine:
"Oh mine. Which ones of the Cossacks rough you up all puffy like that ? Just give me Chivalry and my knights in shiny armor will jump on them in no time."
To Cleopatra:
"How long ago did you wash your headdress ? Not only your nose is broken by the war chariots, they still leave the wheel marks on your headdress !! Give me Hostital and I'll wash and sterilize your headdress for you, as well as giving your face a much needed cosmetic surgery."
All the while I woud be researching for Shrimp so I can upgrade my triremes to a shrimp trawlers and make some money off the Hawaiin coastline.
There !! That would emcompass the depth of my strategy at the Hawaiian starting position. It certainly has much more depth than Joan's cleavage. me think .
Comment