The lack of "strategic depth" in Civ3

[Tarquelne]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Velociryx
One more for the road, and then I'll stop trying to convince you to my pov. [QUOTE]

Well, if you get one more I get one more.

Strategic Depth as it applies to 4x games: Like it or not, it's all about the tech tree. 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.

I agree. With the important caveat that the tech tree in Civ3 isn't as important as it is in the other games in the "civ" family. And....

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.

All other things being equal, yes. But that's where I think Civ3's various improvements kick in. (Well, just AI and Resources, really.)

First, I believe it worth mentioning that I think that techs are one of the most enjoyable parts of the game - if not _the_most enjoyable. Getting "new toys" is always fun. But, of course, that isn't really a matter of strategic depth.

I think what your speaking of is "grand" scale strategic _diversity_ with regards to the tech tree. I don't think Civ2's tech tree gave it much strategic _depth_ because, for me at least, I never felt that I needed to analyze a particular game and then try to reach the proper decision with regards to my future tech path. You could just choose in what way I wanted to beat up my foes, and go to you. Maybe not quite that easy... but close.

Actually, I often find tech decisions in Civ3 _more_ difficult and more important. Sure, we (the AI and I) will all end up with the same techs at the same time (within 1/2 an age, generally), but you can make some _very_ favorable trades if you get a wanted tech before anyone else. Avoiding the Cavalry path, for example, and picking up all those "peacefull" techs for trade or wonders might hurt some militarily, but can still be very "profitable."

Note too, that a "deep" tech tree need not be one with a great many branches....only a large amount of diversity.

Oooh, there's that word "diversity" again. (More thanks to DrFell for bringing that up in the first place.)

Re-starting the game until you happen to come up with an interesting start does not mean the game has strategic depth....

Of course.

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?

Nope. When I restart the map I'm not "forcing" some _change_ on the game - I'm just giving it more chances to actually "work right." I think it's much more accurate to say "Strategic depth in Civ3 is often dependant on the starting position." rather than "There is no built-in strategic depth unless you force it on the game." Where's the application of force?

And how many patches did Civ2 and SMAC get? How many expansions/generations? How many mods? What's wrong with Civ3 needing some work? "But they should have taken everything from Civ2/SMAC and built upon that." I hear? Well, I'm pleased they didn't, if for the poor, clueless AI if for nothing else. I'm hoping for a SMAC 2, but I was quite ready for something different from the Civ line.

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).

My earlier games on Emperor and Deity were like that. (Esp. since I was often playing the Militaristic Germans.) With poor (but not hopeless) starting positions, though, I've started being forced (by the threat of loss) to develop different strategies. If you try the game again I suggest you use the editor to "legislate" against miltary tactics, and try playing on Emperor or Deity more.

With regards to my saying that various things in Civ3 are easy, what is implied in that statement is the word "linear"

OK.

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.

Shouldn't you say "If I start in the corner, I WILL fight my way out of it." Because that just isn't my experience, not after fiddling with the editor some, playing mostly on Emp. and D. and restarting quite often.

I became _really_ worried about Civ3 after a few games with 12 or more (it seemed) Great Leaders and romping over the AI civs with Cavalry and Tanks. After that I played Miltaristic civs less, and started using the editor to make conquest harder.

I won't say that you didn't give Civ3 a "fair go", but I'm willing to bet ($0, but its the thought that counts) that you could get more a goodly amount of depth (equal at _least_ to Civ2) if you played with the editor more to make the favorable options leading to "linear" play less favorable.

(I think Imperialism II is a great example of this. It didn't have an editor, but in the "preferences" (or somesuch) you could change many things about how the game worked. I used them to consistently make the "easy" ways to win harder. It was wonderfull - it didn't take much fiddling to make the game much "deeper" by forcing me (because of the changes I'd made) to find new ways of doing things.)

[Libertarian]

Classic argument from authority, Lib.

And argument from authority is valid when the authority cited is in fact an authority on the matter under debate.

Vel doesn't need you to defend/kiss up to him anyway.

But Tarq needs you? Physician, heal thyself.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Calvin Vu
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.

I wont disagree with that. I think that's why I (we) need to restart so much to get a really good game.

And this is, btw, where I think editing can help, since it seems to be the big problem with a favorable starting position is the "easy" military option.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Libertarian


And argument from authority is valid when the authority cited is in fact an authority on the matter under debate.

Interesting.... I followed the link. Where you write "is valid" the document has that you can expect the "opinions" of an authority to be "informed." The document explains this is why the argument from authority "isn't always completely bogus." You seem to be using a quite loose definition of "valid."

[Tarquelne]

Doh, that was three replies!

[Tarquelne]

Three...........no, four!

[nato]

I will take anything Vel says as very informed. However that does not mean I'll refuse to listen to people who might disagree, as you suggested, as long as those people have good arguments. The arguments are more important than who makes them.

[korn469]

GePap

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.

the combat system is more complicated and deep than the combat system in Civ2, though because it has unreliable combat results, this negates some of the depth, because building a weak unit is just as good of a choice as a strong unit; however increasing hitpoints easily fixes this problem

while strategically bombardment is better in civ3, tactically bombardment was better in SMAC (one bombard unit could damage an entire stack) though the combat system in SMAC had the potential for more strategic depth than the current Civ3 system for one simple reason and that is special abilities

in SMAC the unit abilities made a fairly simple combat system have lots of depth because a number of different approaches to building an army existed, with a good number of counters, though the actual system rarely achieved its potential because of the unbalanced nature of copters and drop troops both which came with the same tech...since chop and drop was the be all end all combat strategy in SMAC the potential of the combat system was rarely fully explored except when players made a choice not to use copters (since the AI never could)

The fact that ground units can't destroy high flying aircraft forces one to build air defenses, like in real life

not really, air units are too weak in Civ3 and if instead of wasting resources on them you build ground units instead you can take out their bases and end the threat

though again this is easily corrected

Resources- resources also add huge amounts of depth

agreed, although it doesn't fully live up to its potential it is close, and it certainly adds depth

the A.I. as is, has not been able to handle the choices.

agreed

to me good A.I. does not mean that the game has strategic depth, nor does bad A.I. mean that a game lacks strategic far from it...what it does mean is this

The better the A.I. is the more the player will have to utilize the strategic depth in the game. In light of this better A.I doesn't not mean especially strong. Having an A.I. that is fairly challenging in each area of the game is better than having an A.I. that is excellent in one area of the game while weak in many others. An all around A.I. while not as challenging as an A.I. with one killer stragey, will present more oppertunities for the player to explore the game systems and will therefore let the player utilize the strategic depth in the game. An A.I. that is good enough to seriously challenge or even beat the player except when they attack its Achilles heel with the same tried and true strategies adds nothing to strategic depth. This may be part of the problem in Civ3, while better than the AI in SMAC (which was weak in almost every area) it forces the player into making the same choices every game in order to win, reducing winning to one best formula.

One last thing on Strategic Depth: It is not replayability per se (which is more a function of fun, as in a FPS has lots of replayability but little strategic depth), but it is the ability to save a game at 4000bc and replay it a number of times in vastly different ways all of which if properly executed should have an equal possibility of allowing the player to win with about an equal amount of resistance.

[Velociryx]

That's just it, Tarque...there IS no threat of loss...not really. Not against the AI. If you're outnumbered, thanks to the overly simplified combat system, all you gotta do is build scads of Warriors and turn them loose. Losses don't matter. Pop rushing doesn't matter. You can take advantage of the simplified combat engine and just overrun the opposition.

N. Machievelli did a masterpiece of a job proving that very point. All he ever built was Warriors, let the AI get into the Middle Ages (IIRC) and overran them.

Regardless of how many times you restart, that very same strategy WILL WIN. In fact, many times (if you get hemmed in with three cities on some crappy peninsula), it's the only truly viable alternative left to you if you're playing on Emperor/Diety....and that's just not strategic depth, no matter how you slice it.

If combat weren't structured the way it is, then strategic resources really *would* be strategic, but given the current state of the game (not taking editor tweaks and mods into account....I'm comparing the current state of Civ3 (latest patch), with the latest smac patch (4 in all, IIRC...making them at least in the same ballbark for comparability), "strategic" resources are tactical at best, and not really necessary to win the game at all.

Luxuries....maybe...but even then, you can simply control your growth in cities to compensate for a relative lack of luxuries until you can take/trade for what you're lacking (with spiffy units if you've the resources for it, else by mass producing warriors and playing a simple beatdown game). TRY and send a load of laser scouts against a Neutrino Armored garrison parked inside a sensor array, sitting on a mountain/bunker in SMAC. Try it and see what the result is. You'll see something VERY different than if you send a batch of warriors against a mech infantry sitting in a mountain fortress....I promise! And that has nothing to do with production (not that you need much production to crank out several warriors a turn), or skill, or anything....it has to do with an overly simplified combat system that kills off any attempt at being strategic (or even tactical, really) with troop movement in Civ3.

Again, and just so everyone knows where I'm coming from....this does not make Civ3 a bad game. It DOES mean that Civ3 is a vastly simplified game when compared to its predecessor. Fewer real choices that make any tangible long term difference = Less strategic depth, in my book.

In my mind, it's like arguing that Tic-Tac-Toe has more strategic depth than chess. You can argue the point till you're blue in the face, but the evidence just isn't there, IMO.

As to the question, "Where's the application of force?" let's outline some pretty basic starts where two 4x games are concerned....SMAC and Civ3.

In Civ3, one of THE most common starts I see is human player stuck on a peninsula, with at least one, and likely two rival civs within twenty squares of your start.

You can *maybe* found 2-3 cities by the time you start feeling hemmed in, at which time, it's best to simply switch to a$$ kick mode, cos any future settlers you crank out will be stuck with noplace to go. Sure, there ARE other alternatives to this (as has been discussed), but those other alternatives are a) not a sure thing, and b) not nearly as effective as just getting in there and kicking some AI tailfeathers (and yep...it's a foregone conclusion....there is no guessing or maybes about it....you, as the human player, executing a sustained attack against a chosen AI civ WILL carry the day, despite having fewer cities and no production bonuses). So, because your strat was dictated to you by the start you got, you do the ONE VIABLE THING left open to you, and play a little spank the AI. Big Yawn. After about ten games like that, playing essentially the same way (techs don't matter....the AI will outresearch you, and you can simply take all their techs after you beat them, resources don't matter....you'll have the game well in hand long before you have need of anything exotic like oil, and while horses/iron make the game easier in the sense that you suffer fewer losses and have to slog fewer units around the map, you don't really even need those), the game becomes.....repetitive.

Timing city builds: Generally, you build them as fast as you possibly can...not much timing to it. Temples and libraries provide culture, and the longer they're on the board, the more culture you get.....where's the exquisite timing in that? Nonexistent, IMO.

Barracks - Need a few if you want good quality troops, and the sooner the better. Timing? Only in the sense that faster is better.

Now....let's finish that comparison. Load up a game of SMAC, and regardless of what kind of start you face terrain-wise, you have a whole HOST of options open to you! Wanna focus on infrastructure techs and terraforming till you see if you're alone? Have at it! Or maybe you want to increase your rate of exploration? If so...that's a radically different tech beeline with radically different long and short term tradeoffs. TRY doing that in Civ3......you can't! It's utterly impossible, because there IS no such thing as long term (or even mid-term) tech advantage in the early/mid-game. The very best you can hope for is short term gain....and the timeframe on that is generally so short that you can't make good use of it.

In SMAC, you can take advantage of certain starting positions to create enormous amounts of turn advantage for you and your empire. No such beast in Civ3.....not really. What does turn advantage mean, when all you gotta do is build warriors to overcome even the most stoutly defended enemy position?

Civ3 is a good game, but I have yet to be convinced by any argument on the thread that it has a great (or even a medium) level of strategic depth. It has been said that one of the reasons for the relative quiet on the Civ3 strat forums is that, while all the "broad based, Grand strategies" have been covered, there are still TONS of little subtle game-specific strategies (presumedly where all this strategic depth is coming from) aren't really being talked about. My question would be....and why is that? Surely, even if a strategy is game specific, there are lessons to be learned by studying the playbook of a person's game? And yet....not a peep has been uttered about them!

I would contend that's because they're not there. Tactical depth....maybe (emphasis on the word "maybe"). Strategic depth? Nahhh.

-=Vel=-

[Tarquelne]

Five!

Originally posted by korn469
One last thing on Strategic Depth: It is not replayability per se (which is more a function of fun, as in a FPS has lots of replayability but little strategic depth), but it is the ability to save a game at 4000bc and replay it a number of times in vastly different ways all of which if properly executed should have an equal possibility of allowing the player to win with about an equal amount of resistance.

I'm repeating myself a bit here: so shoot me.

As you've defined "strategic depth" the above is certainly completely true. However, I don't think "vastly different" should really be in there. I think that's either "strategic diversity"..... or a sign that we should say Civ3 has good "tactical depth" if not "strategic depth. (In that the interesting choices are all in the smaller-scale details. For example, "maximize territory size" is generally my one and only "strategic" imperitive, but the question of how, exactly, to do so (not "Miltary or Cultural?" but "Attack Ur or Friesland?" or "Rush or wait for the cathedral?") is where I find the depth.)

[Chronus]

Take EU, for example. One of the DEEPEST games currently on the market,

I've read similar quotes from a couple of other people. The basic gist I get from them is: EU is deeper than Civ3.

I've played both games now and have a difficult time swallowing the above statement. Will one of the EU fans be willing to open a thread that explains exactly why EU is "deeper" than Civ3? And, perhaps, on a content vs. content basis?

[yin26]

Chronus:

I have only just begun with EU2, but I played EU quite a bit and was disgusted with Civ3 (though I am watching the patching carefully). I won't try a complete response to your request just yet (I think others here could do a better job at the moment), but I will outline a few things that make EU --for me-- a deeper game.

First I should note that EU is actually *more* abstracted than is Civ, particularly in the areas of combat, tech and internal infrastructure. At first glance, this is quite a turn off as one of the more satisfying elements of Civ comes in seeing your differentiated units, techs and buildings seemingly add more strategy and depth to the game. I will submit that EU would do well to incorporate some of those elements, but the fact remains that despite all that Civ offers in this regard, the combat falls a bit flat (see above), the tech tree and tech progression are in dire need of a face-lift, and the building aspect of Civ is 2-dimensional and stale. When was the last time you sweated over what to build next?

In return for abstracting those elements of the game, EU instead gives you far deeper challenges, which comes to your question. What kind of challenges?

EU is simply outstanding in placing your country in part of a complex and intricate web wherein history (in the form of events), religion (in the form of ruling over disparate peoples), and now --in EU2-- domestic policy (in the form of less or more centralized government, etc.) place in such a position that if you merely *react* to the challenges instead of *proactively* planning, you WILL lose. Compare that with Civ, a game in which it's a fairly obvious path to upgrade tech ASAP, expand ASAP and, ultimately, attack ASAP. Simple. Dull.

A step further back and we can compare the maps these two games play on. EU runs on a province by province basis. Civ has no such distinction as even borders can be rather easily ignored or overrun. In EU, you are once again part of a complex web of nations, and conquest, while certainly possible, is FAR MORE delicate balancing act in EU than it is in Civ.

Most notably, if you attack a neighbor in EU without just cause, you gain a horrible reputation that will eventually see you gang-attacked by the myriad nations surrounding you. While that gang-attack AI approach is not subtle, it demands that if you are going to go in the warpath, you must keep a close eye on any number of neighboring nations' attitudes toward you or be simply overwhelmed by forces from all sides that seek to stip you of your power as a warmongerer.

In Civ, does it really matter if the entire world is pissed at you? Not if you are a good player. With the huge army and huge coffers you should have stuffed yourself with from quite early, winning in Civ3 is almost always a matter of hitting hard, early and often. Trying that in EU will get you killed 9 times out of 10.

I should also note that most of the time in Civ, the AI is simply geared to hate you for no good reason other than to win. It seems the latest patch made this even more silly. You can pledge your first born to some AI civ in one turn and have it attack you in the next simply to fulfill the 'give the player' a challenge approach. In EU, peace *IS* an option. You *can* keep people generally happy with you. Of course, you won't expand very well that way, so if you plan to expand, plan to be hated by some people.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

In EU, you have to choose your times and places to attack very carefully. And so as to not rise too many eyebrows, you've often got to follow up any conquests with periods of peace and rebuilding of diplomatic relations...or suffer that gang-AI. Does Civ offer anything even close to this sort of dimplomatic challenge? No. The diplomacy in Civ is paper thin. Ignoring the dimplomacy screen entirely in Civ, in fact, is likely to speed up the game and your enjoyment of it.

It's also worth noting that your treasury in EU is far more difficult to maintain than it is in Civ. In EU, maintaining a large army costs you dearly, once again challenging you to decide how many troops, when and where. In Civ, by contrast, particularly with the changes to support rules in Civ3, keeping a huge army on-hand is a breeze, thereby further undermining the need to worry about your actions raising the ire of other Civs.

I could go on and on. Civ3 is really just a lot of meaningless eye-candy trying to disguise tedious linearity. Of course, people like a lot of eye-candy, and it is certainly easier to identify with "I built a temple so I'm more religious" than it is to look at something like: "I want to conquer Protestant territory, so should I decree a shift in religion and risk mass revolts?"

But tell me, in the end, which decision is more challenging? Civ is certainly easier to play and jump into, but once you played EU for any length of time, you realize that Civ is a game just as easily mastered since most of the supposed 'challenges' it gives you boil down to taking the obvious and linear path.

Ending with something I hinted at ealier: In Civ, the point seems 'to win.' Of all the options of winning, how many are satisfying? You can kill everybody, but the combat is so weak (as with the underlying economy supporting it), that it's a tedious bore most of the time to win that way. You can build a spaceship, but once again the underlying economy makes this less than a challenge. Etc.

In EU, I hardly ever found myself saying "I have to win this game." In fact, now that I think about it, 'winning' hardly crosses my mind while playing EU. Instead, I focus first on survival and then well-timed but measured expansions to my empire. World conquest? What a joke! I am happy enough to look back at where I started and see that not only have I survived but my nation thrived to some degree under my leadership.

And if at anytime I find that too easy, I fire up a small nation and learn what it's like to have one misstep spell the end of your people. Can Civ offer that? Not even close.

[muppet]

Originally posted by Velociryx
It has been said that one of the reasons for the relative quiet on the Civ3 strat forums is that, while all the "broad based, Grand strategies" have been covered, there are still TONS of little subtle game-specific strategies (presumedly where all this strategic depth is coming from) aren't really being talked about. My question would be....and why is that? Surely, even if a strategy is game specific, there are lessons to be learned by studying the playbook of a person's game? And yet....not a peep has been uttered about them!

I would contend that's because they're not there. Tactical depth....maybe (emphasis on the word "maybe"). Strategic depth? Nahhh.

-=Vel=-

That may be because the myriad of 'subtle game-specific strategy' is very mickey mouse: I have lots of free space, I guess I don't need a super military. Or how about. Oops, I'm on a mini-continent. Better get off soon. Not much to put into a strategy guide unless it is directed at pre-teens.

"maybe" tactical depth? Vel is being generous and kind. I'm having a difficult time, as I believe most are as well, trying to find creative ways to organize my units, execute a war, and build infrastructure. There just is not much room for tactical execution.

Like Vel said. It is not a bad game. And kudos to firaxis for their recent patch. It just isn't at the level of strategic or tactical depth that expert players were hoping for.

[Libertarian]

Interesting.... I followed the link. Where you write "is valid" the document has that you can expect the "opinions" of an authority to be "informed." The document explains this is why the argument from authority "isn't always completely bogus." You seem to be using a quite loose definition of "valid."

As the document goes on to say in its examples, "Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions on black hole radiation to be informed." Vel is an accomplished and published author on gaming strategies, with a proven track record for strategy mapping, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions on gaming strategy to be informed. That is why Firaxis consults with him.

You know, debating is supposed to be like boxing, where points are scored for blows that land. You're treating this more like figure skating, attempting to woo the crowed with your rhetorical swagger. You have yet to offer supporting evidence or deductive reasoning for any of the points you've raised. You seem to enjoy the banter, and I have no problem with that. Let's just not pretend it's something else.

I'm reminded of Troy McClure's date with Patty. "Ha ha ha ha ha," he bellowed, "That's the funniest anecdote I've ever heard! Now you tell one!"

[Libertarian]

Wow, Yin. You certainly have stirred up an interest for me in EU2. Thanks.