The lack of "strategic depth" in Civ3

[soufie77]

Here's a thought on how to increase strategic depth without altering the fundamentals of the game program. Make it so that bombardment has a chance of damange every unit in the target square, so that players are less likely to stack their units into huge piles. This is a "target density" concept I tried to start off in another thread, so I might as well give it a shot here.

Hopefully, this would mean less tendency to move artillery about in huge stacks, and also more interesting and widespread distributions of units across a war front. It would also make for some interesting siege scenarios.

[Libertarian]

Question, Yin. There appear to be a considerable number of bugs (more than 150 documented) in the game. How are you dealing with these?

[MrWhereItsAt]

So... it seems that the player who plays to WIN the game every time has found a good consistent way (perhaps the ONLY consitent way, espec. at higher diff. levels) - build a few, well-placed powerful cities, a military rush early on, razing etc. etc. And then there's me and others like me who perhaps could turn our hand to this, but in the end play to build a civilization, encourage good/bad relations with neighbours, find historically repeating conflicts over resources, cities and, for want of a better description, play the game as if it WAS history. For the former, sure, the game is limited in scope - there are few surefire winning strategies. But we latter (well, me anyway) have not yet found the options limited in our gameplay.

Ever seen the story threads or the thread where players take turns at being the civ's leader? Although some may say this is a little childish, this is exactly what I have in mind when I play a game - with a little imagination thrown in, it seems to me that Civ 3 is TARDIS-like. Bigger on the inside. Sure there are few fully successful strategies to repond to a given situation or aim, but there are many more less likely positive ways, and I play the game less than perfectly for the challenge and enjoyment of running my civ to deal with the consequences.

And if you disagree vehemently, if you're determined enough you can always fool yourself into thinking this is what you think.

[Libertarian]

The reason chess has such vast strategic depth is that every turn offers the promise of a thousand interesting decisions.

[Roy H Smith]

Depth?

Is Civ III a high strategy game?

No?
Bombardment is semi-useless.
Esponiage is entirely useless.
Three stats does not a combat system make.
Starting position IS the game.
Tech tree largely eliminates options.
Early game is build warriors/settlers ASAP or die!
Conquerers are severely handicapped (Culture/Corruption)
Very limited terrain improvement (esp. compared to SMAC)
No one gets very far ahead in tech.
Conquering Republics/Democracies can't exist. (So no WW2?)

Yes?
Trade/Diplomacy is very improved.
Player Civilization selected has a strong impact on the game.
Luxeries/Resources influence your and AI options.

And that's about it. Any debate here?

---

And also..."I'm going to win by culture. I'm going to win by conquest. I'm going to win by making everyone like me. I'm going to win by industry."

Conquest has been crippled unless you seriously want to raze EVERY city (which I did for one game).

Culture/diplomacy/industry are all Builder strategies.

Does this sound fair? "Builders love Civ3 since the game is now geared toward their play style. Why not go for a culture, diplomacy, AND industry win at the same time since all are passive strategies?

Conquest has been largely removed as an option. Every player must be a Builder now or the AI's with gang up on him and culture/corruption will starve himself to death. Forget building a FP unless you want to invest 100 turns in the process.

Is Civ III a strategy game? Well..for Builders yes, for Conquers largely no, and for the first 50 turns not particularly. IMHO of course.

[yin26]

Lib: I venture to say that a majority of those bugs are rather minor. Many of them mention that this or that nation should have this or that behavior at this or that time. The EU2 hardcore group is incredibly picky. Then again, so are we about Civ3. One of the most "serious" bugs from their point of view with EU2 was that Spain didn't colonize. Hardly a game breaker (though purists would disagree), but the Paradox team was on top of it -- though they did manage a patch mishap that didn't fix this the first time they tried.

And contrary to the way EU was released in Europe first and got to the U.S. much later -- and much better patched -- EU2 was released in the U.S. first and is slated to go through an equal patch process as the game spreads to Europe and other areas. In other words, the game WILL improve along the directions the fans are asking.

I'd say if you aren't on fire to buy another game just yet, no harm in waiting for EU2 to go through another few patch cycles. By then, the price will be a steal and I venture to guess you'll find a game in EU2 that manages some satisfying historical strategy that you have been missing and might not have thought possible.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Re: Depth?

Originally posted by Roy H Smith
Is Civ III a strategy game? Well..for Builders yes, for Conquers largely no, and for the first 50 turns not particularly. IMHO of course.

What about for Players? Those who don't choose a path and don't play just to win? Those who have no strategy, or whose strategy evolves as their mind wanders? Sure I play to win, but I can't eke out every last ounce of advantage just for that end. Not all the time, anyway.

And you can't do this with chess, which is a game that must be played, and won. There isn't much else to do there. It certainly is interesting in that either player can win at any point in time, and suddenly too, but this is not Civ. Civ is a game where there are many abstract processes surrounding each "victory", and nothing is that simple. Civ is a more continuous game - to succeed here you have to lay the groundwork many many turns in advance, in many different areas, and sudden victories are unlikely (UN and spaceship notwithstanding). There are also so many factors other than just pure thought (as in chess): random rolls dictate a lot of outcomes (and the occasional crash ). This is what people wanted - something that is a little closer to history, where leaders didn't "play just to win", but it was life, win or lose. I like playing like this, where conquest isn't the highest priority, and I believe others do too. If you play like this I think you'll find that the game isn't as limited as some think.

[Ironikinit]

I don't know what game some of you have been playing.

Bombardment is very helpful, esp. if you don't have a tech lead.

OK, the combat system is pretty simple. There's more than three stats, tho.

Espionage, while wildly expensive (you should've heard me cuss when I accidently tried to use propaganda on Thebes... cost me 2000G) is useful for determining enemy forces. That alone makes it worthwhile to build the Intelligence Agency.

The tech tree eliminates options how? It's possible in the medieval period, for example, to focus on military advances (the invention side) or focus on social advances (the monotheism side).

Yes, you have to move fast in the very early game. Why is it bad that the AI no longer plays like an idiot?

SMAC (science fiction) style terrain improvement wouldn't really suit a game based (loosely) on real history. Nor would more terrain improvements help much in a game that already has enough people complaining about tedium and the need to micromanage.

The new patch may have changed things, but I've forged ahead on tech quite a bit in the late game... sometimes too much. Oh well, I can give it away if I really want a modern war. And there's always the option to start a new one.

In the last game I played, I more than doubled my territory through warfare as a democracy. Saved games available on request. You can take my word for it, tho. I've never had to change governments due to war weariness.

While Roy says that conquerors are hamstrung, others say that the game leads them by the nose to do nothing but conquer. The reality is somewhere in the middle. War is likely, and it's a good way to expand. Success depends on the player. Both a building and warmonger styles are viable, but it's not easy to be purely one or the other.

Posts like the one that contained the following:

"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). "

make me wonder how familiar many of Civ 3's critics actually are with the game. Maybe it was just a slip, but the error it contains doesn't suggest a strong grasp on game mechanics.

[Libertarian]

And you can't do this with chess, which is a game that must be played, and won. There isn't much else to do there.

Petrosian, and other masters of equalizing and draws, might disagree with you. Moreover, the beauty in chess is not merely the victory, but the approach to victory. Styles of play — from the sheer precision of Fischer, to the bold daring of Tal, to the clean simplicity of Capablanca, to the incredible vision of Alekhine — are so rich in variety that wins themselves come from many different sources. Tactical brilliancies. Strategic masterpiecess. Sucker traps. And even positional marathons.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Perhaps I oversimplify. I am responding to those who seem to think that winning in Civ3 (or any game) is the be-all and end-all. When there are few proven methods to win for sure, that is seen as a lack of depth. I disagree. The depth is in how the game CAN be played, win lose or draw. The attraction to chess is how you outsmart your opponent, or how they outsmart you (or how one outsmarts oneself!), not necessarily the final result.

You can play a game simply to win, but that's not all. Aren't games meant for you to have fun? For those who don't see the depth in Civ3, try playing with a different state of mind. Pick a Civ you want to groom for victory, or try to create a world with a complex set of diplomatic relations rather than just going for the highest score possible all the time. Try new opening gambits, design different tactics, play away. If winning's your thing, fine. But that isn't all as far as "depth" is concerned.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by 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.

I think thats more an argument that something needs to be done with the editor to alter the combat system, not that the game has too-little strategic depth.

I snipped a bunch of stuff without responding because I think the important bit is....

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),

I think you _must_ use the editor to change the game's initial combat "balance" to keep overrunning the AI via warfare from being the overwhelmingly favorably strategic option on most maps. Start on a small island and you may feel you're doing well to win militarily...

What's important: Editor, good (as in "good for strategic depth") starting position.

I've conceded all sorts of points (you need to use editor, need good position) - can you conceed, Vel, that by playing with the editor to rebalance combat someone _might_ get good strategic depth out of a "good" starting position?

I snipped a bunch of stuff because I think it falls under the "combat unblanced" umbrella.

Timing city builds: Generally, you build them as fast as you possibly can...not much timing to it.

That's why I don't like most strategy threads - too vauge. Sure "build as fast as possible" is the best strategy. "But, I've got this city, see, with a number of English units only 4 tiles away - they might be headed toward the Aztecs, or they might be about to attack me. I'd like to Settle in a spot to the north of the city a little bit. Should I build a Settler, or build another defensive unit NOW, or build a barracks? Or something else?"

I think the "depth" in Civ3 is all about the answers to the sorts of questions asked in the part in " "s above, not in questions like "Should I build lots of cities or not?"

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!

And the options give good "strategic depth" (as opposed to diversity?) Against human players, maybe. Against the AI, just don't think the AI is good enough to make it matter. To, as korn said "bring out the best strategies" (actually, that might be a paraphrase, not a quote).

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?

Do note that its the combat system imbalance that you keep coming back to.

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 think it's because they're more difficult to discuss. They depend so much on a host of details. It's simply more _work_ to talk about them.

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

Well, there we have a concession. If you want to say that all those "little" decisions are "tactical" not "strategic" considerations then I'm willing to agree that Civ3 doesn't have as much "strategic" depth as Civ2 or SMAC.

[Tarquelne]

Hey! I'd like to point out that with Vel's last post, and now that Lib. has been reduced by my "rhetorical swagger" to mere ad hominem attacks on me, no one is really argueing that Civ3's lack of strategic depth comes from fewer options ala Civ2 or SMAC (lots of techs, mostly), but instead from flaws in the way Civ3's own options/features are implimented.

[volcanohead]

Originally posted by Tarquelne
Hey! I'd like to point out that with Vel's last post, and now that Lib. has been reduced by my "rhetorical swagger" to mere ad hominem attacks on me, no one is really argueing that Civ3's lack of strategic depth comes from fewer options ala Civ2 or SMAC (lots of techs, mostly), but instead from flaws in the way Civ3's own options/features are implimented.

You are one of the most arrogant posters I've seen so far on these boards. Grow up.

In response to your almost unintelligible post, it seems to me that you haven't understood the debate in this thread. Many people believe that the strategic depth is greater in SMAC than in the current patch of Civ3, not as you imply that both SMAC and Civ3 have limited strategic depth because of fewer options. In fact, as I said, your post make almost no sense.

And the changes you suggest in the combat will still not change the rather depressing lack of though needed to negotiate the tech tree.

The strategic depth that existed in SMAC was due to the branched tech tree, as Vel pointed out. Civ3 is still fun to play as it is (for me, I hasten to add), but it is very frustrating that they did not use this very good idea from SMAC. The result is a slicker game, with less depth.

V

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by volcanohead


You are one of the most arrogant posters I've seen so far on these boards. Grow up.

"Hello" to you, too.

In response to your almost unintelligible post, it seems to me that you haven't understood the debate in this thread. Many people believe that the strategic depth is greater in SMAC than in the current patch of Civ3, not as you imply that both SMAC and Civ3 have limited strategic depth because of fewer options. In fact, as I said, your post make almost no sense.

I meant Civ3 has fewer Civ2/SMAC type options. Sorry if I didn't put much thought into the post, I was just pleased that Vel's last post didn't focus on techs but switched to the combat system. I think the "combat system" argument is a good one, and the tech argument a bad one.

And I've been following the thread pretty closely. It was started in the first place to argue against the thought that it's because Civ3 doesn't have as many techs or imporvements as Civ2 or SMAC it doesn't have as much depth. I was simply posting to express my happiness that those lines of argument seem to have dried up.

I recommend, volc., that you spend a little more time trying to understand the other person's position and a little less time hurling insults based on misunderstanding. ((Now _that_ was arrogant. Both what I just said, and your attitude. Isn't meaningfull ambiguity great? (And smug little self-congratualtory comments like that are arrogant, too. Isn't self-referencialism great?))

And the changes you suggest in the combat will still not change the rather depressing lack of though needed to negotiate the tech tree.

Well, have _you_ been following the thread? You really think that if a 4x civ-type game doesn't have a "deep" tech tree it can't be "deep"? Nothing else matters?

The strategic depth that existed in SMAC was due to the branched tech tree, as Vel pointed out. Civ3 is still fun to play as it is (for me, I hasten to add), but it is very frustrating that they did not use this very good idea from SMAC. The result is a slicker game, with less depth.

Ok, am I arrogant for not agreeing with Vel, or are you calling me arrogant simply because I'm not as bitter as you are?

Or should I just ignore the "arrogant" comment, if I can, and see that you simply want to place a "vote" for Vel's tech argument? "Me too" sort of thing?

[volcanohead]

You're arrogant because you debate as if it's a game, in which you win a prize if you eventually out-talk other people, regardless of the true merits or otherwise of the case you make. You are striving for attention.

And simply because people do not repeat the same points ad infinitum "those points appeared to have dried up" it does not mean they are not valid.

I maintain that Vel made a good point in saying that the tech-tree is the crux of the STRATEGIC experience of Civ/SMAC. And I find in my games that if I randomly pick techs and trade with others I can do very well, implying that in the current version of Civ3 there is little or no strategic depth provided by the tech tree.

Now, which point do you disagree with:

(1) The tech-tree is an important potential source of strategic decisions in a 4x game

(2) The tech tree in Civ3 is inferior to that of SMAC, with regard to generating the need to make strategic decisions

I'm sure you'll feel the need to say something.