February 15th Chat Transcript

[MarkG]

here it is!

many thanks to all the firaxians who participated, as well as everyone else who was in the chat

http://apolyton.net/misc/chat/civ3/2c3p-chat-1.shtml

[TechWins]

Could somebody, who was at the chat, give an overview over the key points of the chat? I've been reading some of the chat, but most of it so far doesn't consist of useful information, and I don't want to spend all my time reading the whole to not get any useful information out of it. Thanks.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

No time to write down the points but I have read the chat, and very usefull though I think |I need to write an essay on why it is goood to have civ 1,2/smac ZOC for fortresses

FOr units removing it makes sense but fortresses were a handy feature than while useless now. I am not sure if it is too hard to implement.

my favourite question

[korn469] mike so, besides starting locations what are some other high priority editor changes?

and answer

[Mike_Breitkreutz_FIRAXIS1] korn: placing units and cities, minimap, configuring players, more user friendliness, and exposing a lot more parts of the game in the rules.

with this add on

[Mike_Breitkreutz_FIRAXIS1] korn: I agree. I just have to get the rest of the programmers to agree so they can stop hard-coding all the little rules

another one not so hopeful

Sith] Mike: Good to know. Are you planning on making the game as editable as possible even releasing code to get at the AI routines

[Mike_Breitkreutz_FIRAXIS1] I doubt we will release AI code like that. I don't think the AI is not really set up for that.

and another not so hopefull one

[Mike_Breitkreutz_FIRAXIS1] [Mike_Breitkreutz_FIRAXIS1] Events: maybe. Scripting: No. I've answered this before. I don't believe in giving scripting languages because the only additional power they give users is the power to create bugs.
[Acooper] Good info Soren, thanks
[Libertarian] Request for the hopper: Queue messages that fly by into a list and optionalize Domestic Nag
[Soren_Johnson_Firaxis] you mean, you could see the enemy warriors?
[korn469] yes
[Mike_Breitkreutz_FIRAXIS1] That's not to say there won't be a way to script events -- just not a scripting language
[starmouse] power to create bugs? sounds like a curse spell in harry potter
[hagbart] i like the domestic messages
[JohnPaulJones] The script engine in the like of RR Tycoon 2 was nice though
[ImmortalWombat] Mike: or to fix them, add concepts, ideas, game features... check out the CtP2 mods for some examples
[ImmortalWombat] no-ones made bugs yet
[Asher274] mmmhairy pot
[JohnPaulJones] events i mean
[Libertarian] Hag: Then you would select "Yes"
[Soren_Johnson_Firaxis] i'll check it out
[Rpodos] How high up the military chain can barbs go? (both as a civ and from huts)
[hardjoy] mike : thanx, but how about the "starcraft" inspired scenario tools you talked about in previous chats?
[Mike_Breitkreutz_FIRAXIS1] But there's no reason the same level of power couldn't be given without a scripting language

with an interesting ending.

anyway excellent chat

[korn469]

[ACS_MarkG] now jeff, that was the wrong answer. you need to go to a PR school
[ChrisShaffer] rdomarat - but you do know when a riot will break out -- all you have to do is use the domestic advisor and count all the little faces
[ACS_MarkG] i know one: "The Yin University"
[Jeff_Morris_FIRAXIS] What's a PR?
[Sirotnikov] yeah, ww2 rules
[Jeff_Morris_FIRAXIS] What's a Yin?
[Dan_Magaha_SOMBRERO] Puerto Rican School?
[ChrisShaffer] it just takes too much time...
[DavidFloyd] lol
[rdomarat] I was talking in the "real world"
[Acooper] No not yin!
[DavidFloyd] Stonewalling
[Sirotnikov] isn't "Yin" a curse in Firaxian?
[furtigan] Airbases? Possible? Please?
[pitk] jeff, why deoesnt water cycle in civ3?
[CapTVK] the opposite of yang....Oh that Yin!
[Jeff_Morris_FIRAXIS] It's more like a "he who cannot be named

[eclarkso]

Filling the map by colonial times

I believe somewhere in the transcript there was mention of how to curb expansion so that every island and outlying sub-continent isn't filled (or at least pretty well colonized) by the time what would be the colonial period. I have thought about this some, and have a proposed solution. I am unsure to its feasibility, however.

Proposal: Just as ships have a certain chance of sinking when they end their turn on different types of water, units loaded on a ship should have a chance of perishing, independent of their 'mother ship' or other units on board. The probability of perishing could/should depend on the type of ship, the length of time that unit has been on the ship and the location of the ship (coast/sea/ocean).

Justification: I believe this proposal, if feasible, would create a number of positive effects:

1) Slows down colonization, WITHOUT affecting the rate of sea exploration.
-a) Lengthens the expansion phase of the game - it's harder to get settlers to empty land, but just as easy to find that land.
-b) Makes the 'Explorer' unit more useful.

2) Barbarians are more of a factor later into the game.
-a) Barbarians' access to additional units (added in 1.17) becomes more significant, since barbarian camps will last longer on more isolated land masses.

3) Realism/historical accuracy
-a) Long trips across oceans did NOT do the body good.
-b) Expected slower rate of expansion is better.

===========

There are a number of side-effects which could affect gameplay:

- Slower expansion means fewer cities, perhaps leading to a slower rate of tech advance? I'm not sure how significant this would be given the extreme rate of AI tech exchange.

- Would this hamstring the AI, given that a good part of its advantage is its ability to expand so fast? Even though this rule would apply to human and machine player, does it play to the AI's strengths (expansion rate/production bonuses) or the human player's (city selection sites, warmongering?)?

I apologize is this is too OT for this thread, but I wasn't sure what the proper forum would be. And I'm not sure how many people would see it in a new thread . Please discuss, and I'd appreciate any Firaxis comment on how outlandish this proposal/thought is.

[hardjoy]

I'd actually prefer less importance of borders, preferably an option to turn them completely OFF, and an increase in the strategic advantage of using colonies and fortresses.

I think the greatest problem of Civ3 is this *return of the ICS* that the AI implies in its strategy. Its too crazy about expansion. Could be more interesting to meet small, yet very advanced civilizations, instead of all the globe-encompassing gigantic empires, that AI nations tend to get, left undisturbed.

But of course, the lack of proper scenario tools is too bad.
What if you'd like to create a quest-like scenario with objectives that differ widely from the game rules? You simply can't. Not to speak of a plain war scenario. The scenario tools and not least options to turn all the fancy stuff like leader pics and animations OFF, would be nice. The engine simply needs to be more flexible.

[E_T]

I like this part....

[ProvostHarrison] Hey lads, I am impressed in the civ3mod.bic file the workaround for not being able to upgrade special units :-D
...
[Soren_Johnson_Firaxis] provost: well, you have to thank whoever posted that solution on Apolyton. I feel dumb that I didn't think of it earlier. (of course, it did require some code work, like in the Civilopedia)

my greatest work sofar....

Wish they had not forgotten who I was.....

E_T

[MonsterMan]

eclarkso: I have a very simple solution to the problem, which is that naval units outside your civilization borders start to lose one hit point every turn they end still outside it. That will force a more gradual expansion of empires.

[Brutus66]

Sort of like how helicopters work in Civ 2, eh? Interesting idea, but I prefer something more related to random chance. Sail ships should be subject to some kind of chance of being lost (or units aboard lost) kind of like galleys are when they end a turn away from the coast. Maybe imposing the risk of hit point reductions each turn when at sea...
That way, you still have the chance that some ships might survive a trip to circumnavigate the world, but it would be dicey. A navigation-related tech would reduce or eliminate the danger.
I do like the idea of passengers expiring during long voyages- sounds historically accurate!

[GodKing]

Markos, thanks for posting the chat. A lot of info in there that I forgot or missed. Any plans on any future chats?

[eclarkso]

Originally posted by MonsterMan
eclarkso: I have a very simple solution to the problem, which is that naval units outside your civilization borders start to lose one hit point every turn they end still outside it. That will force a more gradual expansion of empires.

Though you don't have many details (do naval units -always- lose a HP? Or is this a percentage thing?), regardless, I disagree with this solution for several reasons.

1) Offensive naval wars would be nonexistant. Why marginalize offensive naval units even more than they already are?
2) The restriction is not consistent with other types of units (i.e., land units don't lose HP outside their borders, why should ships?).
3) This would not only limit colonization, but limit exploration. The former is desirable, but I don't think the latter is.

I guess I'm not sure what you think is wrong with my solution?

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

I actually feel that land units outside of borders SHOULD lose hp!! If this was done, however, then the restrictions on movement on enemy roads should be removed! Basically, it would reflect that units outside of their borders require supply lines in order to function, and makes you think more carefully about prosecuting foreign wars!! I wish to add the following qualifications to my above remarks, however:

1) Units inside a city or fortress do not lose hp! (or have a much lower chance of losing hp!)
2) Units should always have only a % chance of losing hp-it should never be automatic! The chance of losing hp should be related to the relative levels of maintainance required for the unit-eg. a footsoldier would have less chance of losing a hp than a tank.
3) The % chance should be modified by the experience level of the unit!
4) The discovery of steam-power should make hp loss for naval units outside their borders obsolete!
5) Exploration units should not suffer hp loss and any unit that has a chance of simply disappearing (like the galley) should also not be subject to hp loss-though the units it carries would be!
I think to get around the problem of naval combat becoming non-existent, there would either have to be a rule that naval units within 1-2 hexes from any coastline don't lose hp, or have a coastal tile improvement (like a port) where naval units could dock (like a land-based fort!) until combat is joined!

Anyway, just my $0.02 worth.

The_Aussie_Lurker