Where Did Civ3 Go Wrong?

[Fitz]

Which is why, Zach, I never play chess anymore. It's boring. And I certainly never managed to master the game, not by a long shot.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Fitz
Which is why, Zach, I never play chess anymore. It's boring. And I certainly never managed to master the game, not by a long shot.

I know. The game has no "legs." It'll never catch on.

[Fitz]

Despite your sarcasm, I agree that chess doesn't have the legs that most people seem to think it has. I started playing when I was about ten, and was bored by 15, although I still played the occasional game until 2-3 years ago. Compare that to SMAX. I started when I was 23 (I think) and now still play it at 26, although it is starting to lose interest slowly except as multiplayer. That's three years on a game that has nowhere near the legendary status of chess, compared to 5 for the "game of games" (okay, that's really Go, but ::shrug:: )

Chess is a very good game. But it is boring as hell once you reach a certain level (i.e. the one where you stop improving), as are most games, but particularly in chess due to the lack of ingame variety (as you described). One major difference is how long it takes to reach that level. Chess takes a while (about 5 years in my case) because even though it is a relatively shallow movement game, it is complex in the stratagies. SMAC took a while too for me, because even though it is complex in movement, it is relatively complex in stratagies (not nearly as much as chess though). Despite that, even once you stop improving in SMAC, you can still have a fair whack of fun due to the variety of units/govs/techs.

CivIII won't take too long because it is way less complex than SMAC in strats (and therefore chess ), and will quickly become boring once these are tapped out because of the lack of ingame variety.

[Theseus]

Vel,

I am actually kind of getting pissed off here. I don't mean to offend... I am a tremendous admirer of your commentaries, thought processes, strategies, Candle'Bre, etc.

But you seem to have put blinders on, and that portends poorly for your vision for Candle'Bre... of gamers, by gamers, and for gamers.

You've basically said that you've cracked the code of Civ3, and that, upon examination, it is not "deep" or complex enough, and that your "one true path" is all there is to the game.

Besides my observation that you formed your opinions some time ago, and have not played enough post-1.21f to "feel" the difference in the AI (I know, I know, that's not the primary issue - read on), I see two fundamental flaws in your worldview (pun intended):

1. Limits to Depth

As Tuberski pointed out, Civ-type games, as opposed to fantasy or SF games, are fundamentally constrained to historical scientific, military, economic, governmental, and cultural concepts.

Now, that's not to say that there couldn't be MORE of them in Civ3, but that's not really what you're arguing about. You want strongly differentiated paths to success... well, that can't really take place within the constraints. In fact, I find the whole idea of exclusive differentiation, a la SMAC, faintly absurd... technology ALWAYS diffuses to civs that are capable and willing, and thus every civ should be availed of any and all technologies, units, government types, etc., within their then-current resource pool and tech development.

Look, in human history, pretty much everyone ended up using the horse as the primary mobile military force. This was due to utility and tech / resource diffusion. The only significant exception that comes to mind regarding utility was Carthage, but remember that elephants can only be tamed, and are not domesticable, which obviously limited their utility. There were no "Battle Cows" for the Romans, nor "Attack Kangaroos" for the Australian Aborigines. But over time, most everyone, at least those civs of enduring success, depended heavily on the horse and developing horse techs (think: stirrups). From Guns, Germs, and Steel: "That is, societies initially lacking an advantage either acquire it from societies possessing it or (if they fail to do so) are replaced by those other societies."

So in a game constrained by human history, and acknowleding tech diffusion, each civ's development CANNOT be all that different; instead, depth comes from the timing and interplay of every aspect of the game... much like chess (thank you, Zachriel), but with more variables. I think Firaxis has done a great job introducing as much differentiation as they have, given the constraints.

I acknowledge that in creating or playing a game where civs are forced onto a generally similar growth path, the number of different strategies will also be constrained... but for Civ-type games, as opposed to SMAC or Candl'Bre, that's just the the nature of the beast. It's also true, in a way, about most every game ever in human history, up until software games (with some exceptions). Chess, checkers, backgammon, bridge, poker, Monopoly, Scrabble, Risk... depth and complexity are not driven by differentiation of assigned capabilities, but rather by interplay.

OK, now on to the real issue...

2. The Framework that Vel Does Not See

So if depth, complexity, and differentiation of gameplay do not come primarily from the unique characteristics of individual civs, then where else should we look?

It's surely not difficulty level... I like how someone put it the other day, that's just setting the "against the odds" factor.

"It's the money, stupid." Err, ummm, that's not it.

It's the world.

Just as in RL, geographic environment and resources are determining factors in the course and success of a given civ, and in this case, differentiation of game-specific strategy and gameplay experience.

In RL, the geographies and timing of available food / animals / resources of Eurasia, Africa, Australia, and the Americas had a tremendous impact on the viability and evolution of different civs, and to a great extent determined the outcomes when the different civs collided.

That's all too fancy-schmancy. How 'bout this:

VEL, GET UP OFF YOUR ASS AND PLAY WITH OTHER SETTINGS!!!

So you figured out a sure-fire darn-tootin' kick-ass approach to winning when you're on more or less standard settings, and on a continent with 3 other civs? Well, whoopdedoo for you.

Actually, I think that the typical, default environment (balanced landscape and 4 civs, ensuring enough of all resources and most luxuries, but small enough that the player can conquer it) is probably the most boring and unsatisfactory framework I can think of, especially for a player of your caliber. And it certainly is not mirrored by anything in history; rather, civs were typically at the ends of the spectrum, either isolated or, in Eurasia, faced with a land expanse that simply could not be effectively controlled.

I don't mean to get up in your face (much), but while you've been working on Candle'Bre, and not playing or actively participating in the Civ3 part of 'poly, a bunch of us have been playing around with the differences in game strategy / experience driven by world settings. And we are finding that it makes a huge difference... civ traits start to really matter, UUs start to matter, etc. Thus, differentiated experience game to game.

Example: Current game, Egypt, Large, Large Continents. I am on one of two continents, with 8 out of 11 other civs. Early war, oscillate, etc... yeah yeah yeah... and I am screwed, because I tripped the aggression flag for those 8 civs very early, the continent has been rocked by war for millenia, and it's too big to conquer. Net result, 3 of those civs are behemoths, and pissed at me. And they are significantly ahead in techs, which I can;t buy or beat out of them (yet), and which they won't share with the remaining vassals / punching bags because they are too weak, so I can't get'em there either. Additionally, resources / luxuries are an issue for everyone, as on Large with 12 civs the ratio of specialty tiles to total game tiles is much lower.

I created a situation where I actually don;t know what to do... and that's a good thing. And that's an example driven by only landmass as the key differentiator; moving ahead, I am sure that layering in other geographic settings will create significantly new game experiences.

Frankly, people have just been feeling their way towards these concepts... we could use you back here helping out.

Look, I agree with many of the other negatives pointed out by you and others; but the fundamental issue, differentiation of game play, while inherently constrained in a Civ-type game, is successfully addressed in Civ3.

Whether it's for Civ or for Candle'Bre, take off the blinders.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Theseus
. . . a bunch of us have been playing around with the differences in game strategy / experience driven by world settings. And we are finding that it makes a huge difference...

I fell in love with large or hug maps with 16 civs early on; after some frustrations on Archipelago maps, I started playing only continents, occassionally pangea; I also started playing "medium" geography settings (temperate, 4 billion, etc.).

Just recently decided to play, for the first time, on a tiny, random map (left the "medium" geography settings), simply because my time available for gaming has become so limited that a huge map game would last months and months. (Wound up with either "continents" or "islands - lots of land" )

I was very surprised (and pleased!) that the change in map size alone radically altered the game play! Now will spend more time playing purely random settings, as it certainly brings back some freshness to the game (although I hadn't experienced much staleness, myself ). Don't know if this would affect your view of the game, Vel.

** off-topic **
Vel, came across your strategy guides here at Apolyton shortly after I received the game as a gift -- many, many thanks for sharing your experiences with all of us

Zachriel, "Reminds me of another strategy game . . . " wonderful post, brightened my morning.

Catt

[Analyst Redux]

I only return to this forum every once in a great while, but this thread caught my eye because, well, I too think Civ 3 went wrong.

I'm no longer inclined towards long, explanatory posts why, but as long as I took the time to read a big chunk of this thread, I'll break lurker mode long enough to throw some agreement Vel's way. The only sensible way to play this game above Regent level is to set the reasearch slider to zero. Everything else is increasing your challenge level by fighting with one arm tied behind your back.

It's not difficult to see why, once you comprehend how the tech trading formula works. As long as you aren't obsessed with being on the cutting edge, buying tech is *always* economically cheaper than researching it yourself. This rule applies regardless of world size, or any other map setting. So Thesus' observations about map-tweaking leading to different game flows are not a direct rebuttle of Vel's central point. The best strategy is *always* set the research slider to zero and generate coin. There is no second-best strategy, just this and all the rest.

Against human opponents, this wouldn't work, but that's rather a moot point isn't it? (He say's, unsubtly working in a no-MP dig...)

On the AI: I'm a bit disappointed to see that my earlier posts drawing a relationship between the streamlining of the game and the simplification of its rules, and the "improved" AI don't seem to have remained within the institutional memory of Apolyton. Those posts were extensively discussed, and as far as I know, never rebutted. Ah well, fame is fleeting. The nut is that it's easy to appear smarter if you've got fewer choices to make, and most of those choices matter less than before. Apply some Kentucky windage to AI "strategy" which accounts for that, and I have a hard time seeing much improvement in AI from prior versions.

I hope Vel doesn't waste time on the advice that he has to play a lot of 1.21, because he'll just waste enough time to discover what I did: that the reigning in of AI-tech-trading agression didn't have any practical effect on the dominance of the no research strategy.

I came back here to see if there was going to be any more attempts at patching the game, but with all the talk being about the expansion pack now, I guess the patching is over and the refinement of the game is pretty much done. That's a shame. For me, this is the first one that simply hasn't ever worked out to my satisfaction.

[Theseus]

AR,

I am unable to buy techs or beat them out of anyone. Any suggestions?

[Zachriel]

Over at CivFanatics, the Game-of-the-Month was on Deity level. I played with Tech at 10% and won. Meanwhile, Sullla played with tech at 100% and won.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=49

There is definitely more than one way to play Civ3.

[Arrian]

Some people enjoy Civ III, others don't. Vel and AR are powergamers. They derive their gaming fun from picking the game to pieces as quickly as possible - searching for the most basic, straightforward path to victory. Vel loved SMAC because he discovered that there were 8 such paths that were approximately equal in power. Vel got bored with CivIII because he discovered that one of the viable paths was most often much more powerful than the others.

I, and many others, are not strictly powergamers. I, too, have discovered that War/Build/War is the most powerful stategy most of the time (hence my conversion to warmonger), but I still enjoy the hell out of the game. Why? Because I enjoy fine-tuning a strategy to death before trying another. I started off playing the Babs as a peaceful builder. Played them for a couple of months. Then Egypt for a couple of months. Now Japan as warmongering bastard for the past couple of months. And the variation between the strategy choices, civ strengths/UU's, and the random maps are enough variety for me. I also do not have a problem with deliberately choosing a strategy (or tactical decision) which is suboptimal. Example: city spacing. I recognize that building cities 2-3 squares apart is powerful as all hell. I will not do it. Thus, technically, I am choosing a non-optimal strategy with regard to my city spacing. This is something Vel can't really stand doing, because he knows the other way is more powerful.

I also have kinda changed the win conditions. I seek the "game of ultimate power." If you are curious as to what I mean by that, I've explained it at length in the strat forum. Essentially, I don't just want to win, I want to totally dominate the game, start to finish. And I've been honing my ability to do this with the Japanese, using standard settings, over and over. I'm not getting bored with it. When I start to, I will either change civs, or start messing with the map settings (which may result in a change of civs, we'll see).

The argument is pointless. For those that like CivIII, why waste your time on it? For those who don't.... umm, Vel, aren't you supposed to be making your own game?

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

Theseus….thank you. That was an insightful, well-considered post (of course, had it been anything less than that, coming from you, I’d have been disappointed!). Lots of passion in that post…good to see. And thank you for the kind words (and the fact that you obviously read my (incomplete) story over on the Civ3 Story section. I had almost forgotten about “Battle Cows.”

Let me start by saying that it was never my intention to piss anyone off with these observations, but having made them and read the many responses, it’s clear that my way of looking at the game is quite different than most. For better or worse, that’s one thing I *do* seem rather good at…bein’ different.

Blinders. Am I wearing them? I’m not sure. Possibly….possibly. I don’t think so, but I acknowledge that the potential exists.

The impact of tech diffusion in-game:
I would contend (using our own Earth as the “prime historical model” that it IS possible for a certain civ (or group of civs) to generate a significant technological lead over rival civs.

If you take Earth as she exists today, and call each country presently here a “civ,” then if technological diffusion is indeed rampant, we should see nearly as many Afghani satellites orbiting the earth as we do American.

Or, to look at a closer pairing, we should expect to see as many Canadian satellites orbiting the planet as American.

This is clearly not the case, so there are some clear limits to the sum-total of technological diffusion that can and will occur.

Thus, my position would be that in a game set up (at least on a certain level) to be a ‘historical sim,’ it should be possible for one civ to generate a commanding technological lead over another.

With the state of the tech tree as the game shipped, this is simply not a possibility on Monarch and above (it is possible on Regent…I’ve had Mechanized infantry when my next nearest competitors were still upgrading their knights to Cavalry, but that’s about as good as I’ve been able to get on Regent…roughly one age of separation), and the sad part is, it would be easy to fix!!! All you’d need to do is flesh out the teeny branches of the tech shrubs, and you could actually get some solid strategic advantages under your belt (if, hand in hand with that, you toned down the AI’s neurotic NEED to trade with each other).

Examples:
Add in a “Stirrups” tech (3/2/2 Horse unit) that maybe had Horseback riding and (fill in the blank with something interesting here…not Iron-working, as that would give you both the ancient-era power techs, which would be too linear, and consolidate all the military power along a singular beeline.

Add in an “Advanced Masonry” tech, maybe somewhere off of Mathematics or something that was a dead end branch, but by researching it, you could make all future builds for 10shields less….TALK about a choice! Now you’ve really got a choice here! Do you beeline straight for the military techs, or make for that sweet price-reducing builder tech? THAT’s the kinna thing that can really have some long term impacts on your game.

Maybe add in a tech just off of map making that gives you an “Early Explorer” unit (1/1/1 colorless, that can attack other units, but is not allowed/not able to attack cities)….this would be the PERFECT unit to station in/near your borders to snipe at those annoying waves of settlers the AI sends to encroach on your territory…colorless, so they don’t provoke a war….

Any number of tech advances that would just slightly extend or expand the tiny tech branches on the per-age tree that, if coupled with some taming of the AI’s tendency to trade would open up some real possibilities as far as long-term gains for specific research paths.

Now it’s true, interaction is another opportunity for Civ to shine where depth is concerned, and for interaction to truly be a force in Civ, one of two things has to be true….either the diplomacy model must be very deep and detailed, or the game must have multi-player functionality, so that human interaction can replace whatever the SP diplo-model lacks.

Sadly, neither of these conditions are currently met by Civ3. While the diplomacy model is adequate, it doesn’t win any awards, and (as I’m sure we all know), the game does not (yet) have MP capability.

I made this statement earlier, but I think it bears repeating here. For me at least, in-game depth is derived from presenting the player (me) with a problem, and providing an array of choices (the more the better) for solving that problem. Each potential solution will carry with it certain tradeoffs…positives and negatives, and I’ve got to live with the consequences of my choice.

The problem with defining depth by way of geography is that the solution to that problem is entirely linear. I need horses…I go where there are horses and settle. I need Iron…I go where there are iron deposits and settle. There is no choice there (well, there’s always the option of trading, but that is, in truth, far and away a sub-optimal choice…temporary fix at best, and that’s assuming you can find a civ willing to trade iron with you).

It’s true that the majority of my games have been played out using the standard map settings, and that there is some variance to be found by changing the map size, but mostly what I discovered is that at either end of the spectrum (tiny or huge), it breaks certain Civ Abilities (Expansionistic is worse than useless on Tiny, and hatefully strong on Huge, esp. with Panagea maps)…likewise, Industrious is an absolute KILLER at either end of the spectrum…imagine being able to construct a ribbon of road from your area halfway across the continent with lightning speed, building offramps to every resource you find (now you’ve got 3x the speed of settlement of all your non-industrious rivals AND the ability to project your power across this vast continent at will)). Because of that, I have tried to stick to map settings where the traits were more or less balanced in their power.

I will readily agree that the “step” approach outlined earlier bypasses or ignores a great many of the tactical decisions to be made along the way, but by and large, I would contend that if you allow yourself to flow with the current of the game, you’ll find that all the major decisions are being made for you by terrain and circumstance (things like what techs you got after pasting your first victim…if iron, settle near iron, if horseback riding, settle near horses…it’s all spelled out for you…if you respond and react properly, you get rewarded, if not, you have a tough time) Playing the game (apparently?) as the designers intended (or at least as the designers reward lavishly) sees you making relatively few strategic level decisions beyond choosing your starting civ and map size. Tactical decisions, yes…there are more of these, but those alone do not satisfy my appetite for high-level decision making throughout the course of the game. I really, truly wish they did, cos I feel…almost left out. I feel as though despite my best efforts and wishes to find reasons to adore this game…the magic just isn’t there for me.

But…I do keep an eye on the forums, and if there’s something that turns out to be particularly vexing, I’d be happy to offer my two cents worth…

-=Vel=-

PS: Analyst – I recall with fond memories your deconstruction of the game, and find myself in total agreement…while it’s true that the AI’s success is due at least in (large?) part to the fact that there are fewer in-game choices to be made, I still gotta hand it to Soren…to write a competent, often surprising AI in the timeframe he did….that’s some pretty amazing coding…

PS: RP/Theseus – If it was me in your current situation, I’d be weighing my options between these two possibilities: First, I’d gift enough border towns to a former punching bag to get them “just big enough” to be considered a viable tech trading partner by the other big dog AI civs….once they start getting an influx of new tech, re-smash them and reap the benefits.

Barring that, if they’re entrenched and that much bigger than you, I’d make it a point to kill off all the little satellite civs you may have surrounding you before MPP’s come to the fore, and then work on improving relations with one of the big AI’s and get them involved in a multi-front war….or, if you’re feeling cheesy, ROP blitz the biggest of the two….

-v.

PPS: Arrian...good to see you here bro! And I think your post quite nicely summed up the differences...it's mostly about player likes and dislikes...and you're quite right...the thing that I really get into is finding multiple paths to victory that are about equal in their power and then perfecting the lot of them at once...stressing and stretching them to get that extra little bit of juice out of the collective set. That there is no such collective set in civ3 is my biggest beef...you hit the nail SQUARELY on the head (spooky that you know me so well....)
-v.

[ahenobarb]

Originally posted by Theseus
It's also true, in a way, about most every game ever in human history, up until software games (with some exceptions). Chess, checkers, backgammon, bridge, poker, Monopoly, Scrabble, Risk... depth and complexity are not driven by differentiation of assigned capabilities, but rather by interplay.

But that interplay is between players -- human players -- of the game and there is the satisfaction of wining. Ego is involved in those games, for better or worse, you want to win and don't want to lose in front of someone else. No one rushes out to buy computer backgammon, scrabble, pure-cheesy, or monotony. (thanks Ren and Stimpy)

When you play a computer game against a computer opponent, you care if you lose, but victory is less satisfying. there's no one to show or share your victory.

The fun in playing a computer opponent comes from puzzle solving, finding a unique solution to a problem. That's where depth is important in a computer game. Remember these are --strategy -- games. In civ III there is only one strategy -- War, and not just war, but War qua war.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Arrian
I, too, have discovered that War/Build/War is the most powerful stategy most of the time (hence my conversion to warmonger), but I still enjoy the hell out of the game. Why? Because I enjoy fine-tuning a strategy to death before trying another. . . . I also have kinda changed the win conditions. I seek the "game of ultimate power." -Arrian

YES, Arrian!

I rarely even "finish" games. When I do, I usually take the earliest possible victory condition. I certainly don't milk the score -- ever.

I will set a goal, for instance, Sistine Chapel. When the Sistine Chapel is complete, the game is over. If I built it, I win. If the AI beats me to it, I lose. Other goals include a rapid expansion, an early war, or the decimation of a hated enemy. Sometimes, I play for "ultimate power." Sometimes, I play on a small map for a quick game of ancient conquest. Sometimes, I play on a large map for some industrial-style destruction. Sometimes, I play islands for some naval invasion strategy, or the formation of a trading empire. The standard Civ3 victory conditions are just a small part of the game for me.

Mostly, I play for fun.

[Analyst Redux]

Originally posted by Theseus
AR,

I am unable to buy techs or beat them out of anyone. Any suggestions?

Yes, take your game back to the store and demand a refund. Someone sold you "Red Alert" and told you it was "Civilization".

OK, seriously, I can't reply sensibly to this post because, short of archipeligo starts where I'm isolated on an island, I've never encountered a situation where I could neither buy techs nor beat them out of enemies.

Vel: Nice to know someone remembers

Various others: I don't dispute, deny or contest anyone else's willingness and ability to tweak their long-term creative fun out of this game. But inherent in the responses to this critique is the reality that long-term fun must be teased and tweaked from this product. It just doesn't present it willingly or naturally. That's undeniably a step backward for this product line, and the designer who's name graces the box.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Analyst Redux


Yes, take your game back to the store and demand a refund. Someone sold you "Red Alert" and told you it was "Civilization.

Actually, Civ 3 really should have been called "Soren Johnson's CULTURE" - because that is what it is.

Civ 3 is NOT a descendant of Civ 2. They are too different. And that's too bad.

[Theseus]

OK, in my little Coracle-fest, something interesting to talk about.

Thanks, Coracle, for bringing this up...

Civ3 is NOT a descendant of SMAC. It is clear that there are a whole bunch of people who wish that it were.

Civ3 IS the inheritor of the Civ line. All the crap you complain about? Every version has gone through its own sub-branch evolution.

Again, the culmination of this branch of evolution will be PTW, which will take strides forward from the equivalent culmination of Civ2...

In other words,

You killed my father... prepare to die.