After Playing an Early Build of Civ 3

[raingoon]

From an early build of Civ 3 -- World News Report (the following popped up when I clicked on a hyperlink in the News Ticker that runs on the bottom of the screen, about half way through the game, note that despite the SC3K-like news ticker, the screen that popped up was similar to the newspaper in Civ 1!):

quote: WASHINGTON D.C.: The Polynesian Ambassador announced that the Hawaiian Security Enhancement Act would encourage separatism in Hawaii, which Polynesia sees as a renegade province.

Here's what happened. Five turns ago my Foreign Adviser informed me that Hawaii was asking to join with me as a full-fledged American province. The majority of its population shares the same culture (religious affiliation) as mine. This seems to trump the fact that it's geographically closer to Polynesia. Also I'm a much freer society than Polynesia. My problem is that, while I have more energy stockpiled and production resources available, Polynesia has a greater population and currently more military might. So I answered by negotiating a secret treaty with Hawaii that I labeled "The Hawaiian Security Enhancement Act" whereby I agreed to protect it from attack, but fell short of annexation and declaring war on the Empire of Polynesia. This allowed me to test how much Polynesia respected American military/economic might. Apparently they do respect my strength, or their amabassador's announcement would've been more threatening. He didn't say they wouldn't declare war, however, if I go all the way and do what Hawaii is asking me to do. Clearly, if I move my First Pacific Fleet into position to defend Hawaii (1 battleship, 1 sub, 2 destroyers), I had better be prepared for some fancy diplomacy, or else some or all of my fleet is going to have to lean into the strike zone and take one for the team.

So that's an example of a diplomatic event unfolding half way through Civ 3. Here's another report that popped up from the World News Report ticker ten turns later in the same game, this time regarding a military event I had precipitated the turn before:

quote: MOSCOW, THE UNITED NATIONS: The French Ambassador demanded the French tanker boarded by American naval forces in the Gulf of Mexico be released immediately. The Americans, acting as part of a multinational force, boarded the French ship in the Gulf of Mexico because it suspected the ship was smuggling Mexican uranium, violating a United Nations trade embargo against Mexico. The French Ambassador denied that the tanker was carrying Mexican uranium. Developing.

Okay, so the tanker wasn't carrying anything. I have the choice of revealing what I found on the tanker to the High Council, or I can lie and say it was uranium. Which will piss off France, causing them to drop out of the coalition I put together for a trade embargo against the dreaded Mexicans. But if I let France get away with cheating -- and why else would the French send an empty tanker to Mexico but to pick up some of its overflowing supply of uranium? -- then I'm letting France have it both ways and the embargo is a joke.

It's possible to go back to The Negotiating Table and arrange a "food-for-uranium" treaty between France and Mexico, whereby both parties agree to minimal trade amounting to humanitarian aid for the Mexicans, who have a very low food supply. But until I have an intelligence network established in Mexico, I've no way of knowing whether the French are giving them food or tanks, unless I board another French ship. And that'll REALLY piss them off...

Alright, this is all a bunch of mad ravings on my part. But today I thought it would be fun to suggest ideas to the Civ 3 design team by actually, well, playing the game a little. So to speak. I tried to include a lot of the ideas -- like the detailed News Ticker, the ability to negotiate very detailed treaties and label them yourself, and the ability to reference specific events by their geography (i.e., "...which happened in the Gulf of Mexico" or "near the Boseephus Mountains.").

Feel free to take your best ideas and show how these crises might be resolved in your Civ 3. Or, add some of your own to the thread. I looked on the AP wire and found the events I included here. These are diplomatic problems actually going on in the world as I write this (names changed to protect the innocent)!

Again, always thinking of new ways to show those crazy Firaxis design guys how much fun we hope Civ 3 will be.... Peace.
[This message has been edited by raingoon (edited February 03, 2000).]

[Adm.Naismith]

raingoon, your post is very well done and make me ROTFL.
My first reaction has been to say a - touche' - as in old duel rules (first blood duel, of course, once more common that all last blood duel Hollywood's movie showed us.

You are right, a few of something can be very good where too much is... well too much

But your game is a two edge sword. Look:

I secretly played a CIV 2.5 build, a marketing request to development team, because they know a business opportunity between Alien Crossfire and the - so radically changed to be two years in late - CIV III.
During extensive survey (one visit to this forum) it appear a lot of players are ready to pay again to receive the same CIV II game they already own, who put Firaxis only in need of a new set of boxes and few cohosmetic imprevement. Better ROI of game industry since Alien Crossfire.

The game is currently promoted as "User interface easy to grab if you already played the long acclaimed series (the same)" "more revolutionary wonders (144, you can never build everyone into the game time frame), new powerful units for a grand total of 200 that look absolutly the same (as in SMAC new tradition) to add the spice of never know who kill you.

The game has the known "micromanagement all" taste, so few diplomatic option you can't declare war without a preemptive attack (also know as Pearl Harbour syndrome) and actually has so few bugs that Firaxis Q.A. is working hard to a patch to reintroduce some of the older, faithful and more acclaimed by vet players, as Infinite Missile Range bug.

Game balancing also need some tuning, because the developers strangely miss to correctly implement the pillars of the strategic part of the game, as Infinite City Spread, the ability to produce and lose tons of military units without effects on population numbers, a draft of the manual different enough from the game you can sometime exchange it with other TBS without notice too much difference.

Well, do I need to say more?

Disclaimer: I don't write down this post to crucifige Firaxis designer. I merely joke (exagerating REAL things) as rangoon did only to point out that 500 pages of (often self-contraddicting wish list, but written FREE only because we have enough faith in Firaxis' designers to try to assist them) shouldn't be implemented straight forward, nor ignored as a pile of, well you know

Bye rangoon

------------------
Adm.Naismith AKA mcostant

[raingoon]

Adm.Naismith, while your post was ironic and irony makes me chuckle sometimes, I hope you understand that I was in earnest -- I meant what I said. What I wrote is a fantasy of what I would really like to see in Civ 3, what I think would be really fun.

[MidKnight Lament]

yeah, you confused me a bit there Adm.Naismith. i didn't think that was the sort of thing raingoon was after. anyway, it was still interesting to read.

btw, while i'm here, i want to congratulate raingoon on continuing to make a lot of sense. you seem to do a lot of that...

the only thing that sounds a little weird to me is the referencing of areas (eg. gulf of mexico). itll be good if it's pulled off, but how how are these areas named on a random map? by the person with land nearby? by the first to discover it? where do we stop letting people name things? how do you specify the area you're meaning to name? (eg. where the sea you're naming begins and ends?) do we leave the naming up to the game to work out?

[raingoon]

MidKnight -- excellent point. I hadn't thought about how geographical regions could be done on a random map. Some quick thoughts, without the benefit of going back and looking for any threads on this subject.

I think you have to have more of an understanding of computer code to answer this question effectively, but here are two examples from other games of how it could be -- and should not be -- done.

First, there is the Conquest of the World model where the AI allowed the explorer unit to name mountain ranges, rivers and valleys. It was very basic, and a little confusing, but it worked. Surely Civ 3 with its more specific land forms and vastly improved AI should be able to best that.

Second, oceans are difficult but one would hope they NOT be done a la Imperialism I & II. If you haven't played the games, the oceans are divided, Risk style, into arbitrary quadrants, each called a "sea." The AI in Civ 3 will have to be able to distinguish between straits, gulfs, seas and oceans. Cartographers define them by the land masses surrounding them, one would expect the AI in Civ 3 to do the same. As for naming water or land features, I think most Civ players think that would be a fun new function for the explorer unit. I'm sure other models have been suggested for this -- again, how it was done in the age of exploration? A human "unit" saw a river, mountain range, desert or ocean before him and he gave it a name. Couldn't the AI have trigger tiles? For example, first the AI must define a set of tiles as being an "un-named mountain range" until an explorer uncovers X number of tiles within the set, at which point the AI will ask the player who owns the explorer to name said mountain range.

Historically, different cultures have had different names for the same features. I.e, what the Euro-Americans called "Little Big Horn" river and valley the Native Americans called the "Greasy Grass." Personally, I would be willing to sacrifice in the name of fun, and suffer stumbling upon mountains already named by civilizations I had yet to discover.

I expect actually showing the names on the game map would be an easily toggled feature. It would also be cool to be able to go to a window showing a detailed map of geographical features in the vein of those classic 19th century maps with all those interesting names labeled everywhere. Perhaps the style of the map could change with each epoch?

Anyway, good point!

[Biddles]

Damn. The year is 1943, Pearl Harbour fell to the Japanese who managed to press their assault to the American Mainland. They have taken Los Angeles, San Francisco and most of the west coast. While there is numerous geurilla groops fighting them (with the help of Delta Force and our other Special Ops. forces), their army is pinned down on the west coast. With the rockies providing an effective natural barrier (and our mountain artillery posts still holding) the Japanese won't be coming east any time soon. Our primary counter attack is dependant on the Aussies. While our diplomatic ties have been severed with them due to the Japanese, we have been able to negotiate through the Brits. The Aussies are going to send one of their sizable fleets up north to cut off the Japanese supply lines and effectively blockading the west coast. They are then going to land crack troops with the intent of distracting the enemy and making them think that a full invasion is coming. When the bulk of their forces turn to meet the Aussie "threat" we counter attack through the rockies. Since our treaties have been secretly negotiated and completely agreed on by both the Australian and American military commands, the Japanese will think that the Tree Spirits themselves are attacking them (America being a nature worshiping society).


------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[Adm.Naismith]

Oh my God, it wasn't a joke!

raingoon et all, my apologize. I red your post and found your example so convoluted (because you add some fiction to the more simple game mechanics, where no game engine can develope a plot so rich) I supposed you was kidding to all other "I want a different CIV" apolytoner.

My apologize once more.

I still think you are designing a "more than enough" scenario, where the politics elements are so prevalent that no AI can cope with, and I'm not sure you are not trepassing the thin line from enjoyable simulation to "damn, that's the real work of my President whitout the money, where is the fun?"

Stripping some element off for sake of playability, it can be a interesting crisis scenario indeed.

To amend a bit more about my previus post, my humor is nothing worth to mention (using english, at least), so sorry if it bother you

"Noble Raingoon, I want to sign a peace treaty with your potent empire. Would you accept in change the gift of some wonderful knowledge?"

------------------
Adm.Naismith AKA mcostant

[Father Beast]

I enjoyed the fruits of some diplomacy lately. I concluded a treaty with the lesser civ of Panama, which gives me the ability to build bases on their land in exchange for miltary protection from the expansionist Mexican empire. They don't want to become communists! In addition, panama is close enough to the equator to eventually build the Space Elevator WoW without having to conquer anyone.
getting ahead in the space race is almost assured now.

[raingoon]

Adm.Naismith, no need to apologize. We should all be ROTFL!

However I am certain that my description of the game is not off the mark. What is really being described there?

1. Regional provinces within civs. That's doable. The AI can simply consider provinces as having complete alliances. There just has to be a decision as to what defines them -- be it the player, geographical features, cultural similarities, or, most likely of all, distance from capital city. After cities reach a certain distance from your capital city the next city built is a "provincial capitol," and so forth.

2. Citizens having a cultural or religious "brand" as opposed to being generic. See the Religion thread.

3. Civil war/breakaway provinces. This was accomplished in Civ 1. Surely it can be done with some sophistication in Civ 3.

4. Secret treaties? Please. If not this, than I quit. See Harel's master diplomacy list.

5. Labeling treaties with my own names. Ibid.

6. Grouping units into "fleets" and labeling them, or "armies" and labeling them. Is this too much to ask?

7. A cargo ship carrying uranium. See my Energy Barrels thread. Suffice to say cargo ships are next-generation transports. Not a problem.

8. Seizure of cargo ships. Diplomats currently have multiple options when moving against certain unit types. Thanks to Firaxis for giving naval units a multiple option "attack/seize" against cargo ships.

9. Labeling geographical features -- like Gulfs. They did it in Conquest of the World, Firaxis surely can outdo anything we've seen before. See my post above.

10. Multi-national forces. Also known as multiple alliances. See Harel's diplomacy options.

11. Trade Embargo. Ibid advanced diplomacy options.

12. UN High Council. See SMAC already.

13. The "World News Ticker" a la SimCity 3000. Last I heard this was being debated over at Firaxis already.

If you think that stuff wouldn't be fun, than I give up. I guess we can ask for a start-up option that gives you the choice between "Fun Game" and "Less Fun Game." And NOW I'm pulling your leg...

[MidKnight Lament]

raingoon,

the idea of having the AI choose geographical areas before the game even starts sounds like a good one to me. otherwise it was just going to get too complicated. the 'trigger squares' sound good too.

i think i'd be willing to forego the multiple name thing as well. although perhaps if it's obvious you're well in control of a certain geographical feature, you should have the option to change it. for example, we used to have a great laugh in MP games by renaming cities we'd just taken to something like "Benduzgoats" or something like that. If somebody names a landmark in a similar fashion, and i end up having control of that whole continent/island/area/whatever, i'd be wanting to change the name. it may not be worth the trouble, but as long as you could acertain who had control of an area (borders anyone?) it wouldn't be too bad. i guess it's just a matter of effort and complexity vs gain.

btw, two thumbs up for a good diplomacy model. i can't wait to have secret treaties and screw someone over. in a MP game when someone does that to you, it's really going to sting!
[This message has been edited by MidKnight Lament (edited February 04, 2000).]

[The Joker]

I'm with raingoon all the way. Complexity and actual macromanagement would do wonders for the game.

BTW here is a resume of my current game:

The year is 1245, and things suck. A seperatist baron has started a civil war for independance, and he is supported by the current peasant revolt due to the food shortage in some of my cities (the harvest failed 2 years in a row killing 1000s of people and creating massive unhappyness). This war is threatening to destroy my kingdom. I have therefor asked my large neighbor, the Chinese, for help. They agreed to help me by sending units, money and food to my cities, but in return my entire kingdom will have to become a chinese protectorate. I am not very fond of this, but it's a price I will have to pay if I don't want to see my kingdom splitting up. Besides, I can always gain my independance back once I have rebuilt my kingdom after the current war. The Chinese relationship to the English is very bad, and I could propably make a secret alliance with the latter to make a joint attack on the Chinese sometime in the future.

[raingoon]

The Joker, I like your game. In fact, I liked it so much I'm playing the Chinese.

[don Don]

I liked it, too, except I'm playing the English.

The Danish Baron he spoke of was secretly supplied by an English diplomat. (No "English influence suspected message" this time, but it wasn't a sure bet.) My harvests were also bad in the east, but my western cities had good harvests and I haven't suffered much.

My flank is now safe from both the Chinese and the Danish for a few turns while I attack the Zulus encroaching from the North. If I can expell their colonies from this continent then I'll deal with the Danes and Chinese from a much stronger postion. The Chinese Senate won't back an expansion against me if I have these victories under my belt.

My trade route with the Chinese city of Xian has given me a little unexpected data on the tiles around the neghboring city of Guangzhou. Together with information around the capital gathered by my embassy I have a much better idea of what I'm up against.

[The Joker]

Hey, this game is developing...

BTW I am playing another game too. The year is 1938. I am among the great powers of the world, but the strongest currently is the Americans. They have about twice as many cities as I have, and a larger army. But my fleet is more powerful, and i'm a bit ahead in science.

They also have some weak spots that I can use in the war I am currently preparing. First of all they conquored the Aztechs completely a few 100 years ago, which means that 23 cities have an Aztech majority. I have secretly sent money to the Aztech Liberation Army, and they are ready to strike at my command. This will mean that if we are lucky they will liberate most of these cities, creating unstability in the very core of the American mainland, and if we are not so lucky it will certaintly create drone riots in those cities, making them virtually unusable for the americans, and propably forcing them to send troops there.

The americans also have an enemy just south of them, the Russians. This is a pretty small civ, but if they attack from the south in the middle of the coming war it will certaintly weaken the Americans.

On top of this the Americans get almost all of their oil from a small 4 city protectorate - the Zulus - on the other side of the ocean. Just next to this is one of my protectorates.

I am gonna start the war by ordering my protectorate to attack the Zulus with the bombers I have given them. This should make it possible for them to conquor the Zulus within a turn or two. This would not only make the American units useless within a few turns (about 4 according to my sources), but also make them more or less uncapable of producing new units (NOTE: I think that in order for a factory to turn 1 production into 2 production it should require 1 energy barrel. This would be very realistic, portraying the dependancy on energy/oil/coal in modern times, and it would include even more importance to energy in the game).

This will propably make the Americans send their fleet with transports and a larger part of their army towards the Zulus to take it back (officially I am not at war with the Americans yet!!). But I have expected this and have my fleet (which is larger than the american one) waiting for them with bombers etc. I will then declare war on them and destroy their fleet with the transports.

This should truly disable them. I will then call up the Aztechs and the Russians and tell them to attack, while I move my own fleet towards the american mainland.

I am a democracy, and my people is not very militaristic. An attack war like this will therefor cause some unhappyness in my own cities. This is also the reason why I will not attack the americans with any ground units. I will simply bombard them with my ships and conduct bomber strikes on their cities to support the Aztechs and the Russians who will do the real fighting.

I do not want any of the american cities. This will only create problems for my with time. I will simply ask for all their research and I want to take over their protectorate the Germans. This is because this is currently the only place in the world where uranium is found. And I have an idea that this could become important within a short timeframe...

I will also force the Americans to give full independance to ALL the cities the Azechs want, and to give a lot of credits and some cities to the Russians.

That should set me in a nice position...

[Harel]

Well, the good thing I can see about all of this "virtual games" ( beside being quite entertaining ), that I think that the "harel's master diplomacy summary" ( as Raingoon so kinda put it ) finally reached a level when it actully covers everything you said...

Except maybe Raingoon offer to be able to "lie" about what he found on the tanker... I think that the option to complain on REAL atrocities is complex enough, brining the option to lie about everything will make it totaly impossible.
What will stop you from lieing on things that didn't even happen? I think that, game-wise and programmer wise, it's a good idea to scrap.

But you most certianly, in the summary atleast, can lend units to the UN ( multi-nation task-force, see diplomatic pact ), tell the UN about atrocities commited ( breaking the Embargo is indeed an atrocity ), but it would be enough to just view the tanker entering any of the spanish cities, that qualifies as acquiring knowladge on atrocities. Ofcourse, you can also use your spies to do that