Experiencing each time period(and making it last longer)

[DanM]

One thing I would like to see addressed in Civ3 is the opportunity to REALLY experience each period of time that my civilization happens to be in.For example,if I am currently in the medieval age,I build things appropriate(and necessary)to that time period such as Castles for defence.Each age would last longer to get a better feel for the time period,and things like different background music for each period could be used to enhance the feeling of "being there".
As much as I love the other civs,I found that an age could pass without me really even spending any time there because I quickly aquire new advances through research.Maybe each age could have certain research advances associated with it and you could not advance to the next age without completing all advances within.

[Slingshot]

I agree DanM.

In fact, I have been lobbying along similar lines.

You could add some comments in the CTP2 section, called the "Shifting Sands of Time."

[The diplomat]

I agree. I want to enjoy each time period more, especially Ancient times.
Here are my thoughts. This might be a little radical but how about making each turn equal one year through the entire game. I know that would make the game over 6000 turns long but hear me out.

The player would be able to fully experience each period of History as if it were a game within a game. You would experience a lot more events like wars, revolutions, social changes, new discoveries, etc for each time period. When you reached the techs and fulfilled the prerequesites to advance to the next age, you could save the game, take a rest from the game for a while, and when you felt up to it, take the game up again where you left off, and play the next age as a game by itself. You might spend days maybe weeks playing just one period of History. When you reached the end, the replay would be that much more satisfying as you would recall the ups and downs of your civ throughout history. For example, maybe your civ was mighty during the Bronze Age because of the Legion but lost its influence during the Middle Ages because of the Plague, and regained its prestige during the Industrial Revolution because of a world war that decimated your rivals.
I think this would provide a much more fulfilling experience of leading your civ to greatness.
The player that does not want to play the game for that much time should be able to play a "quick" mode that would go through History a lot faster (in a lot less turns).
Also, since each period would be like a game within a game, I suggest that a player be able choose any Period and play just that Period alone. In this mode, the game would just be that one period. There should be rewards and victory conditions for the player that just plays one Period. How great can you make your civ in that limited amount of time? If your civ does not last all of History, you should still get a high score based on your accomplishments. (even if your civ gets conquered, if you accomplished a lot like building great Wonders, you should still get a high score, and thus still "win"). Victory should be based on your accomplishments. After all, civs did not last all of History and yet a still viewed as Great Civilizations! (ie: Egypt, Rome, Babylonians)


------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.
[This message has been edited by The diplomat (edited April 23, 2000).]

[S. Kroeze]

This proposal of the Diplomat is exactly what I hope CivIII will be, apart from making the game a REAL Challenge, which will require better AI and many other factors. I am sorry the EC3list is made and sent to Firaxis already (as far as I know) because this excellent proposal certainly deserved to be included.

Hurray for our own Diplomat!!
By the way, an other great proposal of this same genius was the recruitment system, which unfortunately didn't make it to the essential list. For shame!!
We should recognise brilliance when it is living among us, not afterwards when it is dead and gone! Maybe we will never get a second chance....

[The diplomat]

I am very very flattered, thank you S Kroeze!




------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[DanM]

If I could agree with the diplomat more than 100%,I would.Excellent suggestions and I am extremely pleased to see more people are thinking along the same lines as me(and doing it better)

[Otso Vuorio]

It really irritated me in Civ2, when the Medieval time passed through after 20 minutes.
The diplomat's ideas of different time periods sounds very interresting and I hope this topic gets more popularity

[The Joker]

I agree that the game should have a mode in which there were far more turns. I can actually agree with most of the diplomats suggestions, apart from the fact that it seems that he thinks that each age should be like missions in Starcraft or C&C. I strongly disagree on this. The thing that makes Civ a great game is, that you feel the flow of your civilization as you lead it through history. There shouldn't be some huge pause in the game for each age, nor should the change between the ages be very sudden, like the suggestion about having some discoveries not being available untill the next age is reached. I think that all advances should be availible when you have the prerequisite advances.

An age should be defined by one or some advances, so when you discover them you reach this age. Cities should look different for each age, but I would like this change to be gradual, so you in 1800 have cities that are part rennaissance (or some other age if more ages are introduced) and part industrial.

An age should also have music, and possibly interface just for that. The interface difference, however, should only be graphical, like the difference between the races in Starcraft.

[Steve Clark]

I see a flaw in this otherwise good idea. If the purpose of the game is to win (what else should it be? ), then the key is to get ahead of your opponents. The reason the Medieval period can be so short is that, at least in Civ2, you are now discovering advances every 2-4 turns, thus racing up the tree to superior military units or AC. The same can be said for the Ancient period, which I try to get through as quickly as possible. Why prolong a time period when it can only hold you back from winning? I think the various scenarios that are specific to a time period can really capture the feel much better than a 4000bc game.

[DirkZelwis]

Hello!

quote: Originally posted by Steve Clark on 04-25-2000 11:12 AM ...The reason the Medieval period can be so short is that, at least in Civ2, you are now discovering advances every 2-4 turns, ... .

That's something I like about Civ2. It shows what christianity and the Dark Ages because of it *really* did to humanity. We could well be on ... well, maybe not AC, but Mars?
Bye, Dirk
"Dirks and Daggers."

[The diplomat]

The Joker: I don't want each time period to be like a mission in C&C. Rest assured!
When you reach the techs of the next Age, and meet the prerequesites to advance, your civ would advance to the next Age. The length of an Age would not be fixed. It would depend on how fast your civ advanced through the techs and building the city improvements etc. You would get a message, the buildings would change look, music would change, but the transition would be smooth. The map, your empire, your relations with other civs, etc... would stay the same from one Age to the next. The game would NOT interrupt and change things around with new orders, like mission based games usually do.

I am thinking that the Ages would be a cool way to indentify a civ's evolution. Knowing that your civ has reached the Rennaissance, for example, would give the player an understanding of how much progress has been made. Also, say your civ is a Middle Age civ and you meet another civ that has reached the early Industrial Age, you would have an easy way to compare civs and relate to the other civ.

The game would be smooth just like in civ2. Same map and everything throughout the entire game. The different Ages serve as a way to see your civ's progress and compare other civs to yours.
I said that a player would save the game when his/her civ reaches the next Age because that seemed to be the best time to save. I figure that no player would try to play 6000 turns straight through. When a civ reaches the next age, it just seems to be the logical time to save a game and take a break, but you don't have to.

I hope I have addressed your concerns and I am glad that you posted your comments.


------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[DanM]

Slowing down an age will slow down everyones advancement.It doesn't mean you are still not advancing faster than the others.
Why does there have to be such a rush to get to the future?Ya we all want the next best advance,but why not savor the time period you happen to be in?The game would play out much more like an epic journey,and reaching the next advance would feel much more like a great accomplishment, rather than just another quick stepping-stone to gunpowder or rocketry or whatever.
A smooth transition between ages is obviously the choice for a game like Civ(I don't care much for scenario games anyways)
[This message has been edited by DanM (edited April 25, 2000).]

[BeeBee]

People, tell me,

where can I find and read the EC3-list??

------------------
C'est dur etre bébé

[BeeBee]

True,
somehow you should have the feeling to be in a certain age.
I rarely "experienced" making pikemen as playing in a medieval age, because three turns further your dragoons were invented.
Only ancient times used to last somewhat longer, but even then...

------------------
C'est dur etre bébé

[The Joker]

Diplomat:

Í think we agree now, although I think you would want to save more often than each changing age if the game lasts 6000+ turns. Especcially if the internal struggle and advanced diplomacy that we both want in the game is incorporated...

When we are at it, how many ages should be in the game?

I think that if the game lasted longer there could be more turns. How about having these ages: (the dates are all just exambles of when the change happended in history)

Preancient (stoneage, whatever) 4000-500BC

Ancient 500BC-450AD

Medieval 450-1400AD

Rennaissance 1400-1600AD

Baroque or something else between rennaissance and industrial 1600-1800AD

Industrial 1800-1920AD

Modern 1920-1980/1990

Postmodern 1980/1990-2020 or so (not at all sure about this)

Genetic/Dream society/whatever 2020-2100 (??)

Space age untill the game ends sometime around 2200 - this is, if any, a realistic date for the launch to AC.


There could be more ages. I am aware that there are far more ages in modern times compared to ancient, but as research is far faster now this is realistic.

I think that the game might become boring with loads of turns around 3500BC when you have little or no contact with other civs and very few cities, units and other things to play with. There should therefor be someway of just accellerating time if you have nothing to do - there should be a button to press that would make the game simply move forward untill something happened. The game would then be stopped so you could do whatever you wanted to do.