Lessons to learn from MoM

[Hugo Rune]

One of the more interesting variations on the basic theme was SimTex's classic Master of Magic, by many considered to be the best Fantasy Strategy game of all time. I personally think that there are many lessons to be learned for this game that can be brought back to the Civ fold.

Firstly, it manages to put emphasis on exploration to a much greater degree than Civ does. In Civ and Civ2 you could essentially get away with not producing any far-reaching military units and expanding at the speed you could produce settler units... This doesn't work in MoM. Chiefly, there are things around the map that it's essential for you to reach. Bonus squares (like gold and so on) are much rarer, and entail greater bonuses, meaning it's advantageous to scout them out. Also, there are numerous towers, monster lairs and so on that act as a kind of superenhanced goody hut- they usually give you massive bonuses. On the other hand, they are harder to reach, because you have to fight monsters to get what's inside. While this wouldn't really be applicable to Civ3, there is potential for temples to raid (fight monks) or a guerilla movement to stamp out, to name a few. Thirdly, there are "Neutral Cities", usually well-defended cities that you can conquer and use in your empire. Unlike in Civ2, there is a well-functioning stacked combat system, and every military unit you kill does not equal a loss of one point of population (a whole battle does, sometimes) so that it's actually profitable to conquer these usually small neutral cities. In civ, conquering small cities usually just gets rid of them- not a good incentive. Finally, there are "Power Nodes", special resource squares that can only be mined using a special unit. They were very valuable and basically essential as a source of mana. Couldn't there be something simialr in Civ? Some special resource square that would require a permanent engineer to be stationed there, and that was very important for the game? That would encourage exploration.

MoM also has a wonderful way of solving ICS. It basically consists of that you can only build units in a city once you've completed a certain building. In essence, it acts as a mini tech tree in each city- a Sawmill can only be build if you have a Builder's hall, and you need it to build longbowmen. What it means in practical terms is that you cannot build a city, buy all of the basic buildings and start churning out some of your most expensive units- It is better to build up a few powerful cities from where you can throw out powerful units, intead of making many weak cities. Tech progress is also totally unrealted to how much "trade" you produce, so having few cities does not really impact this.

There are other good ideas, like the individual traits of each "race", but I'll leave those for now.

Other MoM players- what do you think should be brought across to Civ3?

[yin26]

Great post, Hugo!

I'm currently playing the Shadow of Death x-pack for HoMM3 (I never got around to HoMM3, so imagine how happy I am to have everything included on this CD!). Anyway, it's not MoM, but the idea of exploration is the same, of course. And as you point out, it's the process of exploration that, in part, makes the game so addictive. I suppose Civ and AC tried to do this with areas to mine, etc., but it doesn't somehow translate well as "I'd better explore to win." Heck, in AC you could just pretty much build what you want if you had the right techs, etc., but the addition of map "hot spots" was certainly a good move. And in the end, terraforming was cool even if it did seem to make the game simply tooo easy to manipulate.

Of course, HoMM is soooo pleasantly easy to navigate that you can pretty much manage several cities and heroes with little effort. This, I think, should also be a priority in Civ3. If I can't hop around from city to city and easily see important (and, hey, irrelevant) information quickly, the game really becomes a chore as you go on. Many a time I simply left cities unconquered in Civ and AC simply because I didn't want to manage them. In other words, the game became work after a while.

Of course, HoMM has its own problems with "Do x, y, z and win." On that score, Civ and AC at least offer more variety, which is something I look forward to in Civ3, but variety of gameply should never win over simplicity of interface--though some gaming companies seem to thing the two are antithetical.

So in addition to making exploration a virtual must to build your civ, I'd like to see ease of navigation and a simplicity that somehow manages to focus and drive immense complexity. Easy, right?

[Youngsun]

Many good points Hugo!

1.more emphasis on exploration

2.uneven distribution of special bounus sqaure on the map

3.more permanent and stronger goodie/goody huts(don't just disappear after only single attack like the Indian camps in Colonization)

4.Neutral power which don't belong to any major power.

But I don't want to see MOM style stacked combat in CIVIII that's way too complicated though it was good in MOM.

5.finally, unit and city improvement production based on what you have in your city as production facilities.

And I agree with Yin on this.

quote: I simply left cities unconquered in Civ and AC simply because I didn't want to manage them. In other words, the game became work after a while.

Man, I'm little bit paranoid about not occupying enemy cities because of the extra works I have to do(just hate it). I just wipe them out and it's kind of genocide I reckon. After I clean all the enemy cities,I begin to terraform all the left flat terrain to forest with my engineer corps.(back to nature at last)

quote: I'd like to see ease of navigation and a simplicity that somehow manages to focus and drive immense complexity

Well, I hope it can be done for CIVIII but it won't be easy I guess.

MOM also showed the possibility of using multiple maps concept which was implemented to TOT.(though not sure whether it has pioneered it or not)

[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited May 16, 2000).]

[Andz83]

I also play MoM

GREAT GAME

The ponits that Hugo posted were really good. I also considered whether a civgame should be more like MOM than like other high-end game (like ****ty CtP). When Firaxis can match it to combine both MoM-style-great-ideas AND high-tech-interface than civ3 could become the best game ever made...

the chance of your life, don't mess it, Firaxians...
[This message has been edited by Andz83 (edited May 16, 2000).]

[Youngsun]

Guten tag! Andz83

You still like the "golden one"? I think he still sucks hahah because he is golden

[Andz83]

Very funny, youngsun!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Lessons from Mom:

Wash behind the ears
Don't talk with your mouth full..

Oh, you mean the other MoM!

[Marcel I]

Hi all
I also liked MoM, because of the things mentioned by Hugo. People in other threads are thinking up a better implementation of the goody hut system. MoM had it: The neutral cities.
I have to disagree on your opinion for the stacked combat system Youngsun. The tactical combat in MoM was something I rather missed in Civ2. It’s only flaw IMHO was the unbalance in units. When you got your stack of paladins nothing could stop you.
Imagine your combined army of mechanized infantry, armor and artillery take the field against your enemies. Even if their numbers are greater, you could prove yourself the better tactician.
In CtP the stacked unitconcept is simplistic (I miss control of the actual battles) but it saves a lot of time in moving your units around. So I think stacking your units is the least Firaxis could do in Civ3.


------------------
Adopt, Adapt and Improve

[Youngsun]

Marcel I

I do not oppose the stacked combat system itself but only MOM style.

My vision of stacked combat is somthing more advanced than CTP style but with emphasis on combined arms effect,numerical advantage,etc which were not represented by neither MOM style nor CTP style.

[Marcel I]

Youngsun,

Is your vision on stacked combat presented somewhere else on this thread? You make me curious.


------------------
Adopt, Adapt and Improve

[Atahualpa]

Yin: Actually it wasnt that easy to manage cities in Homm3. Above 6 was really more work than fun. Also, on my P200 it was quite slow going into a city. Luckily you could switch in the city-screen to other cities. This was very convienent and faster.
But I agree Homm3 can learn a lot from Civ3. Combat for example. Combat in Homm3 was quite fun!

Ata

[Youngsun]

Marcel I

Well, my vision of SC is in my brain in disorganised manner. I don't want to control each unit on the tactical map like MOM I want an instant result. Perhaps Colonization style but stacked combat with proper bonus given to combined arms and bigger size army.

You remember whenever you encounter barbarian huts they(the barbarians)make separate and pathetic assaults against your phalanx?

conventional result
if 6 horsemen attack separately at least 2~3 of them can be killed before your phalanx get killed with proper terrain bonus such as forest or hill.

My suggestion
They make coordianted assault and if the ratio is more than 2:1 the bigger size army will get more attack bonus(the bigger the ratio the more attack bonus)

Then add combined arms effect to this simple ratio calculation.

again simple example(situation-attack by warriors)
Warrior 1/1/1/1
Warrior 1/1/1/1
Warrior 1/1/1/1
vs
Phalanx 1/2/1/1

If 3 warrior units attack one phalanx in open terrain, warriors hold 3:1 ratio bonus so 3/3/1/3 should be their total strength but due to lack of discipline and training the unit coordination penalty arises thus about 33% of total attack and defence will be reduced. 2/2/1/3 (Note:hitpoints are not reduced.) Then calculate the result. 2 attack point(warriors) vs 2 defence point(phalanx)same probability 50:50 so let's assume 10 hitpoint each taken to both warrior and phalanx units and the final result will be 2 surviving warrior units and one dead warrior and phalanx unit.

what about your ideas on this Marcel I?





[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited May 23, 2000).]

[yin26]

Atahualpa,

You have a point. It gets quite tiresome to upgrade and keep looking in on those castles...but like you said at least jumping around between them is a piece of cake.

I'm not quite sure how you overcome that: "Gee, this was fun to micromanage at first but with so many cities just sucks!" problem. One idea presented here was that once you had a certain amount of cities/population you would switch to a higher administrative level of the game...like being promoted from a governor who goes from working on local issues to a president who makes national decisions.

Could work, but it would take some heavy thinking to make the pieces fit.

[Marcel I]

Hi Youngsun,

I did like to control each single unit in MoM, however I do see your point: It involves a lot of micromanagement that may not fit in a restyled Civ. A lot of players (including me) want to keep it simple. And as combat is only ONE of the aspects of the game, it shouldn't get too much emphasis.
After all, there are a lot of other tactical games and I would rather see a better AI than all the fancy stuff EA put in CtP.

------------------
Adopt, Adapt and Improve

[Urban Ranger]

yin,

I have HoMM also. The game is kinda fun, but the campaigns suck. I hate Starcraft stpe campaigns, when whatever you do in one scenario, other than winning, has no effect on the subsequent ones.