Civ 3: New Game . New Rules & New Feelings?

[Az]

civ 3 will come out . will it be a new game , with new features , and new meanings in Global Conflict or will it be just a much better version of Civ2 ?

lets face it , for all it's great features , Civ2 was infact a very nice version of Civ1 . shields , trade and food , caravans and the spaceship . it's all the same .

will civ3 include more goverments or will it take us to a new level of civ building , contoling polotics , economy and faith and ensuring the possiblity of rising up and establishing a civ even if your army is gone and all you're left with is faith , and ppl loyal to you , the spirit of the civ ?

will the poor AI force the Diety players to conjure (thats a TA: kingdoms word , right ?)
obstacles just to challenge thenselves or will the AI prove a real trouble even for the Civ hardened player ?


all these are questions to which I guess we , the gamers , have the full right to know the answers .

Right ?

Dalgetti


------------------
Prepare to Land !

[yin26]

These are all very good questions. At this point you'd likely have to buy the Firaxis team a very expensive lunch to get them answered.

[UltraSonix]

quote: lets face it , for all it's great features , Civ2 was infact a very nice version of Civ1 . shields , trade and food , caravans and the spaceship . it's all the same .

I don't get why everyone gets really buggered about civ 2.5. I think civ2 is just about as good a game as can be made - it'll be the minor tweaks (well, AI's not that minor...) in Civ3 that'll make the game really good. Doesn't really matter if it's civ2.5

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Adm.Naismith]

UltraSonix, let's try to put things in another perspective: A new game about developing a nation on a world wide scenario is coming.

What game model, graphic, AI power and features do you think are needed to make it worth good money and learning effort, instead of simply continue to play with CIV 2, SMAC or CTP?

The question is not more complex than that, IMHO, because any player has in fact different taste of "Civ like" game, call it CTP II, CIV 3 or any name you like.

The only real reason to share our expectation in a public place is not to "fight" if you are right and I'm wrong, but to force Firaxis to know and listen about a somewhat representative part of their customers.

Of course Firaxis know about common game players that don't care to spend time to make suggestions about their next product.

Lot of people prefer to eat ready meal and fast food. Let simply know to Firaxis that some of us have greater (sometime unrealistic) expectation.

Can this make any harm to the incoming game?
Or at least, more harm than good?

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant
[This message has been edited by Adm.Naismith (edited July 10, 2000).]

[Grier]

Its very important for civ3 not to be civ2.5, for a start CTP was civ2.5 already and ctpII will probably be somewhere between 2.75 and 3. In fact considering CTP civ3 probably needs to be at least civ3.5 (or more preferably civ4) if it is to make any impact on the civ market.

NOTE: the above does not include SMAC, which rates at about civ2.5 and so pushes the civ3 boat out even further.

[Steve Clark]

You know I have to add my .01

I think it's becoming obvious that we have three schools of thought: Civ2.5, Civ2.75 and Civ3. Each proponent has its own bias and they, to some extent, causes conflicts with other adherents. Please keep in my kind that it's ok to disagree and our opinions are really not going to make much a difference in the final product.

As far as the revolutionary/evolutionary debate, for those that insist on Civ3 being a revolutionary game is really off-base, IMO. You have to keep in mind that the game will be called, 'Civilization III'. What some of you are asking for is a game called, 'Society I' or 'Human Culture I' or something like that. Those games would be interesting but they would not be Civilization III would it?

Some revolutionary ideas would be beneficial to Civ3. Didn't Civ2 have some revolutionary ideas as compared to Civ1? My point is that Civ3 must continue on with the basic civilization model, else it would not be deserved to be called Civ3.

In response the post above about CtP being 2.5 and such, I disagree completely. CtP, ToT and to some extent, SMAC, were just 'me-to' games trying to cash in on the Civ name, adding their own rancid flavor. Those games are not even worth mentioning in the same breath as Civ1 and Civ2.
[This message has been edited by Steve Clark (edited July 10, 2000).]

[MidKnight Lament]

Yeah, you're right. I'll disagree with you.

- MKL

[TheLimey]

Steven: You've definitely not seen what CtP1 is now... and what CtP2 may become.

As always, quality is subjective... but certainly civ1, and to a lesser extent civ2 is woefully inadequate in many areas now.

CtP was definitely an advance from an engine standpoint. Its downfall was an aweful beta test and play balance effort, and a lack of 'civ feeling'.

The interface has been improved somewhat comparitively to its first release, though it still isn't as clean as Civ2's for example. In many ways however, it is miles ahead of it too; a sortable, scrollable, multi-selectable city screen, and pretty cool loading and saving city queues.

Combat was ridiculous under the old civ model. Stacking combat makes sense (but only when balance has been worked out.) The game designers made serious mistakes when they allowed many ancient units stacked together to be able to kill a modern airborne unit. This was and is fixable through the alteration of the unit stats though... and has been done.

The special units in CtP are excellent and innovative; the 'Corporate Branch' is the prime example, it allows for economic warfare... something that exists and deserves a place in a civ game, but wasn't incorporated until now.

All in all... much of CtP did get 'fixed' by modmakers... but the result is a game 'more civ than Civ'.

If you've not played it recently, with the latest mods, then you've not played CtP. If you've not played it... then you've got no basis for comparison.

I think we shall see much of CtP in Civ3... especially the wide customizability, and stacking combat, and perhaps more such as a Trade screen and so on.

[Steve Clark]

Limey, thanks for your input. I did participate in the CtP forum a while back and talk about opposing camps! You either learn to love it or you just hate it. I would have to admit a personal bias in that I hate anything to do with scifi and fanstasy, and that's where those games seem to be placed. So pardon my harsh comparisons.

The improvements you mentioned: stacked combat, trading and customizability will not come about because of CtP (a totally separate product developed by non-Firaxis/non-Micropose folks). Sid and his gang will be adding those features to Civ3 simply because they will (and have to) improve on many of the weaknesses of Civ2. I believe Firaxis still holds the rights to the original Civ1/Civ2/SMAC coding and unlike others who had to build a civ-like game from scratch, they can (and will) build upon the existing coding structures.

[TheLimey]

Steve: I agree that you 'loose something' when you venture into sci-fi territory in 'civ'. Its not quite authentic anymore. There were definitely some very interesting future concepts in CtP though; Sea Cities and 'Ectopia, Technocracy, Corporate Republic and Virtual Democracy'. Its interesting to imagine what will become of Earth; even if we did send off a spaceship to Alpha Centuri or even build colonies somewhat closer, then life would still continue on Earth (for billions of years hopefully.)

You cannot whatever you say... take away from the fact that stacked combat and trade screens were innovations of CtP, even if they are essential. They weren't essential enough to be thought of, and included in SMAC, by Firaxis. So surely you must recognize these as true innovations in the 'civ field' by Activision. Firaxis aren't blind, and have seen CtP... and nothing stops them from copying interesting concepts, as long as they don't infringe on intellectual property.

Activision acquired rights to the 'Civilization' title to make one game, and future games will just be 'Call to Power'. Names don't ultimately make the game, however, developers and the code that they produce... do.

I think that the existing code structure bit is irrelevant now; if anything there will be much more new code in Civ3, than in CtP2.

[Quartz Dragon]

Civ II was an upgrade to Civ I as X-Com II was to X-Com I. What I would like to see in Civ III is an evolutionary leap like the one seen in X-Com III. An essintuly different and more powerfull engine that retains the feel of Civs I & II.

The major concept that I liked in CtP was the underwater tunnels, something that to a limeted extent is possible now (tunnel under the English Channel). This greatly speeded up troop deployments. I was actualy disapointed that SMAC didn't have them (although I can understand that for play balance they couldn't have them). If Firaxis makes railroads that still require movement points then tunnels should be availible.

[TheLimey]

Though its a little offtopic... X-com 2 was a disgrace that should never have been attempted by Microprose. Kinda like Aliens3

X-Com 1 was excellent, and is still one of the best tactical level games available.

X-Com Apocalypse (X-Com 3) was a real extention of the game, and the mixed turn-based/real time combat was excellent... the battles and the management were all very cool. The only problems that I could see were that the game was too short, and that it lacked the same dark atmosphere as X-Com 1

[Imran Siddiqui]

Limey, WHAT?! Corporate Branch was a good thing?! My first topic on Apolyton (in Novemeber of 1998) was "Stupid Units" in the CTP forums. I'm guessing you know what that was about. Corporate Branch is included.

I'm not a fan of CTP like stacking either. 9 in a stack is WAY too big. I'd rather prefer stacks of 2 (an air unit and a land unit), and have coordinated attacks - different squares attack one square; a type of simultaneous turns type thing. Stacks made me lose interest.

I also hated the lack of a city screen in CTP. SMAC's interface I enjoyed much more.

SMAC was great though. Kept the good Civ things while adding borders, amazing diplomacy options, Social Engineering, and ideologies. It was Civ 2.75! All Civ needs to improve on the already excellent SMAC model, not try to follow the radical agenda of the CtP designers.

[Par4]

i'm back, and I'm a king and I now respect the simplicity of things. Civ2.5 Civ3 should not be but it should not be insanely complicated as I had tried to make it before

I would want some new economics maybe a couple more things you have to mine or produce, a lot of the things from the old corporations thread like manufactured goods etc and classes of people. Stacks of only the same type of units so armies airforces and navys cant be mixed to add a little realism. Good AI that can adapt but isn't un defeatable. Good graphics and everything else that should go with a new game.

Anyway I'm back and in a new light you'll hear more about what I want from civ3 later.

Minor improvements these will not be but it will not be a new game.

------------------
King Par4 and the Secret Service


fldmarshallpar4@icqmail.com

There is no spoon
-The Matrix
Let's kick it up a notch!!
-Emeril Lagasse
Fresh Soy makes Tofu so silky
-Ming Tsai
[This message has been edited by Par4 (edited July 10, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Par4 (edited July 10, 2000).]

[TheLimey]

Imran> I did a little search through the archives and found an interesting little snippet...

You never bought CtP. All of your opinions were based on other peoples opinions or reviews. There are no subsequent mentions of you trying it after the fact either. Not after a patch. Not with a mod. All second hand knowledge and supposition.

How do explain your (superior) understanding of a subject that many people have had whilst you have not?

Secondly... Restate what is wrong with unconventional warfare, and why it should not exist in 'civ' or the way it could be improved. How is economic warfare not an excellent and innovative idea?

Also... while you're at it, explain how stacks made you loose interest. Whats not to like about combined arms warfare... central in modern warfare doctrin and as old as a medieval siege.

Why should just two units attack at once... let me guess... so they can decimate all units stacked in the target square? Or that the attacker should be decimated by all the defending units? Or because people cannot cope with more than 'one-attacker-per-square'.

One thing that I believe will be almost certain to happen in Civ3 are multi-unit stacks, ala CtP. Firaxis has stated as much... when they were talking about the General unit. So I guess they don't agree with you either.

You are correct about the city screen... CtP did suffer for its lack. The Cities screen however, is excellent, when its sorting features are put to use. Its been mentioned that the city screen is in for CtP2.

I apologize if I sound curt... but flaming something that you've no good experience of is just poor form.
[This message has been edited by TheLimey (edited July 10, 2000).]