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

[Urban Ranger]

Most special units in CtP are stupid. The reason simply being they are too unbalancing. For example, the corporate branch. While economic warfare is an interesting idea, establishing a branch in another country was not possible until very recently. None of the old companies (The Hudson Bay Company, The Dutch East Indies Company, etc.) were established to trade with colonies and had no branch in other countries.

With that aside, I say we should go with Civ 3 instead of Civ2.5. CtP bores me (it's interface is godawful). SMAC is just slightly better. Look, I want to be in control of a civilisation, not a bunch of bases or cities.

[Steve Clark]

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger on 07-10-2000 10:17 PM I want to be in control of a civilisation, not a bunch of bases or cities.

I think Urban hits upon a key difference in how civers approach this game. I remember a thread a while back in one of the forums that talks about a role-playing approach to the Civ games. That is where I think some of the differences in opinions regarding Civ3 come from. Some, esp. those espousing in-depth models, want to really feel like they are the emperor of a civilization. While others, like myself, only see the attributes (numbers) of cities, units, improvements, wonders, terrains, etc. The fun is then in coming up with the many different ways those numbers can interact. That is not to say that completing a wonder or clobbering an enemy are not cool (they are!), but the point is that there are those that view Civ strictly as a tactics-based strategy game with no sense of 'role playing'.

[TheLimey]

Game balance is completely balancable within CtP. You can either remove the unit that offends, or increase the cost of their special effect, or their build cost, or the percentage chance of their success or even the percentage of the quantity of resource that they take if thats appropriate.

Complaints about game balance, are moot... since you can use a text editor and fix this... yourself...

In fact, in CtP you can go futher, and change the desire of the AI to use unconventional attacks, if you think it is not using them enough, or is using them too much. You can also change the build priority numerically in relationtion to all other build priorities. That doesn't even have to be static, and can change, for example if the AI is being invaded, to more defensive measures.

If you're talking about boredom about a collection of cities... I guess you can say the same thing about Civ x. I'm still not bored of the collection of cities idea, since I see them as a greater whole, especially when considering the intricacies of governments...

SMAC was a special case, in that it had factions. It's a linear design, that has certain attributes and behaviours set to particular factions. While you can change certain attributes, much stays the same and is not editable.

Do you think that Civ3 will use factions? Or will it go back to a conventional government/city=civ approach?

[Steve Clark]

I know we talked about this before but the idea of factions limiting the user on the playing the game is a very bad idea. It's one thing to do so in a scenario (where it is better implemented) but don't tell me that I can't research a tech or build a wonder because of my faction. If I can come up with various strategies that gives me a commanding tech lead and become supreme for 6000 years and WIN the game, that's all that matters. Come on, it's an abstract strategy game not a historical simulation. If you want simulation, build a scenario but don't put me in a 'role' that limits my strategic planning.

[TheLimey]

My point exactly Steve...

CtP is pretty number heavy, which can be a good thing and a bad thing. For me, I like to see the numbers, so that I can tweak and balance. This gives me a feeling of success, from seeing my efforts pay off in tangible success. I feel a little like the architect imagining the building, from a plan and its associated numbers etc.

However, this isn't the one true way(TM), indeed I don't believe such a thing exists.

In the discussion process for CtP2, when the designers asked what we wanted changed, in the city and agregate city view... one of the high priorities was adding graphical colour to the whole thing, since numbers alone can be very dry.

There is however a danger in using too much of any approach; in my (I guess) dozenth Civ1 game... I founded a city near a mixture of montains and plains on a river, and this very quickly became my 'warfactory' city. There gets a point when you can't see individual numbers of shields... and have to refer to the numerical display on the cities screen. This wasn't a huge flaw... it just wasn't the ideal solution; personally at the point the shields etc. were no longer decernable, I would have displayed the quantity in smalish white text over the shields, so you know in an instant what you are dealing with. Alternatively, you could have had 'poker chip' shields where slightly different shields have different values (1, 10, 100 etc.)

[Imran Siddiqui]

quote: 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.

Yeah, I borrowed it from a friend for a month, and DLed all the mods, etc. (I can just hear it now, "You have to play CtP for MORE than a month! You haven't played it at all...". I played it and I hated it. Yes, I never bought it. I never pay for rubbish (or games I can get for free ).

Needless to say, I want an apology and if you don't, I'll continue to assume that you are the punk that you seem to be.

quote: 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?

UR's post was sufficent enough.

quote: 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.

I was never against COMBINED WARFARE. Perhaps you should work on your reading skills, eh? I'm against stacks! I'm for simultaneous turns, but I don't want HUGE stacks where the defender can't ever really tell what is in it! It can see the stack and how many, but how many what? I'd rather know the units in front of me as a defender (which has also been tradition.. if an attack parks it in front of your city, you know what he has). Stacks, I don't like them at all, and if Sid and Co. do create stacks, I wish them to be at MOST 3 to a stack.
[This message has been edited by Imran Siddiqui (edited July 11, 2000).]

[TheLimey]

If you had borrowed the game, and found it to be that poor, then you'd have made sure to speak up on Apolyton, because thats exactly what you do, Imran.

So... just to do a little checking... I looked around Apolyton... for the post containing your name and the root word 'borrow', 'len' (lend lent etc.) and tr (tried) and there is no such post.

So... no... you'll get no apology... because I believe that you are being economical with the truth. In a Bill Clinton kind of way.

I'd be careful calling me a punk by the way... since... you ignorant little student... you've got no basis to do so.

Regarding unconventional units... I answered UR's post... but you haven't responded...

And regarding stacks... you are splitting more hairs than the president supposedly did with his definition of the word 'is'.

Say four stacks of two (8 if you can't do the math) versus a stack of nine from a single square.

I know lots of people with the mental ability to cope with stacks of these size.
If its defense you're worried about... then its a doddle to create a SLIC function to identify a stack that you point to... Listing all pertinent stack information.
Its a good assumption though, that if a stack is there, then its an assault stack containing mixed troops, and possibly bombarders or active defenders.

I, and many CtP multiplayers have no problem with stacks... and it improves combined forces combat immeasurably.

[Par4]

Comparing Imran to willy, LOL You're a funny guy Limey

Anyway I like CTP's units, well wanted too. CTP2 will fix all the problems etc and I'll buy it and be happy. Be happy people stop getting so pissed off at each other.

If you want combined arms warfare, I'm not sure if this is in it I haven't played in sooo sooo sooo sooo long just give bonuses. Say as stack has 3 pikemen, then all Cavalry attacks should be 1/2 damage or cavalry take 2x damage or something. Or archers should get a big bonus if fighting infantry. Specializing units vs something is what combined arms is all about and I'm NOT sure if there is bonuses like these in CTP but if they are that was very smart of the team to put it in. A little strategic depth for once.

and how do I get the freaking smilies to work in my sig the first time I post it, I've taken them out for now but they don't work!!!

HelP!!!!

------------------
King Par4!!

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

[yin26]

Ding! Ding! Gentlemen, to your corners!

Honestly, let's not sling any mud at each other. If you guys really want to tear into each other, could you e-mail it? Or use the off-topic/CtP forum since this is really now an old/CtP issue?

Thanks guys...and back to our regularly scheduled Civ3 discussions.

[Tiberius]

I'd like to see a Civ3 which is an improved Civ2 and not an entirely new game. Improvements? Yes, a lot: diplomacy, AI, trade, borders, micromanagement, etc.
New ideas? Yes, some (rise and fall of empires, small nations, energy, social engineering, maybe religion), just be sure to keep a right game balance.
You can call it Civ 2.5, or 2.75 or 3, I don't care. Just be sure to keep the good things, the fun and the feeling of Civ1 and 2.

I know there are some guys who like CTP, but a lot of them don't (me neither) so I guess it's not a good idea to combine it in any way with Civ3. CTP is good for comparison but please, let Civ3 to be Civ.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hey Yin, I'm just saying CtP (Crap to Play) sucks, and Limey, not having any arguement is calling me a liar.

quote: If you had borrowed the game, and found it to be that poor, then you'd have made sure to speak up on Apolyton, because thats exactly what you do, Imran.

Oh, of course. You so know what I do. You live in the next room, keeping tabs. Do you know how long it has been since I've posted on another forum except the Off-Topic? About a year!!! By that time I played it, everyone knew Crap to Play (CtP) sucked, so I didn't say anything (not that I went to the CtP forums, anyway).

Stacks suck. I hated how they played out. You always get wierd results with stacks. I'm sorry, but fighters getting beat by pikemen isn't normal in the world. I blame stack combat! And stacks aren't that realistic! You try to fit 9 armies in New York City and see how well that works!

Uncoventional units... CtP's were DUMB! Corporate Branch . So, now, let me get this straight. You are saying nations use their corporations to gain the upper hand on other nations by *snicker* stifling them with paperwork?! LOL! ROTFLOL!

Moronic, Moronic, Moronic.... the 3 adjectives that describe CtP the best.

[TheLimey]

It was convienient for you to have 'borrowed' this game, so that you could speak of your experiences... especially given your consistant knocking of this game. If you knew it was crap, then why did you go to the trouble of installing such a 'crap and buggy' game? I don't buy it... and am still suggesting that you are not being truthful here...

I have plenty of arguements of why CtP is the best thing in Civ now... but thats a comparitive opinion thing.

Are you asking about fitting 9 armies into NYC in real life? or in NYC in Civ2?

Of course, the city is more than the city... it encompasses the environs. As it always has in Civ & Civ2. I don't see why 9 armies shouldn't be able to fit in NYC. Do you have the definitive answer to how many individual figures there are in a unit, or for that matter, how many angels fit on the head of a pin?

Stack results are more than releastic now... but you wouldn't know that because you never played it... except in your delusions maybe. Fighters can bombard now (at lower attack strength than a bomber however,) so they can no longer be beaten by pikemen. If there was regular combat however, then the fighters would still win because of their superior armour and firepower stats. A development in a patch, that you have no direct experience of.

You are totally misunderstanding Corporate Branch... its purpose is to demonstrate a way to franchise a companies operation into another country. The halting production that you are talking about is the lawyer filing an injunction in a city. Much like a world trade dispute happens at the WTO now. All of the special effects happens in a general and abstracted way... as many things in 'civ'. Yes you have to imagine something... but then you have to imagine many things in Civ and always have. Your capacity for imagining things not in your narrow mindset does seem so limited though.

Moronic Moronic Moronic would describe your mindset far better than CtP.

PS. Yin... I would be in favour of moving this to another thread to a more appropriate forum... though I'm not going to conceed the last word if it remains here, especially since Imran seems intent on unfounded slander.
[This message has been edited by TheLimey (edited July 12, 2000).]

[Par4]

Shut up jeez! Didn't you hear Yin, shut up let's talk about Civ3.

------------------
King Par4!!

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 12, 2000).]

[yin26]

Listen guys, I don't want to get in the middle of your debate with each other, but as moderator I kind of have to when the discussion goes off topic and gets personal like this. So please no more last words regarding this issue on the Civ3 forum. It doesn't belong here. You guys are more than welcome to start a thread in off-topic, present your case, and see what other people think...or just go at each other there and ignore what other people think.

Anyway, I hope that ends this 'cause I haven't had to do any serious moderating here on the Civ3 forum in months!

[Az]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 07-09-2000 10:04 PM 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.

oh , now with my new job , I will be also able to afford it .

anyway . Imran , Limey , this is a case of taste . even if you don't share the same opinion about CTP , this is no reason to get really pissed off . words like "punk" and "little student" ( ) won't solve this discussion .

my opinion on CTP's special units is that the innovation is great , but I think that a branch in your country should actually benefit you if you are a small civ.
( oh I know you dieties never experienced the situation , but I did , mostly coz I actually enjoy looking on the waging of a WW, without me participating. )

the whole change is a great thing but is taken to a slightly wrong direction . like the tech of Asteroid mining , with no asteroids etc etc . but the change is good , and it's here .


but again, this is not the question . the question is :

Do you prefer civ "as is" or a new game ?


I don't know . now when I say it , I hope a 4 level game : religion , state , culture , economy . but I constantly change my mind .


yin : thnx for the support of the topic .
boy , you just stay offline for a day or two and wham! ........



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