The Biggest Thing Civ III is Lacking...

[GePap]

Double post.

[Demerzel]

double post.

[ruby_maser]

Re: The Biggest Thing Civ III is Lacking...

Originally posted by Trip
Is a more non-linear gameplay. Other than your game situation (# of cities placed where, units and civs), every game is identical. You research the same techs, you use the same units, and worst of all, you can basically only take 'one' path. The game play style no matter what you do is nearly always similar. You can play 'builder' or 'warmonger', but that doesn't really count as different 'flavors' of the game. At some point you're going to have to build, and at some point (nearly always) you'll have to go to war. Suggestions on how this could be changed to make the game less 'linear'?

I don't know how the game could be made less linear... as time, for our purposes here on earth anyway, is just that, linear.

But one way I think they could go about adding more opportunies for less 'identical' play is through the incorporation of cyclical events which the game is sorely lacking at this point. By cyclical events, I mean economic growth/recession, seasonal changes, weather patterns, social changes, disease, etc., etc... just to name a few off the top of my head. These are all cross cultural phenomena that we deal with in life.

I could touch on a lot of aspects of how this would affect gameplay, but I'll leave that to decide. To balance the game, I don't think these things should be random; I think they should be mathematically applied so that everyone benefits and suffers from them but not at the same time. Those crests and valleys would create situations where the best course of action would be less black and white than the current game allows.

[Slax]

One radical departure might be to have (some random, some not?) challenges put forward that you must complete for certain advantages and bonus points. To be a departure, they must not depend entirely on building or combat prowess. Not sure where I'm going with this...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap
I think that SMAC was a better game in terms of allowing for different styles (to a point, since ht evictory aims were the same) of gameplay. To that effect, seeral SMAc ideas, if simplified, could work well to make civ more varied;

1. Allow blind research: then the player simply can't just follow a path. You could add more dead end techs, and since you don't actually get to choose, but do get to sterr the research more towards one side or the other, you do get more variation.

2. Stripped down Unit creation: the type of unit creation of smac is simply too complex for Civ game, but a sort of stripped down one is OK. Example: until horseworking, can't have any units that move more than 1, until iron, can't have units of attack or defend 3, so forth and so on. To allow for Unique units one would have to give general tech bonuses, so you could say all Iriqiuos mounted units get +1 attack for ever, and then an Iriquois player would favor attacking units, so forth, and you could even do it by age. This type of system also allows agressive or defensive players to design their military according to their aims, not premade tech paths.
This might be graphically challenging but not difficult to implement, as SMAC shows. You could also bring back the SMAC method of being able to give units extra special abilities, sch as police units and so forth.

3. Birn back the social enginnering window: you can also think of the EU window. Your government type is not the only thing thast determines how your society works, there are other factors. Now, for a civ game this window shoul be more complex than smac. That way not all democracies re the same, nor all dictatroships. Allowing for more varied sociaties makes for better gameplay in a civ type game.

and as a small addeddum, bring back random events like disasters. They give the player extra to deal with, so not only do they make the slow parts of the game possibly more interesting, but also add challenge.

As an addition to your idea 1. I would make all civs with scientific trait able to pick and choose their next advance. All other civs go strictly blind. (ala MOO2)

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by Slax
One radical departure might be to have (some random, some not?) challenges put forward that you must complete for certain advantages and bonus points. To be a departure, they must not depend entirely on building or combat prowess. Not sure where I'm going with this...

This idea has a lot of promise, sort of "mini-quests" for Civ. Here are some ideas:

-Your population has a lot of greek immegrants who are worried that their homeland is being invaded by the Germans. Help the Greeks in their war against Germany. If no Greek city falls to Germany in the next 20 turns you get a happiness bonus.

- The city of London has great cultural significance to your civilization. Take the city without using bombardment for a culture bonus.

-Spies tell us that Germany is hoarding gold near Leipzig. If you take the town in the next two turns they will not have time to get the gold out, and you will capture great wealth.

-A great scientist has been born in your nation who can speed the development of the Nuclear Weapons project. Keep him happy, make sure there are no riots or he will defect to neighboring Russia.

I definitely think this idea has great potential.

[Boris Godunov]

Events would be cool, but there would be the risk that they might be overpowering in their effect and could ruin the carefully laid plans of a player. Sudden surprises that ruin a game aren't fun. But this should be easily avoidable, I think.

Of course, history is replete with such nasty surprises. What I would like to see is more of an ebb-and-flow of civilizations. While the Golden Age idea sort of accomplishes that, it's not that effective. History is full of the movements of peoples and the rise and fall of great empires. In Civ3, the trend is more or less stable--the great empires stay great and the weaker ones are always weaker. There is much less turmoil in Civ3 than in the real world.

What about pandemics? The outbreaks of plague in the 6th and 14th centuries changed the face of the world forever--their scope is absolutely enormous. Civ3 never seems to have a "Dark Ages," which I think makes the game lose some flavor. Without them, there can be no Renaissance, after all...

[FrustratedPoet]

Perhaps what some of you folks would like is a TBS game that incorporates random events that keep variety and unpredicatability in a game without becoming the dominant force behind victory?

May I proudly present the Courts of Candle'Bre Event Engine.

The Event Engine's design goal is to incorporate into Candle'Bre an event system that:
1) Makes each game varied from others by:
a) enriching the game with modest story-like plot twists and
b) facilitating improbable outcomes and
c) enabling unique occurrences otherwise unachievable via normal game rules.

See this thread on the Candle'Bre forum for more information:

http://www.pyromaniaks.net/candlebre/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52

We now return you to your scheduled programming,

[GePap]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Events would be cool, but there would be the risk that they might be overpowering in their effect and could ruin the carefully laid plans of a player. Sudden surprises that ruin a game aren't fun. But this should be easily avoidable, I think.

I am of the opinion that difficulty levels in games like this should not be based on fooling with the AI, and giving the player bonuses or bonuses to the AI. Instead, it should be based, as in flying games, on realism.

So, on the easiest level, the more complex game options, like events, should be off. The basic level should have events, but ones that are not too terrible. the hardest leevl should have events that are real: real catastrophes, floods, volcanoes, earthqukes, droughts, and worst of all, pandemics and plagues that can destroy so much so quickly. Such events should also cause poltical chaos. I have never understood why cities facing food shortages never face poltical chaos: what better recipe for a collapse of authority than a collapse of the food distribution network?

[Sandman]

A simple way to prevent the game becoming too linear is to make resources finite.

In any civ game, once you've got a decent core of cities going, they stay that way for all eternity. In real life, the mineral deposits might peter out, the harbour might silt up, the soil could be ruined or the trade routes might come to an end.

This is modelled to a small extent in civ3 with the minerals, but it could be expanded to include trade routes, harbour siltings (related to deforestation) and soil degradation. I also agree about plagues.

[Destroyer]

CIV3 should have had some kind of events scripting from the start.

And you cant even have a proper ww2 scenario, because of the pants deplomacy doenst allow you to prevent making peace.

[Changmai Beagle]

Non-Linearity

I like the idea of having the valuable techs out on a limb, and possibility of more specialization.

Also - why not have 4 times as many techs in the pool, and a random selection of techs along the same lines as the seeds for mapping?

That could make it very non-linear. You could also give the AI a tweak by providing it with a set of optimal paths for different combinations of techs - with the AI knowing the techs available while the humans don't.

A bit of work would be required to ensure there weren't missing prerequisites, but I think this would be a relatively easy program change.

(If you get a set of really lame techs in a game - you could be "Beagled").

[hexagonian]

Changmai Beagle, Destroyer, GePap

...already pulled off in 'Modded CTP2'

When will people learn...

[The Pioneer]

I like the random events idea. Imagine a huge earthquake, flood, disease, etc. it would cost you and it will change you. It will take a bit of that linearity out. I would think that such trait would actually be somewhat simple to incorporate in the game. This has also been voiced lots of times but Firaxis never really responded to it.

Also, the climate should affect a bit of how your culture i.e. people evolve. If you live in the deserts you may become more nomadic and progress will be slow, things like that, which will make the game more "realistic" but more importantly make it a bit different each time you play.

Vondrack's idea with the techs is also very interesting.

In the end though the game will become much more complicated and scare some people off. That also could've been solved by letting the gamer/owner decide if we should include the different things. I guess that Firaxis did not see a need to make the game more realistic/complicated and thus gave us Civ 3 as it is. I am pretty sure that they also wanted to include some things but had good reasons why they didn't.

So long...

PS: Trip, I have stopped playing Civ3 a long time ago for the same reason. Although, I will play it again at the end of the month when PTW comes out here in Germany.

[The Puny Celt]

Originally posted by Slax
One radical departure might be to have (some random, some not?) challenges put forward that you must complete for certain advantages and bonus points. To be a departure, they must not depend entirely on building or combat prowess. Not sure where I'm going with this...

Eg like missions in Europa Universalis? I think that's a good idea. Missions in EU included - besides military ones - royal marriages and alliances, discovering new territory. And one of the things I liked about EU missions is you could grab what you thought was an easy 15 bonus points entering an alliance with some small nation, then finding yourself dragged into a war decades later because of it.

Back to Trip's question, that the game play style is always similar, variations on Builder of Warmonger. I understand what you mean, because the way the game works you either emphasise the building of infrastructure or military units. That's the basis of the game: cities building things. To solve this problem the game would need some new ingredient introduced: more complex economic management (eg inflation, more sophisticated trading) is something that comes to mind. Then, perhaps, it would allow a new style of play - Trader/Merchant. But I'm not completely convinced this would work - it might make the game too complex.