Combat system in Civ3, as according to official website

[Stefu]

Or "Stefu wants a sticky thread. Anyway...

quote: "Sid's original Civilization was not intended to be a game about war. The design had combat of course, but it was simple, quick, and to the point, allowing players to pursue "peaceful means" of co-existing with other civs. Needless to say, Civilization was most often played as a conquer-the-world game. So in Civilization II, we added a few details to the combat system to make it a little more interesting and "realistic." In Civilization III, we continue to expand the combat system to make it a deeper part of the experience. Civilization III will have a combat system rich in fun choices that enhances the experience of planning and executing military campaigns. Here are just a few examples of how we are achieving this: Great nations can produce gifted leaders from history, each one capable of leading your civilization to martial glory. Whether helming an army on a distant battlefield or passing their personal experiences onto future generations of soldiers, these towering figures can single-handedly alter the course of history. Increased technological finesse can be found in Civilization III's reworked Zone of Control rules. No longer can a Phalanx hold a vulnerable pass as effectively as a mechanized infantry regiment. The ability to intervene in surrounding terrain is now determined by mobility and ranged weaponry, rather than the universal privilege of being just any military unit. In CivIII, ranged weapons such as catapults, artillery and battleships can bombard enemy fortifications such as city walls and fortresses. This allows for a general 'softening' of defenses, which provides a substantial bonus to direct-fire units.

What can I say? Drooldrooldrooldrooldrooldrool...

[The diplomat]

Looks great!

I just had an idea: what if the leader idea is one way to solve the "bigger always better" problem. A small civ might be able to get a leader that enhances his military enabling the small civ to fight a much larger civ.

Improving the zone of control is great news.
Also, the news about bombarding city walls sound fantastic as well. Hopefully, in civ3, we will be able to stack catapults with our legions to knock down walls in order to take an enemy city!

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

[hHydro]

Interesting that they don't clarify what they mean by 'produce' a great leader.

I wonder.. Do they mean that you will be able to allocate resources, or create conditions to obtain these leaders, or do they simply men that all civs have a random chance at producing these leaders at key points in history?

Man.. Imagine the smile on my face when my previously mediocre Civ suddenly announces the rise to power of some guy named Napoleon..

[tniem]

quote: Sid's original Civilization was not intended to be a game about war... ...Needless to say, Civilization was most often played as a conquer-the-world game. So in Civilization II, we added a few details to the combat system to make it a little more interesting and "realistic." In Civilization III, we continue to expand the combat system to make it a deeper part of the experience.

I find it interesting that Firaxis acknowledges that while Sid did not expect Civ to be a conquer the world game, that it has become that and so Firaxis plans to add to that game type. I would have thought if Sid didn't want conquer the world that in this release he would be able to program it to have players be more peaceful.

[Sparky]

Not that I don't approve of the military detail, but I'd like to see an equal amount of peaceful city-building detail, too. Not all of us are war mongers

[Sirotnikov]

Well, whether you tried to conquer the world or not, you almost always needed large military forces to win / survive. I mean, once you launch that spaceship everybody are attacking you and you might as well attack them

Conquering the world is every child's dream. How can they deny that? Pax Romana is the best solution for all problems.

I just hope they won't ruin anything. I'm a bit suspicious of this "Leaders" thing. It might be a serious turn-off for me if it's something stupid.

[The Kaiser]

quote: Originally posted by hHydro on 01-08-2001 02:57 PM Interesting that they don't clarify what they mean by 'produce' a great leader. I wonder.. Do they mean that you will be able to allocate resources, or create conditions to obtain these leaders, or do they simply men that all civs have a random chance at producing these leaders at key points in history? Man.. Imagine the smile on my face when my previously mediocre Civ suddenly announces the rise to power of some guy named Napoleon..

Yes it would be nice if this feature could be Civ specific to add a bit of difference to the Civ's. Like if the British could only build Nelson to get a Sea Bonus on whichever ships carry him. Or the French could only build Napoleon and all cannon's have enhanced Bombard when they share a square with him. Just think of the possibilitie's:-

Germany,Rommel:Panzer unit bonus
Spanish,Charlton Heston(Oops)El Cid:Knight bonus
Egyptian,Seti:Chariot bonus
Mongols,Genghis Khan:Mounted Archer bonus

I could go on, but I will just add that if they are using the 7 stages of Veteran Status from SMAC, there could also be a general benefit of boosting the Experience level by 1 for all units on the same square.

And what if the leader get's captured, could he be ransomed in some way? If he get's killed can you build another and will it be the same character?

Whatever the answers, I think the feature will be a interesting addition.

[Theben]

I like the idea of leaders, but the "towering figures" that "single-handedly alter the course of history" gives me pause. I don't want MOO2-like leaders whose abilities were way too powerful. Hopefully just minor bonuses. Even the greats screwed up a lot. Their enemies just screwed up more.

[Alexander's Horse]

"a combat system rich in fun choices"

LOL, the warmongers amongst us do actually see it like that


------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.

Keep the OT sticky thread free!!

[colossus]

'In CivIII, ranged weapons such as catapults, artillery and battleships can bombard enemy fortifications such as city walls and fortresses. This allows for a general 'softening' of defenses, which provides a substantial bonus to direct-fire units. '

It seems as if the city wall will have hit points so as to be gradually worn down.

[Grumbold]

I find the current information as interesting for what it does not say as what it does. Considering how slim the website is on detail it is not surprising we are squeezing the few words for maximum effect. There are always dangers involved in reading publicity material and trying to determine the actual game rules they describe. We already knew there were going to be leader pieces and bombardment as a concept has been used before. The zone of control idea is interesting but we need to see what they mean. In all times forts, castles and military emplacements have been used to provide effective ZoC's even when it is not possible to physically impede the progress of the enemy. Just saying certain unit types cannot cast a ZoC into certain terrain types will be missing the point. I hope I have missed theirs!

[supremus]

quote: Originally posted by Sirotnikov on 01-08-2001 06:18 PM Conquering the world is every child's dream. How can they deny that? Pax Romana is the best solution for all problems. I just hope they won't ruin anything. I'm a bit suspicious of this "Leaders" thing. It might be a serious turn-off for me if it's something stupid.

Well, it seems a good new thing. Randomic leaders ? Humm.... I don't thik so! Maybe the leaders will appear along the gametime in according to some conditions that the player fills. Pax romana is always a possibility, but Civ2 offer lots of pacific strategies to increase your civilization strenght and I beleave Civ III will remain with this and improve it. But don't forget : Civ is a war game like the humankind history was and still is.

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

quote: Originally posted by Sparky on 01-08-2001 05:48 PM Not that I don't approve of the military detail, but I'd like to see an equal amount of peaceful city-building detail, too. Not all of us are war mongers

They didnt say there wouldnt be as much peace-stuff as combat in civ-3, they just said that they were expanding on the combat system, and makeing it much more realistic, larger, and hopefully funner.

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

quote: Originally posted by Sirotnikov on 01-08-2001 06:18 PM Well, whether you tried to conquer the world or not, you almost always needed large military forces to win / survive. I mean, once you launch that spaceship everybody are attacking you and you might as well attack them Conquering the world is every child's dream. How can they deny that? Pax Romana is the best solution for all problems. I just hope they won't ruin anything. I'm a bit suspicious of this "Leaders" thing. It might be a serious turn-off for me if it's something stupid.

Are you hitler? I dont want to conquer the world, cause then I'll have too much responsibility in running it.

[N_A]

One of the things that has always bugged me about Civ is that all the units either die or they don't, no strategic retreat or anything. Civ 3 needs something like that. Civ 3 also needs customizable units just like SMAC did, and to that level of complexity too.