The Creation of Differences between Civs.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Thanks... this idea hit me as I was lying in bed and unable to sleep..

Rashid, I'd love to do it that way.. though decisions made.. but I don't know if the computer AI is that sophisticated enough. That is why I made it simple... so that the AI can't screw it up .

If the AI can handle it, I'd say go for it. I do have my doubts about the AI though...

Mutally exclusive techs, I think might be a mistake, because eventually, everyone can research everything. And if you put too many mutally exclusive units, it becomes too constraining, and you must think 100 turns down the road for every tech decision.

[UltraSonix]

This topic has been especially well debated here. In here, I used to think that civ should be wonder-specific, but now I think that the AI simply won't be up to the job. Having exclusive techs would be even worst. So just having very distintive art of each of the civs is probably enough.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...
[This message has been edited by UltraSonix (edited August 23, 2000).]

[Beör]

'Civilizations' (aka fractions) that differ slightly in their abilities have been implemented in SMAC, greatly enhancing the replayability of the game. After having played one fraction for some time, switching to another fraction will give you a totally new experience.

But of course there is the difficulty with the AI.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That is a good point... Should Traits expire? I say no.. even though the Brits are #1 any more, they still have a pretty good navy.

I wonder if having traits be like wonders will be good? I think traits should be a mechanism to catch up with others, not to goble up... I still think one per age is good and it creates some strategy, as to when to pick the trait (it'll still cost research time, remember).

[Sirotnikov]

I agree with Imran.

Good idea.

I especially support the part about: each civ having an equal chance of researching these traits.

I think however that there should be more than one possible trait for civ. Especially in the modern era since now the changes all nations have underwent in the last century were enormous and many.

These traits will be like wonders and there will be tough competition. There are already trait like wonders even in civ2:

A wonder that gives all your sea units +2 mov points

A wonder that makes all your troops veterans (could be changed too only ground troops to give ground superiority)

A wonder that gives order in cities (Woman's suffferage)

However, a question comes to mind,
Should the traits ever expire?
For instance, until the 20th century england had obvious sea superiority, but now it's not bigger than US superiority.

Also, in ancient times rome and greece had infantry superiority that italy and greece now don't have. In the 20th century german and soviet troops were the best. And if I may add Israeli troops are quite good, especially special forces and THE MOSSAD.

[Evil Capitalist]

Many of the wonders are traits- Pyramids (Egpytian wheat fields), Adam Smith's Trading co. (British economists and financial preeminance), Hoover Dam (American production) to name a few. However some civs have traits that would get wonders duplicated- Lighthouse/Magellan's expd and British naval ability being one of the best examples.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, but wonders can be gobbled up by whose up front in production terms.. Traits are limited. You can only select one. I think this also balances the game better.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hmmm, I guess that could work, but then everyone would be saving up traits, no? I think it best to stick to one trait per era because of this. The Computer AI will probably do 1 trait per era, and if the Human players save up their traits they'll gain a greater advantage!

Maybe as an option though?
[This message has been edited by Imran Siddiqui (edited August 26, 2000).]

[Shadowstrike]

This would be an interesting option Imran. I was looking at some history texts when I came up with the idea. It struck me that some nations were mediocre in one era and powerful in the next. The double trait concept could represent this idea. For example, you could be bordering a civilization which is very weak at one era and eclipse you're empire in the next. An interesting scenario to play in.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, a good scenario. You are last among nation, but have 2 traits in reserve... pretty nice.

[Shadowstrike]

Maybe you could save one trait to the next era to strengthen yourself in that era while staying weak (due to the lack of a trait) in the currnet ear. The maximum saved should only be one trait, lest someone saves up all their traits and uses them all in one ear becoming a unstoppable juggernaut.

[Imran Siddiqui]

LOL! Some people can be kind of absurd when you think about it, eh Lonestar .

Anyway, I've NEVER, EVER (I mean Ever) been a fan of the "rise and fall" part of the game. I think it'd just **** up Civ..

[Shadowstrike]

Remember the "rise and fall of great empires" concept. Note specifically the word rise. For instance, this could reflect a small nation's rise to power, i.e. Mongols, etc.

[Lonestar]

Love the traits idea.

I have a friend who wants there to be faction personalities, like in SMAC. For someone taking Aerospace Engineering he doesn't seem to have the "Not-practical-to-have-32-different-personalities" concept down.

[Shadowstrike]

On the other hand, Civ 2 has never been very realistic. Most of the time, civs grow unimpeded throughout the world without costly battles or revaging barbarians. Playing the game on Barbarian Wrath would more accurately reflect the real world.