My growing concerns...

[Dom Pedro II]

I have checked out this new site, and I must say that I am somewhat worried.

First of all, it seems like my dream of a complex market system is becoming less and less likely. Second of all, many of the other concepts involving cities and rural populations that I have supported in the past are also not likely. I'll live.

But what REALLY concerns me is not what may not be included. If these new features are not there, I will be disappointed, but from what I see from some of the changes, I may just leave this one on the store shelf.

My primary concern is the unit graphics I'm saying. I certainly hope that these moving units will in no way hinder creating our own unit graphics. If we can't build scenarios with units that we can build from scratch, I won't touch this game. I'd rather keep the old Civilization 2. All the other customization and event files couldn't move me to buy it if I can't change the graphics. Not just units, but ALL graphics like in Civ 2.

Just some thoughts...

[Grrr]

I AGREE!!!

But I don't think Firaxis is that stupid! If they wish to sell 4 million copies of Civ3 then they will have to do this, as this is one of the MOST IMPORTANT features of Civ. If they don't I doubt they will reach 400,000 sales, let alone 4 million.

[tniem]

The reason Civ II has had the longevity that it has enjoyed has been customizable graphics not the reason that it has sold so well. For Civ III to sell well to a new group of gamers it has to have up to date graphics. That means 3d and probably hard to customize.

I personally so far like the new look. It needs to compete with other games on the market and it appears the units revealed do so. I agree something will be lost without customization but I don't think it will have any impact on the sales of Civ III.

[- Groucho -]

I agree with Tniem. I played CIV2 from a couple of months after its release till SMAC came out (and I still fire it up occasionally). That is by far the longest any piece of software other than an operating system has been in continuous use on any of my computers.

Not once did I download a scenario with customized graphics.

I'm not knocking scenario builders. You guys do very cool work. I'm just saying that my enjoyment of the game had nothing to do with its graphic customisation potential. I just liked playing it.

[Windborne]

My big worry is the emphasis on WARFARE, could they get a clue? Warfare was fine in civ II, everything else needs to be improved on before they even TOUCH the warfare model. So put these new ideas on the shelf and get working on the things that actually need improvement: AI, DIPLOMACY, TRADE, RELIGION (the lack thereof), PEACEFUL/ALTERNATIVE WAYS TO WIN, CULTURAL TRAITS, THE TRANSPORTATION MODEL, NUMBER OF CIVS, BARBARIANS . . . They've plenty to work on before they even think of the stuff they put on that web page, if they make this just another war game it will be the first civilization title I don't buy. . . And I even bought ctp and ctp II.
[This message has been edited by Windborne (edited January 09, 2001).]

[Adm.Naismith]

Dom Pedro II, do you miss the Firaxis post where they already wrote a Pro Editor will be needed for any Civ III custom graphics?

They suggested that for a complex game MOD must be made with professional tools (and to be fair it seems to me the same happened for last Quake / Unreal et al. mod).

I'll look for exact post link and I'll copy&past here ASAP, editing this message.
Found it: it appeared on different posts, but mainly on Dan Mahaga's post of november 25, 2000.

Windborne, Firaxis started the site from Military Units because lot of players enjoy wargames: they explicit mention this will not be the main aspect of game. Full stop. It's definitely too early to moan about the full game, IMO.

Firaxis team doesn't live in vacuum, they saw plenty of suggestions from us: using it or not will be their choice during next months (as it has been during previus months). Our choice is to suggest minor tuning on game aspect revealed (I hope at least monthly, is it right Dan? ), then we'll chose to buy the game or not when it will be released.

After all, good ideas left out of CIV III will be available for any other smart game developer looking around.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant
[This message has been edited by Adm.Naismith (edited January 09, 2001).]

[Frugal_Gourmet]

I, for one, pray to God that there is no -- as you say -- "complex market system".

The beauty of Civ has always been it's simplicity and fun -- not it's realism. Unless you think *realistically* managing a Civ from 4000 B.C. to the future would actually be fun.

Of course, if by "complex market system" you mean something a little more fun when it cames to trading & resources, then by all means...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually military should be touched first. As it says the game turned into a military one. By adding new things to the military model, they make it a bit more complex (and probably harder). So, because of this, you might wish to play more peacefully. They probably will focus on the peaceful play as well. Look at all the SMAC ways to play peacefully (Science victory, Economic Victory, etc.), but most of that got jutted in the favor of constant warfare.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Dom Pedro II on 01-08-2001 09:32 PM First of all, it seems like my dream of a complex market system is becoming less and less likely.

The classic Civ fun/suspence-factor doesnt stand and fall with a "complex market system", the way I look at it.

Then it comes to incorporating economy in the game, its more about a challenging economy entirety-model, that (important) also lets a majority of non-economy-educated civ-3 buyers, play around with economical choices/inputs/outputs in its principal form. Check out Sids quote about Civ-3:

"We're focusing heavily on the areas of trade and commerce and the role they played in mankind's development throughout history. We think it will be fun to be able to corner the market by specializing in the production of oil, or wheeling and dealing with other civilizations to achieve mutual economic benefits or to cut off resources to a powerful enemy".

I think above quote sounds just like that.

quote: Second of all, many of the other concepts involving cities and rural populations that I have supported in the past are also not likely. I'll live.

Im all for classic 21-tile city-areas. This system have millions of play-testing hours under its belt. The problems with changing these tried and tested solutions is that traditionalists automatically gets angry, and that (more importantly) such comprehensive changes with core-elements in the game, always carry a very real potential risk of opening some hard-to-patch "can of worms" problems.

Just check out what happened to the expanding city-areas concept, in CTP-2.

quote: My primary concern is the unit graphics I'm saying. I certainly hope that these moving units will in no way hinder creating our own unit graphics. If we can't build scenarios with units that we can build from scratch, I won't touch this game. I'd rather keep the old Civilization 2. All the other customization and event files couldn't move me to buy it if I can't change the graphics. Not just units, but ALL graphics like in Civ 2.

I hope they have a secondary setup of low-res alternatives, and that the player have the option to turn off the animation.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 09, 2001).]

[supremus]

Customization is good, very good, really good. But, realistically, we shouldn't wait too much from Civ III in this field. What they offered in Civ II was possible because the graphics were very simple wich is not the case in Civ III (3D and animatronics). They will sell more than 4 million units even with no customization (at least not in the same Civ II level)
because it will be Civ III after all. And at last but not least, there will be Civ IV ok ? They will keep some extra features to the future for marketing reasons. The saga will continue ! (A propósito de onde estás clicando carioca D.Pedro II ?)

[tniem]

Warfare should be tackled first! Even peaceful civs have to deal with military for much of the game. Complex elements of the game can be added later but Civ III needs a base to begin on. That base in the warfare. Once warfare is tackled everything else should be able to slowly fall in place.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Windborne on 01-09-2001 06:04 AM My big worry is the emphasis on WARFARE, could they get a clue? Warfare was fine in civ II, everything else needs to be improved on before they even TOUCH the warfare model.

Well, i wouldnt go that far. The combat-model must be an improvement over both Civ-2 and SMAC. However, i agree with you then it comes to more emphazize on the AI (especially the strategical/logistical part), Economy, Culture and more Peaceful/Alternative ways to win. Thumbs up!

quote: NUMBER OF CIVS

If you thinking of 30+ simultaneously playing Civs - forget it. For AI-technical reasons and long, looong player turn-waiting reasons. Max 10, realistically 6-8. That is, if you want most of the AI-civs to be significantly stronger then 2-3 city Lichtenstein-empires, of course. Personally, im all in for Quality before Quantity.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 09, 2001).]

[The diplomat]

Who says Firaxis ins't improving combat AND the other aspects of the game at the same time? It does not have to be an either/or situation! From the FAQ on the preview site, it looks like they will improve ALL aspects of the game.

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

[Dom Pedro II]

Ok, I've already explained my concept of what I mean by complex market system time and time again. I'm talking about truly utilizing resources so that they serve more of a function than simply increasing a trade point or a production point. I want your resources to truly make a difference, and I want to be able to wage economic war by declaring embargos and setting up blockades that deny enemies the resources necessary to function in war time.

And where were all of the critizers when I was looking for people to comment on this in threads dedicated to the topic?

[yin26]

Dom Pedro II,

That's one of the most difficult things about trying to improve a game from the fan side, at least from my experience on forums. People are only interested in providing organized and sustained feedback at 3 moments:

1) When plans to make the game are first announced (this is when The List was started).

2) When major updates and information are released (this is where we are now).

3) After the game is released.

Unfortunately, the most feedback by far comes at #3, which for all intents and purposes is too late. Sure, you can maybe get bugs fixed and (if you're really lucky) some simple features added, but the only real opportunity to affect the foundations of the game are at #1 (or even earlier).

Of course, it's much easier to criticize or praise something you already have in your hands (or at least know will be in the game or not). But by then, there ain't much that can be done about it.

So The List was our best bet to affect the underpinnings of Civ3, and I know we made some difference there. Our next big window of opportunity will be when we generate bug/feature lists, making sure that "our" priorities are clear for future patches. And from previous experience with Jeff Morris, our concerns will be taken seriously.