My growing concerns...

[Dom Pedro II]

Well, yin26, you are right. Truthfully, I think too many got hung up on the market system comment. I've been saying market system for months now, and I know that it was even said when the List was made (which I was not around for).

My primary concern was the graphics. There really was no other oppurtunity to voice that concern because I wasn't aware there might be a problem until recently. I hope I will still be able to create my own units for my scenarios. As long as I get assurance that I can still do this, I can lump the stuff that I wasn't there in time to toss in...

still, I would like to think I've made some sort of difference in these past few months.

[kenfitz]

I agree with Enchida. I was introduced to Civilization in 1991 and have never put it down. I am also very impressed with some of the scenarios, but I have never touched them. I shut off the throne room, the Wonder movies, and the heralds. I love the game the way it is. Any improvement will make it better, as long as Sid Mier has something to do with it. I bought CTP and hate it, I still play Civ II MPG. I think providing the user with a means to tweak and modify is also very important, but it won't alter my descision to buy the game.

In my opinion, civ is one of the greatest games ever written. It is not only entertaining and competative, it teaches strategy, history, economics, government, and more. Unlike 90% of the games available, I wouldn't mind my kids playing it when they get a little older. I hope Civ III retains that quality. If CivIII doesn't retain Civ II's quality of education and respectability, I won't touch it.

I trust Sid Mier to produce a great game and plan on buying it the minute it comes out.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 01-09-2001 11:35 PM 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.

If i have understood it correct that List was sent away before the Big Huge Game-defect and before the in-between Dinosaur-project. Those events did make everything concerning Civ-3 delayed somwhat. Having said that however, i think its obvious that they now have come past the brainstorming theoretical stage, and into practical programming, and even into play-testing some very premature beta-versions of the game, judging from the newly opened site.

You probably right, about any major principal game-changes, but still think there is hope for medium alterations that goes a little beyond "minor tweaks". Otherwise; why would they go out with the Civ3 editing tools threadh, and also; why would Dan Mahaga go out with the following mail-response 00-11-27:

"Ralf,

Thanks for your e-mail and for your general enthusiasm over the game. A lot of people here regularly read the forums at Apolyton on a daily basis. We do have copies of "the list" and as you're probably aware, we often refer to it when we want to know what "the hardcore fans" want most. The subject of editing tools and customization is a very important one and we know that you guys are the ones who will really be making use of these tools, so we definitely want to get your opinions. I think you'll probably see more posts regarding specific parts of the game on the forums there in the near future, so stay tuned.

In the meantime, thanks for your suggestions regarding editors and keep up the good work!"

(my underlining)

I certainly hope there is still some hope for alterations, especially in the strategical/logistical AI-area (my pet issue, sorry), and also around the all-important interface.
I cant help feeling that we perhaps got off with the wrong foot, with that gigantuan Godzilla List. In some areas although it was to little: I have read about the AI-suggestions in The List, and its rather pathetic.

Given that the major graphics-update + the added parameters in itself will pretty much swallow up any Computer performance-gains between SMAC and Civ-3, its absolutely vital that they really try to do something MORE with the AI, then they did in SMAC - especially in the strategical/logistical areas.

[yin26]

Good comments, Dom Pedro II and Ralf. First, let me just say that my view on all this of course has NOTHING to do with how Firaxis is looking at things. For all I know, they are searching as we speak for more input. Certainly on specific issues (such as Dan has posted), there has never been a better time for us to speak up. I'm thinking more about the logic of the game itself, however, than about stuff like editors and so forth. If they are already playing builds of Civ3, the likelihood of significant changes being made now to gameplay would be small.

But it is very encouraging that Firaxis looks to Apolyton for feedback. And it is ALWAYS beneficial to have people around here who think intelligently about how a game might be improved. So let's please keep posting with the idea that we'll make a difference...'cause eventually we will.

[Windborne]

I'm still disapointed, and slightly mad, that the first thing they show when they open up the new site is more warefare.

We had more and better warfare in civilization II, not perfect but way above anything else in the game. If they keep tweaking that model they may ruin the chess-like elegence of the game to make it more realistic, complex, and important.

Area's like agriculture, trade, and diplomacy really should be at the top of the list for improving everything, including warfare. If they brought these area's, and the AI, up to par it would still be the best turn based strategy game ever.

But if they make the warfare complex and leave the rest hanging behind. . . it will be the worst turn based strategy game ever. There is no way they can make civ III the best combat simulation ever, that's a totally different and advanced feild, but it sure looks like they are trying!

[The Mad Viking]

Windborne, I couldn't agree more!

For me, there are just a few tweakings to warfare required-

fix ZOC and rail travel so your monster army can't operate behind enemy lines forever on a huge continent with a couple of spies.

fix bombardment and air combat so that it is less powerful alone, but moreso when combined with infantry.

set up stacked combat/movement, simultaneous assault from different tiles.

ensure final combatmodel is at least as quick and easy as Civ2

Bribing cities should be harder (not so much more expensive, but more difficult) and getting conquered cities to be happy and productive should be harder. And war should cost more. Every civ has faced this- war is very expensive. More often than not it is a lose-lose operation.

However, the AI and diplomacy need a QUANTUM LEAP; and trade resources and city/empire management need major improvements.

[Frugal_Gourmet]

You'll have to forgive me if I didn't know the specifics of your complex market system. I only check these forums from time to time.

However, I don't think the trick is having the idea itself. Everyone wants resources and economics to play an important part of the game -- just as they did in history.

The *real* trick is implementing them in such a way that they are fun, easy-to-use, non-beaureaucratic, and intuitive.

Simplicity is the key to Civilization.

[supremus]

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Viking on 01-10-2001 11:09 AM ensure final combatmodel is at least as quick and easy as Civ2 and getting conquered cities to be happy and productive should be harder. And war should cost more. Every civ has faced this- war is very expensive. More often than not it is a lose-lose operation.

Well, war isn`t a lose-lose operation. And historically even the very pacefull civs had to deal with war. Civ games are historically inspired and it means they have to take war as one of the more important factors (if not the most) to win. It doesn't mean we should be in favor of war to progress in the real life, but we are not talking about real life but about a game historically inspired.
In this way I hope Civ III can put more power over the commercial war when you arrive in 21th century in the game. Currently (in the real life) major civs don't use military war against each other, they use commercial war, and in this sense Dom Pedro II is absolutely right, but it became true only after the cold war in the end of 20th century.

[Grumbold]

While there is no doubt that to create animated unit graphics will require a skilled person with access to professional tools, I expect to have the option to toggle unit animations (and all the other eye-candy fillip's) off. Now if the static units graphics could be developed and inserted without the need for matching animations, we have the best of both worlds. Purists might complain if their tiger tank turns into a pikeman when they toggle animations on, but you can't have everything
[This message has been edited by Grumbold (edited January 12, 2001).]

[Jon Miller]

Before WW2 war was not lose-lose always (since then it is I think). Also I agree that work needs put into the other aspects (we do not know yet, however). I do ont think customisability is important (I take Civ straight), but understand it is important to sum, and it does increase life some. I don't think I have seen Yin post this much since the early days of the list. I trust Firaxis are doing their best to make a great game.

Jon Miller