please DON´T change too much!! - PETITION

[weird god]

i think civ2 is the best game ever that´s why i´m still playing it after years. and it´s one of the most balanced games i know. i can´t even tell which tactic is the best for multiplaying - military, economic or hybrid playing styles have all about the same chance to lead to victory - which is a masterpiece....

of course the game can still be improved. the AI is not strong especially on 2x2x and it cheats too much. diplomacy is a joke and graphics are of course not up to date anymore. i also think new minor playing elements like borders or channels would increase tactical abilities but PLEASE don´t add too much new playing elemets. they could too easily unbalance the game - and if a special tactic wins most of the time, civ3 will not be that good and addictiv as civ2 was.

this is a petition, if you think the same please vote for it

weird god,
chief of EUROPA

[Hasdrubal]

I'll sign up.
Civ III must be an improvement of the existing series, not a new game. (Although not a remake)

[DaveV]

I absolutely agree. Civ II is a remarkably well-balanced game, and any new addition could throw off that balance. A graphical facelift and better AI would be enough to make me happy. An AI that could be improved by the end users would make me think I'd died and gone to heaven.

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

you guys, I have to say that I agree with you 50%, civ2 is a great game, still is (I still play it today), but its out-of-date, we need an improvement, if you guys want it to be a 'slightly improved' game, then just E-Mail Firaxis and tell them to call it CIV2.5.:rolleyes And if you need a stategy for civ2, then, well I wont say anything except that with civ2, you dont need a strategy, its so easy. I HAVE TO be easy on my opponents, cause if Im not, Ill win before I can build cannons. I agree that if they change too much, it will unbalance the game with the other civ games, BUT, I do want them to change more then just a couple things, in my mind, everything could be better, but of course that is being unrealistic. HEres the list of the top-ten things I want changed in civ3:

1. AI
2. historical realism
3. Customizability
4. Diplomacy
5. more units, for every age
6. larger maps, more civs
7. graphics (units, maps, etc)
8. inhanced riots, civil war, etc.
9. borders, cities, nation stuff, etc.
10. battles, combat (ranged combat, battlemaps, etc)

the stuff is in order of most importance.

[DarkCloud]

The only thing I agree with others not to change is the 2d units, but the new 3d units throw that out of wack

So... no... I will not sign this petition, the game needs change.

[orange]

I agree with DarkCloud. I've been waiting 2 years for this, and I still have another 2 years to wait. If it's not different from Civ 2 I will be utterly disappointed.

I spit on your petition

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[Biddles]

If you love civ2 so much that you don't want it changed, well keep playing civ2. There will be things changed in the game no matter how many people sign this board. I for one think that firaxis won't make civ2.5. I want things changed, as long as they enhance the playing experience.

------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Orange,

if Firaxis is close to releasing Civ3 when they say they will (by the release date), then you wont be waiting 2 more years, the release date is in August.

[orange]

Thanks for that info. I haven't been keeping up with it, but last I heard we wouldn't be seeing Civ until 2002

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[yin26]

I think what you are saying is that you want, at its core, the same Civ "essence" in Civ3 that you have in Civ2. But for some reason, you think that changing the game "too much" will ruin the experience. However:

** Even if you are right, what you are really saying is that Civ is dead.

Now don't get me wrong. Civ is great. I've played it for hundreds of hours. But because I've played it for hundreds of hours, there's absolutely nothing challenging about it to me anymore. Changes in graphics and AI alone won't change that. So if that's all Civ3 offers, the series is dead IMO.

** But I prefer to think that the Firaxis team -- especially with Sid at the controls -- CAN and WILL take Civ3 in a direction that not only builds on the essence of Civ but adds entirely new challenges that even the most veteran player will enjoy trying to master. That is the kind of Civ3 I want to buy and is most certainly the Civ3 Firaxis wants to release.

So, since I've already played Civ2 to death and don't want to pay for a Civ2.5, I won't sign this petition (though I certainly understand your concern).

[orange]

That's the essence of my feelings Yin. Good post

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[Deity Dude]

I agree that any change that threw it out of whack should not be implemented. Having said that, I think alot of the suggestons here would be great if they were implemented and I guess we would have to trust the game manufacturers to test any modifcation to see that they are appropriate.

[Ralf]

Again; heres a quote that i copied from a guy named Daniel Ban/ Deja.com:

"What I remember is that Sid wrote that the hardest part of designing Civ was not in adding features but in keeping them out. Sid made the point that each and every feature added to a game has a cost, not just in developer time/effort but a GAMEPLAY cost.
Each feature will require the player to think about that feature. It may require clicking or micromanagement. It may require screen space or game time. Every time a designer adds a feature, the game gets larger, more crowded and more complicated.
So Sid refused to add features that, although they sounded neato, would be overburden the game with details. I have always thought of the idea that adding features must be balanced against overloading game detail as "Sid Meier's Rule"."

What im trying to say with above, is that even if you dont get as many to sign up on this petition - you, at least have the man himself on your side.
What do i think personally? Well, i want as big of a difference between Civ-2 and Civ-3, as the difference was between Civ-1 and Civ-2.

Or - to put it in other terms:

1/ Any ideas that really ADD to the fun- and suspense-value, we already had in Civ-2, should be a candidate for implementation. Try hard to find those ideas!

2/ Any ideas that just take an existing Civ-2/SMAC solution, and tries to come up with as "realistic" (read: unrealisticly complicated for the AI) replacement-solution as possible, should be rejected.

3/ Any idea that "levels the road" for the AI, so it can work more efficiently on fewer selected tasks, is also; absolutely necessary.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 22, 2000).]

[Grumbold]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 12-21-2000 11:54 PM I prefer to think that the Firaxis team -- especially with Sid at the controls -- CAN and WILL take Civ3 in a direction that not only builds on the essence of Civ but adds entirely new challenges that even the most veteran player will enjoy trying to master. That is the kind of Civ3 I want to buy and is most certainly the Civ3 Firaxis wants to release.

Exactly what I wanted to say. It took long enough to get Civ 3 announced. After a 6-7 year gap we deserve a worthy successor to the name which has its own unique gameplay experience.

[weird god]

ok,ok,ok...i see i haven´t exactly hit what i wanted to say, let me point it out. my concern is that civ3 could loose the "magic" civ2 has. i enjoy playing AC and CTP too, but civ2 is definetly the best of all esp. in multiplaying. it isn´t as overloaded as AC is and has better gameplay then CTP(2). plus it has easy understandable clear rules, is extremly balanced and doesn´t take days to finish though it´s very complex. - i use to speek about civ2 as the better chess with the luck factor as it´s spice.
i´m usually not that conservative but i fear that adding TOO MUCH new playing elements could either unbalance the game or makes it take too long for multiplaying. both would take away the flair civ2 has.
of course i trust sid and the fireaxis team, i just want to show up that this is what makes civ2 that addictive and therefore should be VERY CAREFULLY HANDELD.