please DON´T change too much!! - PETITION

[supremus]

Well, what are we talking about? Not to change too much right ? But what is that ? If it means to remain with the same basic philosophy of civ 2 add my signature on the petition. But if it means not to dare in direction of new features and new challenges you can count me out of that. First of all which basic concepts can be listed as the heart of Civ2? In my oppinion:
1 - It is a war game.
All actuall civs int the humankind history used war more than any other strategy to expand and dominate. It is life as it really is.
2 - It is historically commited.
OK, war was the most important factor, but there was other ones like technical development, economics, social development etc. etc. that gave to civilizations some competitive advantages that they used to get suppremacy.
3 - It is based on historical ICS for civilizations expanding.
Territory. More and more land to control. Every dominant civilization used ICS to win at theyr times. In the contemporary age, some civilizations reached proemminency by tech supperiority. The game has to give this option to win and Civ2 does so.
On this three concepts lies the secret of Civ TBS gender success, and Civ2 were the best one in using them. If you change this you put Civ3 under risk.
But considering the above, you can make a revolution in Civ 3. Slavering, Religon, Diplomacy, Lawers, Borders, Chanels, Tunnels and Bridges are conceptas that put Civ2 too much oldfashioned nowadays.
The graphics can be widely updated too. In the gameplay you have to consider that PW and units stacks are two concepts in wich CTP surpassed civ2 by far and, of course, we hope will be added to Civ3.
Civ 3 has to remain with all the flexibility introduced by Civ2 like good map editor tolls and scenarios building tolls even with new revolutionary graphics, new units and so on.
And in the future ages I don't have a final opinion, but I like SF and some of the concepts CTP tryed to introduce (and failed misearibly to implement)in the sea and space exploration, like undersea cities and space cities. I don't think it is essential to the game, but maybe as an option to the ones like me who like it.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by tniem on 01-03-2001 10:31 AM It needs to reinvent the series. It needs to be a revolution not an evolution. If not, Civ III will satisfy me for about three hours and then an occasional multiplayer game.

What the heck does "reinvent" and "revolution" actually mean, in your eyes? (and curious)

Give us instead a bullet-style list of features (in few words/short sentences) that comprises your particular idea of such an update.

Give us meat - not just dry bones!

[Colonel Kraken]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 12-21-2000 11:54 PM 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. ** 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).

AMEN!

I could not sum up my feelings about the next Civ game any better. This is exactly what needs to happen. I fear what will really happen is what Darkstarr described. Such a situation would be absolutely pathetic and sad. As another commentator said, it's not the "21 city radius" that makes the game great. It's the total experience. And as yet another said, it needs to be "SimCiv" not "Wargame Civ". I'm tired of the supreme dictator controlling everything formula.

A ruler does not decide where to place a farm, decide to build a market place, decide where cities are going to spring up (all of this is generally speaking, of course, there are always exceptions). A ruler comes into existance, takes power, is given power, whatever, and may: tax the people into submission, build a huge military, live in luxury, protect its citizens, guarantee peace, engage in international relations, guide commerce and trade, regulate citizens behavior, on and on and on. THESE are the things I want to be concerned with, not "Now let's see, I need to place my cookie cutter farm here, make sure this city has a marketplace, blah, blah, blah . . . "

Let's see a true revolution in the way the game is played. Let's look at reality and model it after that. Let's take a "SIM" approach to civ, not "War is politics by other means". Let's worry about citizens getting upset because of too much taxes, getting raided by barbarians and other civs because of too little protection, worry about gathering resources needed for national industry, worry about unemployment, worry about religious riots, worry about international subterfuge, worry about the crime rate, worry about low productivity and learning new ways to prosper and increase productivity, take care of the sanitation concerns of citizens, provide an empire wide system of rodes, assign govenors to regions and have them trim some tax money off the top, and much, much more.

I don't want to dictate what occur automatically: people engaging in commerce, planting farms, building places of trade, commerce, and entertainment, establishing profitable overseas trade routes, etc. Now, I do realize that many of these things governments do engage in and guide, but as a rule these are things that happen automatically. Cities spring up and flourish, not because some ruler decided where to plant it and give it farms, but because it is a naturally great place for commerce and food. Places like rivers, and coastlines and major trade route junctions.

Sure, you could start with one settler as a despotic leader who guides his/her extensive family to the place he finally wants to establish a "nation" of his/her people (a la Ancient Israel). From there, because of your wise guidance and leadership (protecting your people from foreign raids/invasions, promoting trade/commerce, providing health and entertainment) your people begin to flourish and become so fruitful that many begin to find other places to live and establish their families (can you say "New City"). As your nation of common peoples begins to flourish and populate the region, you naturally come into contact with other nations of peoples (borders) and can interact with them as you please (diplomacy).

This is the kind of game I would like to see, and I think it would be great. There are elements of many different games that could be used, or at least looked at and molded to fit into Civ (such games as Imperialism I/II, Masters of Orion 3 [flintilgin's suggestion --I've never seen the game], Age of Empire's stupendous graphics for units, SimCity [the formula, not the micromanaging of cities], and many more). From the THOUSANDS of suggestions from these forums, I think CivIII could be an amazing game. The only negative thing I've seen with a lot of the suggestions is a holding onto the ideas and concepts of CivII --merely improving CivII to make CivIII. I really hope this does not happen. And as can be seen in this thread alone, many other people also hope it does not happen.

I really do understand the fear that many have for changing the game so much it doesn't have the same feel that Civ2 has; you feel the magic will be lost. But do you really think that Sid can't come up with something just as magical and still maintain the engaging experience of Civ2? I think he can, and I hope he will.

[EnochF]

Hmmm... well, let's put it this way. I want Civ II to be the base upon which all Civ 3 gameplay stands. I don't want anything in Civ 3 to start from the ground up, necessarily.

Here's what I want to warn the developers against:

1 Historical Realism: Don't let reality trump decent gameplay, especially if it means rewriting the rules of Civ II

2 Difficulty: Okay, so yin26 says Civ 2 doesn't challenge him anymore. But trust me, most people don't want Civ 3 to be "just like Civ 2... only harder!" We all want the AI to play with better strategy, yes, but I value improved customizability, with more units and more technology slots, than more of a gaming "challenge."

3 Slow Animations: If Civ 3, running on a standard Pentium I (with Microsoft Office and a handful of standard software), is crawling because of animation in the terrain or units, something's wrong. I might actually have liked Test of Time, but it ran too slowly on my computer, so I just shrugged and went back to playing Civ II.

[Colonel Kraken]

Hmmmm . . . whatever . . .

Let's put it this way: if the game still looks like CivII glorified, I'll be praising Activision for doing such a good job on Call to Power II.

And if you can't run the game on a Pentuim I, maybe it's time for a new computer. Just because you don't want to buy another computer, don't have that be the common denominator of what Firaxis has to work with for processing power. I want this game to be exceptional, not borrowing 6 to 8 year old grahpics technology just so every Tom, Joe (wouldn't let me use **** ), and Harry with a Pentium 90 can play the game. Hey, I only have an AMD K6 233, but I've increased the RAM and put in a 32MB graphics card and I do just fine. A little upgrade never hurt anyone.

If you want to be able to play on a computer like you did CivII, play CivII. For the rest of us, we want CIVIII, baby!

[This message has been edited by Colonel Kraken (edited January 05, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Colonel Kraken (edited January 05, 2001).]

[Colonel Kraken]

Oh, by the way wierd god, if you haven't guessed it, I won't be signing your petition. Sorry, budy. Just can't do it.


[This message has been edited by Colonel Kraken (edited January 05, 2001).]

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Colonel Kraken on 01-05-2001 10:26 AM This is the kind of game I would like to see, and I think it would be great.

Yes, Kraken - but the problem is that it wouldnt be viewed as "great" in the eyes of all civ-entusiasts, and all game-magazine reviewing civ-fans out there.

Some dont like city micro-managing, and some do like micro-managing. Some "dont want to be concerned" and "dont want to dictate", while others do "want to be concerned", and they do "want to dictate". Some thinks civ-gaming is all about conquering-the-world and dealing with diplomatics as fast/much as possible, while other fans have other priorities. Some wants to change everything from the ground up (despite what happened to the Activision-experiments), while others wants to learn from mistakes, and carefully weigh every suggestion on a golden scale. Some wants to squeeze virtually everything into the main-game and by that turn it into a "historic-futuristic all-in-one world-simulator", while others strive for a more lean and mean; flexible, tweakable and customizable approach, partly with help of what a good scenario-editor can create.

I only hope they go for the flexible, tweakable and customizable game-design approach, that in the end hopefully can satisfy as many as possible.

quote: The only negative thing I've seen with a lot of the suggestions is a holding onto the ideas and concepts of CivII --merely improving CivII to make CivIII.

The only negative thing Ive seen with a lot of the suggestions is that where are relatively many fans here that dont want to learn/draw conclusions from the principal game-design approaches we have seen in clones like TOT/CTP/CTP-2, and in some respect also SMAC. Many (but not everyone) wants principally the same things, but they believe/hope that Sid/Firaxis will do something better of it. Its sad - but, then again im pretty sure that Firaxis vill be very careful in even trying to step into those exact same footpaths, a fourth time.

Of course, i dont want a SimCity 2000 to SC-3000 type of upgrade. But, why does everything have to change? And why so much superficial quantity-stuff?

quote: I really do understand the fear that many have for changing the game so much it doesn't have the same feel that Civ2 has; you feel the magic will be lost. But do you really think that Sid can't come up with something just as magical and still maintain the engaging experience of Civ2? I think he can, and I hope he will.

I really hope you are right on this one. I really hope so.
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 06, 2001).]

[Waku]

In my humble opinion civ3 shouldn't be a game based upon civ2 (that would be a different game).

Civ3 must be civ2 plus all the little things that while playing civ2 we have wanted to see.

(some graphic improvement is welcome aswell)