An example of how "unique benefits" can go wrong

[yin26]

Unfortunately, without enough detail, we are running in circles. Hopefull Firaxis is aware that this is a hot topic and they will take the initiatives to try to get some detailed feedback. But that rarely happens...

[Roman]

Take a look at this extract from the Firaxis' Civ 3 site: "Culture and nationality will play dramatic roles in your Civilization's history. We have systems for reflecting cultural value of cities and civilizations that depend upon the players use of his resources."
This seems to suggest that the unique civ benefits will develop from your playing style rather than be fixed at the beginning, which looks sensible to me.

[lord of the mark]

yin, i appreciate your not wanting another RTS vs TBS, or Civ2 vs AOK debate.

But you invited that when people said that unique civs would hurt civ3, and you replied by citing AOK. without saying which is better, lets say that they are DIFFERENT.

As for complex, there are different forms of complexity. AOK is more complex in its unique civs, and in its military formations and tactics. Civ is far more complex in its tech tree, its building options, its civ development options, and its social-political model (which AOK does not even have) Either can lead to a 'fun' game. The question is whether unique civs make a civ-type game fun, not an AOK type game. The other question relates to history.

for the first SMAC comarisons would seem apt, not AOK comparisons.

for the second, aok is MORE historically accurate than civ in its military tactics, less so in other respects. Does unique civs add historical accuracy? Yes, when the time frame is short. No when the time frame is long. In this case simpler is MORE accurate - the 4000 BC start means a "tabula rasa" (clean slate) as far as civ charecteristics.

[Grumbold]

I don't think this thread is saying anything not already said in our current poll. Differing attributes or attitudes to give a unique flavour to AI civs is a good thing. I am less certain that human players need them because unless the game has certain key winning strategies different players should have their own style anyway. If it does have limited paths to victory then the civs with the unique benefits that enhance those strategies will be unbalancing. I challenge anyone to identify unique governing attributes of civilisations that hold true from 2000 BC to the current day anyway. Everyone has had to adapt to changing circumstances or go under.

[yin26]

Well for that matter, then, architecture and techs should be determined by your civ's starting point, experience etc...as should your civ's name reflect some kind of history you create in-game. Along with bonuses. Now, while that basic concept is being done in Black and White, I doubt we'll see it in Civ3.

Rather, I think we'll see some sort of modified SE in Civ3. Be ready...

[Grumbold]

Are you not expecting there to be any architectural differences between towns? I would hope for at least the few varieties we have seen up to now in the pre-industrial ages. At worst if Firaxis leave hooks allowing different civs to have different graphics then someone will exploit it even if they leave them all identical initially.

Having a tech tree that only allowed you to research 2 out of every 4 dead-end techs in each era could be interesting but a nightmare to balance. An SE system which only enabled certain choices if you had utilised others for a significant number of turns is another. I.e. having been 'philosophical' for 25 turns, you could then choose to switch to an enhanced philosophical that gave you slight production (work ethic) or research (intellectual freedom) bonuses. Any switch away from 'philosophical' would mean you lose the advanced options and would have to rediscover them again. These are all customisations that make civs unique without enforcing historical stereotypes. I am all in favour of that.

[Theben]

Another thing to note is that the factions of SMAC get old pretty quick. If people want to play with unique civs, why don't they build a modpack?

I am all in favor of uniqueness that comes with the experience and direction that a civ takes. In fact I'd be MORE impressed if I was playing the English and due to my playing style the computer decided I should be allowed the "unique" unit "Horse Archers" (Hey! I can build horse archers!! Cool!!) as opposed to playing the Mongols and knowing I'll always get them at some point (oboy, I have horse archers. yay.).

[yin26]

What I'm saying is if you follow the line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, why have ANY real-world civ names, abilities or architectures? Why have the name "Mongols" or "Chinese" at all with a certain plus or minus ability? And why have one style of building for one or the other at all? These things should all reflect the kind of experiences and research you do over the course of the game, right? Hey, I'm all for it.

But it won't happen on that scale. We just have to accept that at a certain point, we like being "anchored in history" to some degree. That's why we like the civ names and recognizable architecture.

And that's why I argue that an option to have certain historical traits makes perfect sense. And it WILL make for more strategic interest, at least against a human opponent who knows what's going on. But if you wanna go blank slate with this game, then take it all the way.

Give me a no-name civ that starts the game using building materials based on its starting evironment. Have the computer draw those buildings accordingly, reflecting the appropriate advancements, perhaps blending in-coming information gained from contact with new civs and environments. At some point in time, my civ is advanced enough to "earn" recognition of itself and others, thereby establishing a name that reflects something in its brief history. And let my bonuses add and subtract throughout this process based solely on my actions. Sounds great! Won't happen...

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 02-02-2001 02:21 AM What I'm saying is if you follow the line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, why have ANY real-world civ names, abilities or architectures? Why have the name "Mongols" or "Chinese" at all with a certain plus or minus ability? And why have one style of building for one or the other at all? These things should all reflect the kind of experiences and research you do over the course of the game, right? Hey, I'm all for it.

Whats "logical" about following the abilities through experience-idea to such obviously extreme & absurd conclusions? One can stop halfway, you know.
Too much and too little destroys everything, also when argumenting.

quote: But it won't happen on that scale. We just have to accept that at a certain point, we like being "anchored in history" to some degree. That's why we like the civ names and recognizable architecture.

Nobody of those of us who prefers Civ-2 style AI-civ temperamental and emphasize-differences, have ever argued against that. Your kicking in already opened doors here.
The problem is instead that static once-and-for-all SMAC-style civ-benefits fails miserably when it comes to achieve what you asking for: how historic civ-abilities can be correctly "anchored" to a historically huge 6000+ year dynamically changing timeline. In short:
How do one design a civ-specific list of rigid/static benefits, that simultaneously is suppose to fit both that ancient living civ and a couple of hundred turns later; that same civ living in late modern eras? Thats the problem.

DAN MAHAGA quote:
"While the design workshop was an interesting feature of SMAC, its design constraints are wholly inappropriate for a game that covers as much ground as CivIII."

Now, what has the "unit workshop" idea anything to do with pre-fabricated SMAC-style civ-benefits, you may ask? Well, (again) its about the huge 6000+ year timeline, and the problem of dynamically evolving historical/cultural civ-conditions - from the pre-ancient civ extreme on one hand, and all the way too the late-modern civ extreme on the other hand.
While "cardboard cut-out" faction-benefits perhaps was an interesting feature of SMAC, its design constraints are wholly inappropriate for a game that covers as much ground as CivIII.

It seems to me that Firaxis (at least partly) have realised this. Also reconsider ROMANS post:

Take a look at this extract from the Firaxis' Civ 3 site: "Culture and nationality will play dramatic roles in your Civilization's history. We have systems for reflecting cultural value of cities and civilizations that depend upon the players use of his resources."
This seems to suggest that the unique civ benefits will develop from your playing style rather than be fixed at the beginning, which looks sensible to me.

My underlining, and yes; I agree! More of that!

quote: And that's why I argue that an option to have certain historical traits makes perfect sense.

OK, I can (barely) live with an optional SMAC-style alternative. But, this debate isnt really about "civs having historical traits", or not. Its about whether it isnt enough to restrain those historical traits to AL-civs alone (Civ-2 style), or not. I have nothing whatsoever against the idea of AI-civs having unique traits in terms of...

- AI-civ unique temperament-differences (aggressive/peaceful, expansionist/perfectionist and so on).
- AI-civ unique emphasize-differences (what shall this or that AI-civ priority, in terms of tech-tree, units, city-improvements and city-area development?)

Infact, I welcome it - playing against totally generic AI-civs would be rather dull. What I dont like however, is the idea of one-and-the-same military-unit (or government-type, city-improvement, or perhaps even tile-improvent) being 25% stronger (or weaker), for no other reason then that it happens to belong to this or that specific Civ. Its ridicules! And I also dont like the idea being forced to accept these clumsy, rigid and unintuitive civ-benefits/trade-offs in order to play the damn game with this or that specific Civ.

quote: And it WILL make for more strategic interest, at least against a human opponent who knows what's going on.

Well, i didnt like it in SMAC, although I could better understand the feature in that game. About AOE/AOK; I can only agree wholeheartedly with Lord of the mark, below.

LORD OF THE MARK quote:
"Yeah Civ is a game. But its a game thats about history. In a way that AOE/AOK is not. I played AOE before I played Civ, and one of the reasons I switched was that AOE/AOK didnt "feel right" as an empire builder, largely for reasons of scale. The scale was so wrong that it wasnt worth arguing about the ahistorical charecter of the civ attributes"

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited February 03, 2001).]

[yin26]

Scale schmail...AoK is one damn fun game. As long as Civ3 is FUN, it can have any scale, bonuses, colors, sounds it wants.

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 02-03-2001 10:11 AM Scale schmail...AoK is one damn fun game. As long as Civ3 is FUN, it can have any scale, bonuses, colors, sounds it wants.

Well thats the crux of it, isnt it. You're of the view that historical accruacy (of the gameplay variety that ralf and i have been discussing, as opposed to the atmospherics) is not needed for the game to be fun. Fine. For you. Its great that the game appeals to both us "grognard lite types" and also to people who want a fun game independent of historical accuracy issues. It is wrong for you to derrogate the concerns of others however.

[Jon Miller]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 02-03-2001 10:11 AM Scale schmail...AoK is one damn fun game. As long as Civ3 is FUN, it can have any scale, bonuses, colors, sounds it wants.

But would it still be Civ? Or would it be AoE knockoff. I want Civ.

Jon Miller

[yin26]

quote: It is wrong for you to derrogate the concerns of others however.

Listen, I spent about 300 hours of my personal time making sure Firaxis got a list of suggestions from the fans here. Give me a break.

My point is that Sid has always kept his games rather simple in the name of FUN. And while I would love a hugely complex and intricate game that truly realizes the best and gradest dreams on that list we made, we're still going to be left with a game.

A game.

And as such, we will still have ships that takes 20 years to sail from one place to another and all those issues that "aren't to scale" and so forth. So this is my point. Build on Civ2, make it better, use as many of the suggestions as possible...but make it fun. DON'T try to simulate every little bit of history because Civ never was about realism as about a fun abstraction.

People forget that all the time.

[tniem]

yin,

Anyone that has been around here for any length of time knows that you make sure that everyone gets their fair shake as to expressing an opinion. While you may not always agree with a position if it is the majority's you have happily (maybe not the right word) sent this on to Firaxis or made it the official Apolyton position.

Thanks for your dedication, many people obviously forget how much time it takes and what a thankless job being a moderator requires.

[yin26]

tniem,

MUCH appreciated. But I suppose I should be ever-vigilant in how I argue against certain ideas "off the record." Another one of those fun parts of being a moderator.
[This message has been edited by yin26 (edited February 03, 2001).]