14 POLL: "unique benefits depending on the Civilization you choose"

[yin26]

First, it's obviously FAR easier to program generic civs, so far less risky from both a financial and public relations standpoint. My guess is we'll get (essentially) generic civs, nothing to panic about.

However, unless you've taken the time to learn the challenging intricacies of playing a game that DOES limit certain choices but opens others, then you'll never appreciate that having, say, 12 distinct civs would truly make each game that much more different. And, hey, if you love to win by war, chose a civ that's good at such things. Otherwise, go for total random seeding and see how good you are on-the-fly!

Afterall, why would I want to master every so-called "civ" in about a week?
[This message has been edited by yin26 (edited January 11, 2001).]

[Jon Miller]

Hi all

I disagree with Yin here. Making Civs have different abilities is not only unrealistic, it also is lazy. Firaxis is basically conceeding that they can not make more strategies viable for the players, so instead theyy are goiing to give the Civs unique abilities to force people who play them in to strategies which would normally not be viable. That is what they did in SMAC (I am most espicially thinking of Yang and Miriam). Having non-generic Civs also limits multiplayer since some playing styles I and the people I played with obviously prefered (also the Miriam was especially weaker on a larger map) and we could not use them because some factions did not allow them.

And sure you could always choose to play different but then that leaves a weaker computer player. It is just gilt put on the game to impress the easily impressible. I am saddened that Firaxis is sinking to the unimaginative lows of MOO, MOM, AoE, and all the rest (I like those games they are just not civ (also uniques fit better into MOM and MOO)).

Note I have judged based upon pass implimentations of this and I cannot but think that Firaxis dropped the ball on this one (sure it will sell but it won't be as good). While making some of it based upon where you start might sound fun but the one thing about civilizations is that they change. Being locked into one strategy path just limits options, does ot expand them (and it is especially frustrating when it is artificial).

I do see one good aspect in that if it is customisable it will be a boon to scenario designers.

All I hope is that they make it optional so that I can at least turn it off. Anybody feel like asking a question and/or making an petition.

edit once more: I am sure the game withh be fun and plan on buying it. I just think that the best option was not chosen in this case.

Jon Miller
[This message has been edited by Jon Miller (edited January 12, 2001).]

[yin26]

quote: I disagree with Yin here. Making Civs have different abilities is not only unrealistic, it also is lazy.

In a bizarre kind of way, I see your point. But surely properly balancing the various civs takes an enormous amount of work. Of course, there's quite a danger involved in that...potentially leading to some civs being played too much (or even banned in MP) while others never get played. This is a real concern, of course, and is why I agree this should be in check-box option, like "Civs inherit historical attributes."

In AoK, they had the catch-all: "All Techs Available." But the funny thing is, almost NOBODY uses it! The plain fact of the matter is that the game is FAR more interesting and complex when having to deal with the weaknesses and strengths given to various civs.

And I find it odd that people who scream for more historical accuracy prefer to play with cardboard cut-out civs!

Good job on this one, Firaxis, if you manage to balance it as well as ES did (...of course, that took a few patches...).

[Wazell]

Isn't there an option in Alpha Centauri startup screens where you can randomize those factions' advantages, or even turn them off? I'm not sure though. But it seems unique benefits will be there because people who buy games like to have different alternatives to choose from. Maybe it'd be better to do it like in first civ. At least it says in the manual that Indians can be tough in space race, or Mongols are aggressive warmongers and so on, but this had no effect on human player, who had no bonuses or minuses like those. And in civ2 some civs are always aggressive when some others are perfectionist. They're only expanding this system.
Some AI civs could also simply be better than others. It's better to have major civs like Chinese, English or Germans as your opponents in the endgame, rather than having some minors like Vikings or Hungarians, so the major civs should have bigger probability to survive and go beat the human player(s). If this is done by 'unfair' benefits, I see nothing wrong in it. Of course there must always be an option to turn all bonuses off.

Also the experience idea is good. If you build ships very early and use them a lot, your civ's naval skills will get better than others. Learn by doing, that's it!

[lord of the mark]

I agree with Bagdar, and I think Lancer's post should serve as a warning.

Notice how in AOK and other RTS forums people are always talking about "races" - when talking about the English, celts, etc - which are actually cultural groups not races? the confusion of language and culture with race is one of the fundamental confusions of the century just past, and one which resulted in tragedy in that century.

Civ, thankfully has avoided that confusion. Everyone starts out the same in 4000 BC, and what your CIV (NOT RACE) evolves into depends on HISTORY not BIOLOGY - what the terrain is, what govt types you choose, the prximity of other civs, the nature of interactions with them, the techs you research, the wonders you build etc. Depending on your strategy and the enviroment in which you pursue it you will result in a very different civ, such that the looking back one might deduce that the difference came from some profound racial origin - BUT becuase you've actually been playing the game since that first settler in 4000BC you know that isnt true

you KNOW that the Americans have high tech weapons because theyve been following a demo-science-peaceful-naval path since they split off from the brits, and that the brits started on such a path to take dvantage of their island isolation, and had powerful midgame science wonders like Isaacs. It only LOOKS like the anglo-saxons have a gene for high tech weapons.

Thus Civ2 is, as a game, a powerful argument for the importance of HISTORY, and a powerful counter to biological/racial determinism.


Building in AOK style "race" advantages will transform the nature of this game, in a negative way. Making it possible to eliminate these with modifications is not enough - they will poison the Civ community. At most it should be possible to add them in modifications, but exclude them from the basic game. I'm not even sure if that is a good idea.

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 01-12-2001 02:01 AM And I find it odd that people who scream for more historical accuracy prefer to play with cardboard cut-out civs! ...).

Is it historically accurate that the anglo-saxons in 4000 BC had the charecteristics of the 19thc English? Is it historically accurate that they would have inevitably developed those charecteristics regardless of location, govt type, history ?

So that the charecteristics of 19thc england were determined not by the Danish invasion, the Norman conquest, Magna Carta, Henry VIII and the church, the Spanish armada, the english civil war, the Glorious revolution, all things which could have come out DIFFERENTLY, but by genetic inheretance determined in 4000 BC?

That is not making civ more historical, it is making it profoundly ahistorical. It is precisely because I value Civ as a historical game that I dont want predetermined civ charecteristics.

And this is not AOK - in AOK you can ask what were the cultural charecteristics of each group at the start of the middle ages, and presume they more or less lasted to the end of the middle ages. In civ we are dealing with 4000 BC to present. The ONLY difference that could be HISTORICALLY justified would be ones that existed in 4000 BC - but given popular expectations thats not what we'll get - we'll get the cartoon view of each civ at the height of its power.

[lord of the mark]

Indeed this is the first sign of what we have lost with the departure of Brian Reynolds. Brian was philisophically astute enough, I believe, to understand how diametrically opposed "racial charecteristics" are to the historical philosophy behind Civ. This is the first hint that a Brian-less Civ3 may not be worth buying (There! first shot across the bow) and it may be better to wait for what BHG comes up with.

[yin26]

First, you guys have jumped the gun entirely. As far as I know, no firm details on this have been decided. And for argument's sake, I'm all for SOMETHING giving your civ a unique character (preferably though the 'history' you create in the game--if not, in rough approximation to Earth's history depite what else happens in the game). As always, the option to turn it off should be there.

[Grumbold]

I agree with those who espouse vanilla starting civ's. The differentiation should come later, as nations expand, encounter each other and interact.

My favourite way of doing this is to allow nations to pick one or two specials from each historical period. This could be done by hanging them on certain techs. As soon as you learn the tech, you can choose whether or not to take the associated special, be it +1 sea movement or cheaper chariot units. Each special could only be taken a fixed number of times but there would be enough choice to make sure nations would not normally be left with only something useless to pick. An alternative would be to allow say 5 specials over the whole game. Your choice could be between an early rush to victory or hope to survive unassisted to get the renaissance/modern era specials and become a great latter day power instead.

[yin26]

Yes, the pick points idea would work fine. You could also earn points as part of the Throne Room concept. But I'd also like the option of a "real history" setup (from which I could pick a certain time period), and at the start, the civs would approximate civs at that time...so if you wanted to play an underdog civ, you could try to change history. That sort of thing.

I see people's worries about the game being "determined" from the start if certain civs are given too powerful a bonus. I have faith enough in Firaxis not to ruin the game in that way, however. They have more creativity and gamer's spirit, I'm sure.

[Grumbold]

I would certainly be interested in playing a game where the specials you could take were preallocated by nationality, but those only really work when they activate at the appropriate time in history and the map is historical, too. A "historical" England starting in the Mongolian plains is not going to be too impressed with its naval bonuses or ability to more easily administrate distant colonial outposts

[Ralf]

In SMAC I tend to play "Peace-keeping forces" (i dont remember the exact name) alternative, over and over and over again, because that faction had the "best" benefits, and was the closest one to my playing-style.

Honestly, after about 10-12 games i felt gradually more and more limited.

Sure, there was temperament- and empire-managing templates connected to the AI-civs in Civ-2. But those you could ignore. You could choose the AI-agressive Mongols for example, and play them as civil and peaceful, with emphasize on science, trade and well-developed city-areas instead.

To summarize it: DONT have "hardcoded" Civ benefits, like in SMAC factions. Its NOT a good idea. Civ-2 style AI temperament- and empire-managing templates is necessary, but nothing more then that.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 12, 2001).]

[Maniac]

quote: A "historical" England starting in the Mongolian plains is not going to be too impressed with its naval bonuses or ability to more easily administrate distant colonial outposts

Well ,there's a very simple solution to that. Just program that the English's starting position is always on an isolated island; that the Greek's starting position is always on hilly coastland; the Mongols and Sioux on plains and steppes; the Egyptians and Babylonians near a large river; the Celts in foresty land; and so on...

Assuming that, that the starting positions are similar in each game, it is perfectly logical (because of accumulation of experience) that civilizations will always and in each game(=alternative history) develop the same benefits and weak points. And that has nothing to do with genes or racism, as some people claim.

To further illustrate my examples: it's only logical then that the Greeks and English will each game turn to the sea, so there's nothing wrong with giving them beneits like "free Harbor facility in each city" or "+50% transport capacity" to simulate the unavoidable experience they will gather after decades of seafaring.
As a second example: it's logical the Mongols will turn to horses as means of transport and war, so there's nothing wrong with something like "+25% Attack bonus for mounted units".
You could further expand this by SE factors, such as +2 Research for the Greeks, +2 Support for the Mongols or Celts (their military society resulting out of their harsh starting conditions), -1 Police for the freedom-loving Dutch, etcetera.

If you per se want a 'generic' civ, despite the fact it's historically unrealistic, you can always create your own custom civ. That isn't difficult in SMAC, so neither will it be in Civ3.

MarkG, I tried to vote on the poll half an hour ago, but the first time I entered the wrong username (ACOL's SMAniaC instead of Apolyton's M@ni@c) so my vote wasn't accepted. Then I tried again, but I got some error message. The third time I got a message that I had already voted. But when I checked the results, it showed I hadn't! Is there some way I can still give my vote? Cause, looking at the reactions in this thread, I think my option "1) Yes, like in SMAC" will need all the support it can get.

M@ni@c
BTW, I hope you guys have all tried SMAC before voting against non-generic civs. It REALLY increases replayability, fun and strategy.

[Boracks]

I also got an error when I tried to vote (5) and now it says I can only vote once.

I believe the more start options a game has, the more playability and replayability it has and will then have a broader appeal and success rate.

I still play MOO2 and SMAC for those reasons.


------------------
"Treat each day as if it were your last. Eventually, you'll be right."

[Imran Siddiqui]

Here's another view (mine , which has caught some praise on the OT... where we are also discussing this):
http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HTML/001634.html

--

And I disagree with programing the English always to be on the coast. The fun part is the random areas were you are placed and then, from there you explore your surrounding and make judgements based on where you are.