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

[MarkG]

i understand how this could be in smac, and fits excellently, with each faction representing an ideology, but how will this fit into civ3?


why should a tribe called mongols (especially on a random map where they could start in isolated jungle island) be better at something that another tribe called english?


final results on page 4
[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited February 14, 2001).]

[raingoon]

I do question it as well -- isn't the the fundamental point that each civ begins with the same tableu rossa and each player than shapes their civ's strengths and weaknesses according to their own strategy? This will essentially pre-fab some of the strategies for you, before the game even begins.

Believe they may be taking a page from AoE and Age of Kingoms II.

[MarkG]

quote: Originally posted by raingoon on 01-10-2001 08:58 PM This will essentially pre-fab some of the strategies for you, before the game even begins

an optimist would say that it would replayability since you would be able to try to win with various civs...

[DarkCloud]

You should be able to set them with a screen.

You have 10 'random allocation points' to distribute among your civ and then the computer does the same with the computer generated civ making them better at

Sea Warfare
Attack Overall Bonus (1 point costs 2 points)
Defense Overall Bonus (1 point costs 2 points)
Building Bonus

[MarkG]

well it seems like they are going with a set of specific civs to choose from, each with each own advantages and disadvantages instead......

[- Groucho -]

Hopefully, the preset civilizations they give us to choose from will be just that - presets. Like RPGs that give you pre-rolled characters if you just want to start the game without doing a bunch of tweaking.

Hopefully #2, they will give you an option to play against a randomn map with plain vanilla opponents. No benefits, no burdens. That is one of the best things about CivII - except for maybe the luck of your starting city placement - you can't really blame failure on the machine or the gods. You just have to start over and hone your skills.

[yin26]

This fits quite nicely in Age of Kings: TC. And, quite often, a certain map does favor one civ over the other. Mongols, for example, are excellent hunters and can gain great early advantage because of it. Of course, they are rather weak toward the end game if they have been challenged at all, so the name of the game here is balance.

[wernazuma]

i think special benefits for civilizations are generally a good idea. but there are some things they need to think of.

i don't want a civ3 where mongols are always "despotic police-state warmongers" whereas indians are always "peaceloving diplomat-builders" and i soon know how they react. (like in SMAC)
there could be presets for the "personality" and boni of special civilizations but there must be an option to make personalities and boni random for each civilization.

[Lancer]

wernazuma, aren't they doing something w/ leaders this time out? Certain leaders emerging that give certain abilities... Wouldn't the personallities of these leaders determine the personality of the civ?

I'm w/ DarkCloud on his "10 points" idea. Or, perhaps a combination of points, natural atributes, and environmental factors could be used to determine strengths. To use the example of the Mongols, certainly as Mark was getting at, if the Mongols were temperate forest dwellers they would be less likely to be great nomadic horsemen. Their advantages would be somewhat framed by their environment. Add to that their historical ability (don't want to make the Mongols unrecognisable) and Darkclouds "10 points" of player preferences, and you have a situation that might be fun, w/ player control, while rooted in the environment and history, for realism.

[bagdar]

Don't we actually re-write history in Civ? The Unique character of a nation develops through time, so what could the "unique benefits" be back at 4000BC? In Civ I and II some civs did start with more advances, and sometimes with two settlers, but anything beyond that would be superfluous. I believe the only logical explanation of "unique benefits depending on the Civilization you choose" is something related in some way to geographical placement, and accumulation of the nation's experience. Otherwise, setting the destiny of the Chinese as good archers back at 4000BC is nothing but nonsense... In fact, any exagerated application of this idea would become a type of racism.

[Steve Clark]

What's the point? Why would I want to play a Civ that limits me on what I can and can't do??? Are they forcing me down a specific path or strategy?

Keep all of the civs generic, but allow complete customization through the various files and scenario editors.

I'm going to keep hammering this point because it is the single most important factor in Civ3 (apart from a better AI, but that's a given). If you don't want to play against the raging Mongol hordes, fine, change them to peace-loving Steppe Nomads. If I don't want to play with a certain benefit of my chosen civ, fine, give me the option to have no benefits or a different one. Don't limit me in how I play Civ3.

[Brent]

I've changed my mind and now I think a civ should be shaped only by the human playing it. Unless maybe it is a ficticious civ. I'm thinking the Civ games should go farther in a different direction from SMAC and any sequels as if it could have any. I also think that it makes a lot of sense for civs to have individual features in some, most, or all scenarios.

[Boracks]

quote: Originally posted by Lancer on 01-11-2001 01:02 PM wernazuma, aren't they doing something w/ leaders this time out? Certain leaders emerging that give certain abilities... Wouldn't the personallities of these leaders determine the personality of the civ?

Actually, the tone of the civ might be a determining factor (not THE factor) on the tone of the leader that appears. A militant civ is more likely to produce a military leader but a civ that stresses the economy is more likely to produce an economic leader.

Perhaps if you have a wonder in one of your cities your civ will be more likely to get a certain leader type. "The Great Library has attracted many scientists to East Toohoosis including the renowned researcher..."

I also like the ideas of being able to customise the game including a vanilla 'original civ' option (all start the same) and having the ability to set characteristics with certain numbers of points.


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

[Bereta_Eder]

If it isn't broken don't fix it.


(the only english saying I know that can describe what I think).

Keep Civs Generic. No plus no minus. I prefer to have the exact same propability of greatness or disaster with every civ.

[Lancer]

Certainly environmental factors are the main contributors to a civs early abilities. The hunting method carries over to the manner in which wars were fought, and the hunting method is determined by the environment. So the foundation upon which the earliest warriors faced other men is built upon the way they fought the beasts which made up their diet. This also formed men.
The hunters of the African steppe could run in pursuit of prey for great distances. The Chinese are social people, who lived in vast family units, dependant upon hierarchical (sp?) organization for literally everything, creating a civilization where each family is like an ant colony, and each member has a duty,or duties, set within a strict regimen of tradition, created for the strength and survival of FAMILIES, over many generations.
The tribes of Northern Europeans depended upon wit and imagination to survive the hardships of the great ice age. Though they overcame the cold and the dark, they had become suspicious, and made war, one tribe upon the next, not unlike the American indians, but perhaps with more vehemence. The Europeans, and their cousins, the Americans, do so to this day, with the most destructive weaopons ever created. These weapons have been universally adopted among civs, because they are the most destructive, and the dealiest. The interesting thing is that Europeans have become good at it, which only makes sense.
The decendants of the early Europeans spread their version of civilization throughout the world, so good had they become at killing each other, that no civ could stand against them, and they, we, have shaped the world, but with the old, indeed ancient bugaboo, they, we, just can't get along. So we have great wars, and a great weakness. This has been shaped by the tens of thousands of years of our history, both written and unwritten. We, with our high notions of equality, are but the most recent, and it seems a rewrite of history is in the works to make this new history real.
The creators of Civ 3 are dealing with this rewrite, done among the decendants of the Europeans, that all men are created equal. We are not. Each has strenghts. So it is with the Chinese, the Africans, the Indians, the Europeans. You may not like it, but we are not all the same, of course. Not as some would like you to believe, which is the way of things in this current generation in these european decended civs in which most of us (Apolytoners) live. However, there have been alot of generations, and this game should not be bound by the prejudices of political correctness, such a recent thing.
This game spans thousands of years, and gets right down to the times of the shaping of men, and mankind. All men are not created equal, and no tribe is better than another. We all have strengths, and weaknesses, and they are not the same. In this world, and this game, to the victor goes the spoils, and let him write the history, as we now do.
However, don't let the notions of these men who write a pleasant history today describe the game which we all hold dear, because they are very recent, and history is very old.