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

[MarkG]

there was a problem, please try to vote again if you had trouble...
[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited January 12, 2001).]

[Lancer]

How about, the more a civ does something, the better they get at it. In other words, all Civs start out vanilla. When a Civ builds X # of ships, they get better at it, and build better ships. The more they fight ships the better the sailors become. Though sailors only live a short time as compared to the length of the game in game years, tradition and skills are passed from generation to generation. The historical precedent for this would be the English, who were basicly unbeatable until the more than met their match in the war of 1812.
So this way, if the English start in the steppe, they would tend to being better horsemen, if the Mongols start on an island, they would tend to be better sailors.
Those who built their cities up would be better builders....etc

[Ralf]

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!

Isnt it exactly that what Civs with pre-fabricated benefits really is? Cardboard cut-outs?

Also - our history is pretty contradictive, with many "1 step forward, then 2-3 steps backwards" historical examples. Yes, its overal progressive and evolutionary, but mostly in rather roundabout and erratic ways, with many blind-alleys and labyrinthic "We have lost our direction - where shall we go now?" type of nation/civilization crises (and yes, we are all certainly living in such times now, i think).

This is why i simply DONT like the idea of Civ-3 having neither development-team pre-designed civ benefits, nor player pre-designed civ benefits (through pre-game allocation-points).

Its simply historically false!

Its like if a 4000BC people knew exactly where they was heading, from the word GO (and, by the way - here is some 100% static cultural, political, economical and military benefit/trade-off values, that either will be helpful, or disadvantageous for you, the next 6000 years of timeline!) Good Luck!!!

Talk about a "cardboard cut-out" design-approach.

Its like having all those once-and-for-all 100% static values; then let the whole historical timeline again and again, be shaped by those static values.
Isnt it really the other way around? Hasnt value-systems of civilizations again and again have to be reshaped, in order "to better fit the surrounding reality". Hence; "The stone you first threw away, have know become a cornerstone".

The game should reflect this:

What benefits and trade-offs your people shall have should be decided dynamically, by the way YOU play the game. It shoudnt be decided statically once-and-for-all, by the game-designers, or by some pre-game allocation benefit-points.

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

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 01-12-2001 11:04 AM 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.

Fine - create a scenario on a real world map, place only 4000 BC civs in actual locations Sumerians, egytians, Indians, chinese with actual beginning techs. Anyone else starts with no bonus starting techs, or even has to research roads, mining and irrigation. Dont think you need civ unique charescetreistics (a la AOE/AOK) for that.

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 01-12-2001 11:04 AM 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.

Fine - create a scenario on a real world map, place only 4000 BC civs in actual locations Sumerians, egytians, Indians, chinese with actual beginning techs. Anyone else starts with no bonus starting techs, or even has to research roads, mining and irrigation. Dont think you need civ unique charescetreistics (a la AOE/AOK) for that.

[Atahualpa]

Too much effort to do unique abilities for (assuming) 40-50 different civs to choose from.
Rather do some unique abilities that depend on play style.

ATa

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 01-12-2001 11:04 AM 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.

its not the game being dominated by one civ im worried about. Im quite aware that Ensemble Studios has managed to balance AOK (after lots of problems with Teutons, IIUC . Im sure Firaxis can game-balance as well as ES.

What ES has left in AOK however, AFAIK, is that each civ has a pre-determined flavor based on its strengths. I get english and they have better archers, whatever. In CIV I want an English specialty in archers to be the OUTCOME of the game, not something predetermined in 4000 BC (I realize scenario writers might want soemthing different, I continue to think that this is NOT the right engine for relatively short ((as compared with 6000 yr) scenarios)
Why did the english develop better archers then the French? Hisotrically becasue french placed greater emohaiss on knights, looked down on commoner foot soldiers, etc (see tuchman "A Distant Mirror")
This had too do with social and historical differences between England and France. Maybe this can be addressed in the social engineering model. It should not be addressed ala AOK, by giving english archers an attack bonus, preset from 4000 BC. If my english follow a pattern of development more like France, they should be no better archers than the historical ("orignal time line") French.

[Sirotnikov]

I am also extremely against unique civs who's charachteristics don't change and are forced upon one.

I have mailed the civ team (askthecivteam@firaxis.com) asking them to elaborate the Idea and describing my views. I received no reply yet.

If it is to be implemented, DarkCloud's 10 points idea (stolen from The Sims, but who cares ) is the best compromise as it would allow costum civs and still will not hurt civ developement as much.

Please note though, I do not support or concede to the idea of unique civs for the reasons many (and especially Jon Miller, lord of the mark) have already described better than me.

Unique civs will definitely stop me from buying Civ III. I will have to resort to my tactic with CTP: download warez, play for three days, see it's crap, delete every trace, play civ2.

quote: 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.

But AoK is AoK. I want to play civ goddamit! If I want to play AoK I would! Anyway, AoK isn't that fun with the different civs. The only thing that makes it better is Random civs.
Also don't forget those are different games and different time spans. Though AoK claims to be a great game of developing civs, it isn't. It's a simple build a base, build troops, kill enemy game. I stopped playing it several months ago and will probably never return playing it. I return to civ every time for the past 4 years.

quote: 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".

Why is it logical? why do you assume it is logical? why should they always start on plains? That's boring. We are out to replay history. Why should we repeat it? Why are greeks always smart? Beacause of genes? That's not historical accuracy, that's prejudice.

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 01-12-2001 04:46 PM Isnt it exactly that what Civs with pre-fabricated benefits really is? Cardboard cut-outs? Also - our history is pretty contradictive, with many "1 step forward, then 2-3 steps backwards" historical examples. Yes, its overal progressive and evolutionary, but mostly in rather roundabout and erratic ways, with many blind-alleys and labyrinthic "We have lost our direction - where shall we go now?" type of nation/civilization crises (and yes, we are all certainly living in such times now, i think). This is why i simply DONT like the idea of Civ-3 having neither development-team pre-designed civ benefits, nor player pre-designed civ benefits (through pre-game allocation-points). Its simply historically false! Its like if a 4000BC people knew exactly where they was heading, from the word GO (and, by the way - here is some 100% static cultural, political and economical benefit/trade-off values, that either will be helpful, or disadvantageous for you, the next 6000 years of timeline!) Good Luck!!! Talk about a "cardboard cut-out" design-approach. Its like having once-and-for-all 100% static cultural/political/economical values; then let the whole historical timeline again and again, be shaped by those static values. Isnt it really the other way around? Hasnt value-systems of civilizations again and again have to be reshaped, in order "to better fit the surrounding reality". Hence; "The stone you first threw away, have know become a cornerstone". The game should reflect this: What benefits and trade-offs your people shall have should be decided dynamically, by the way YOU play the game. It shoudnt be decided statically once-and-for-all, by the game-designers, or by some pre-game allocation benefit-points. [This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 12, 2001).]

I think you;ve caught the essence of it. Civ (at least Civ2) is a "hegelian" game, in which what you can do depends on the history that has come before, with resulting historical contradictions, so that a "militaristic" civ that neglects research falls behind in military technology and must change direction to catch up, or in which a heavyweight industrial civ finds itself being turned toward environmentalism.

The national trait idea is a more one-dimensional view of history (Chinese - literate but stagnant, english - practical and commercial, Romans martial, etc) that does not fit the subtlety of Civ.

[our_man]

I think Firaxis should do it for Civ3. In my opinion it would simply be an expansion on the aggresive/militaristic/expansionist settings. The advantages/disadvantages could be used to reflect racial traits of a particular tribe i.e. the Mongols could have a military advantage and start off with Horseback Riding always, but suffer an effiency and research disadvantage.

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by M@ni@c on 01-12-2001 02:51 PM 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"., .

What if the mongols settle somewhere other than mongolia - what if they conquer China, and (unlike original time line) hold it? Do they continue to get their horse bonus? Historically conquerors of China, like the Manchus, became sinicized.

How about the english? they didnt start out on a island, or have you forgotten? this game begins in 4000 BC, the angels and saxons didnt migrate to england until 600 AD, before that they lived in North Germany. Maybe the Celtic Britons should get the naval bonus? Or anyone who starts their first city near a coast? Or maybe it could just be that if you start on an island, you have an incentive to build naval wonders (HEY! thats what we have in Civ2)

Should the Greeks be innovative democrats (Athenians?) or tough minded egalitarian militarists (spartans) or expansive religious despots (byzantines?)

what traits do the Romans have that the Renaissance Italians keep? And do the post Muaryan Indians keep the same traits as Indus valley civilization?

The more you think about it the more you realize how ahistorical the whole idea is. Hopefully Sid and company wiil discover this as they try to implement it.

[Jon Miller]

Note, I am not _as_ against some ideas (similar to Imran's, even though it is not the best way it is a simple _platable_), I just do not beleive Firaxis is going this way until they tell me differently and so would like to react against it.

Also note, I am a fanatic, I will buy Civ3, whether I continue to play it is the question.

Jon Miller

[yin26]

Like I said, I don't think Firaxis is going to throw things all out of whack. They are a smart bunch. Let's see more details about this first.

[MarkG]

well, it's now a poll

go to the first post to vote
[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited January 12, 2001).]

[Theben]

Further thought down the "gain ability"line:

ALL civs start out vanilla-flavored. A civ that tends toward one or more aspects of civ is offered a bonus eventually; the player/AI doesn't have to take it, as each civ may only have 1 bonus at a time.
Once the aspect becomes obsolete, or the player ignores it's use for a long while, the bonus is lost. The civ is now eligible for a new bonus

FE: English get an Archer bonus at some point for building lots of archers; lose it when Musketeers replace most Archers. They concentrate then on navy and eventually get a naval bonus.

Otherwise civ should stay all the same at the beginning. Another NO! to hardwired unique benefits for each civ.