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

[colossus]

I am well aware the danger that the majority of the unique bonuses will go to the military. It is easier to give a unit +1 AP, +1 HP or +1MP, rather than boost the civ's science or tax income. Would it turn out that some civ will become warmonger due exclusive of the civ bonus? Already civ2 is too much a military and conquer-the-world game, I'm afraid that unique bonus will accentuate the problem.

[kolpo]

I NEVER saw a game where civ bonuses where balanced and didn't limit the player stragegies.

There was always 1 civ that was at least a little bit better then the others, there was always 1 civ that was more popular in multiplayer then the other. If all previous failed on that is it then not possible that bonuses and balance can't be combinated.

And bonuses will always limit strategies. Who wants to play with something else then the civ with the best military bonus(even when it only lasts 100 turns) when he goes for instand conquest ?

Nobody will play peacefull with a civ with a small military bonus, nobody will play instand conquest with a civ with a small diplomatic bonus.


If you want to wipe out the indians in colonization will you choose the Spanish or the French ? The Spanish
off course because they give you a small bonus against the indians and the peace with indians bonus from the French is useless then.

For every type of strategy will there be one civ that is the best in it(so there is no sense in playing another when you use that strategy), from all strategies will there be 1 that is the best in multiplayer so will there be 1 civ that is used in multiplayer by everyone and will those who play another get killed because the other gain a small bonus in the beginning with will detreminated the outcome if all players have equal skill.
[This message has been edited by kolpo (edited January 17, 2001).]

[bagdar]

N.C.'s quotation of AustralianJeremy is the best summary there is.

The poll results are frightening given that the developers and the voters have in mind something like the AoE model. That's nonsense, and in my opinion, the only plausible explanation for the "unique benefits" is related someway or another to -geography- or -accumulation of experience-.

In AoE2, they gave the Turks the priviledge of building so many types of cannons, and I believe that ruined the balance of the game because the other nations' towers and units just didn't have the effect the cannons had. The reason? The famous cannons employed during the siege of Constantinople? Nonsense! and how about the growth rate of the Chinese? Chinese farms somehow more fertile? Also, what kind of unique benefits for the Americans back at 4000BC? How many of the original Civ nations were present then? Allright, this is not SimHistory, but... Anyway: Sid won't do anything that'll make the game feel silly. Let's not make such a big fuss, we don't know how it's going to be.


[This message has been edited by bagdar (edited January 17, 2001).]

[Biddles]

Many people in this forum are claiming that bonuses are going to limit the strategies that you can use with a particular civ. I don't think that this is the case.

quote: Originally posted by kolpo on 01-17-2001 04:03 AM If you want to wipe out the indians in colonization will you choose the Spanish or the French ? The Spanish off course because they give you a small bonus against the indians and the peace with indians bonus from the French is useless then.

Fair enough, the french bonus will be useless in this situation, but how are you any worse off than if there weren't any bonuses in the first place? The answer is that you aren't.

Besides, who says that a peace bonus would be useless in that situation. I can think of ways it could be useful even if you wanted to conquer the native americans. Given, it probably would never be as strong as the spanish bonus.

If all civs are inherently the same, THEN your strategies are decreased. If you finish the game with the spanish, then it is the same as finishing it with all the other civs. This was never the case in SMAC. I played (and still do) all the factions in SMAC (admittedly the UoP is my favourite). In civ1 I only ever played as the Greeks because I thought they were pretty cool and there was no incentive for me to change who I played as, they were he same anyway. With differentiated civs you can develop strategies that suit that civ (this doesn't mean it is restricted by the civ). For example in civ3 the americans will probably have a capitalist/economy bonus. This doesn't mean that you can't build a strong military. Your civ can have both military bonuses (from government/SE bonuses) and your civ bonus (economy). The civ won't have the possibility of being as strong militarily as sparta (if you had your starting military bonus and then chose military SE) but it would still be strong militarily. I can't see how that is limiting your strategies, unless you refuse to play as anyone but your chosen civ. For people who feel that way, just have the option to choose which civ bonuses you want at the start. That way I could play as the morgans but have the universties bonuses or the spartans bonuses.

Other people claim that the actual bonuses were too unbalanced in SMAC and would as such ruin civ3. I never found this the case. I did find that Yang was too powerful for the AI. A good player can adapt to the situation and find a use for their bonuses and a shield for their weaknesses, no matter what they are. Firaxis did a pretty good job of balancing the SMAC factions and I have no reason to assume that they won't do the same good work with the Civ3 civs.


------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[n.c.]

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse on 01-13-2001 09:44 PM I am strongly against unique benefits. Firstly, the racism charge is a risk, reinforcing stereotype

Here here! Check out a discussion of this matter: http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum23/HTML/019132.html?98

The best summary I've seen of why this is a horrible idea is the one below:

quote: Originally posted by AustralianJeremy on 01-15-2001 04:29 PM So, we have the following very good reasons why unique attributes are a bad idea in Civ3: 1. No civilization has maintained any particular attribute over 6000 years 2. Civ covers periods where current civilizations simply didn't exist (America, Australia etc) - so what do they get? 3. The best explanation for nations being different isn't their genetics, it's their EXPERIENCES within the world. Civ2 ALREADY models this. Civilizations make the most out of where they start. If Firaxis wants to reward, say, shipbuilding nations (and I suppose it makes sense that a nation that's built lots of ships should have stronger ships, simply from experience), then it could simply have defence and attack bonuses based on how many naval units that civ's produced. (Say after you've built 25 battleships they get +1 attack. BUT this would need to be limited - three levels at the most.) 4. racism - it's not wrong because it's "un-pc", it's wrong because you're assigning characteristics based on the genetics of that first settler unit. Didn't we all start out with the same ancestors anyway? Surely the differences are in how we run our Civ... 5. gameplay balance - as people have pointed out, what's an equivalent to the roman empire's military skill around 30BC? Rome should only have a super powerful empire if the Roman player's playing that way. What, if I'm playing the Australians in a battle with the Romans do I have to lose every time just because we didn't have a warrior Civ then? What's the point of playing a Civ differently if it's constrained by race? I notice in the poll that the pro-unique civs vote is winning. That's more than a little scary...

[Theben]

quote: Originally posted by Biddles on 01-17-2001 09:39 PM Given, it probably would never be as strong as the spanish bonus.

quote: I played (and still do) all the factions in SMAC (admittedly the UoP is my favourite).

quote: The civ won't have the possibility of being as strong militarily as sparta (if you had your starting military bonus and then chose military SE) but it would still be strong militarily.

In you arguement you've answered why there shouldn't be bonuses. Never as strong, you have a favorite (because of those high tech bonuses?), won't be possible; pretty cut and dried that you admit certain civs will be better than others.

quote: Other people claim that the actual bonuses were too unbalanced in SMAC and would as such ruin civ3. I never found this the case...A good player can adapt to the situation and find a use for their bonuses and a shield for their weaknesses, no matter what they are.

Uh, did you ever read Vel's strategy guides? He's pretty clear about how each faction is tailored made to a certain overall strategy: builder, momentum, or hybrid (which has the most flexibility). And that limits you. After all, you don't want to be Miriam or Yang if there's no one nearby in the early game, do you? The builders will leave you behind, technologically and monetarily. Conversely, builders want to be left alone, which won't happen when Santiago shows up on your doorstep right away. And SMAC, as has been pointed out by several people here, is a game based on a few hundred years (which actually is enough that even SMAC faction bonuses/penaltys should change over time), as opposed to civ which is 6000 years.

I'll say it again: experience, not pre-determined!

Another sour note to sing is that the poll itself is biased, albeit not purposefully, I expect. 4 out of 5 choices are "yes" or "yes, but" with one "no". But with that range of choices it's no surprise that the "yes" count is winning (and no, I don't have a suggestion to "fix" it- yet).

[MarkG]

quote: Originally posted by Theben on 01-18-2001 03:13 AM Another sour note to sing is that the poll itself is biased, albeit not purposefully, I expect. 4 out of 5 choices are "yes" or "yes, but" with one "no". But with that range of choices it's no surprise that the "yes" count is winning (and no, I don't have a suggestion to "fix" it- yet).

what kind of "no" answers would suggest???


btw, the "yes, but" answers are actually "yes, but only if". which means that if the "but" thing is not done, it's a "no" answer....

[bagdar]

well in SMAC, there is a logical basis for the characterisctics the factions have. Part of the argument is how to decide for the characteristics for people in 4000BC. Some of you argue against this, but what makes Civ such an addictive game is that its main ingredient is the feeling it gives by having you rewrite history. In fact, no matter what -that is, how many more nations are included in civ III [i hope no more]-, I'll play the Greeks (most of the time), the Chinese or the Zulu (not as much as the other two) as I always have with Civ I and II, on the world map. Both because I like being these guys, but also because I like where they start on the map. I don't think I want any limitations to things I want to do with the Zulu, Greeks or the Chinese!

[kolpo]

quote: Fair enough, the french bonus will be useless in this situation, but how are you any worse off than if there weren't any bonuses in the first place? The answer is that you aren't.

Everything except the spanish have on this part an disadvantage: not having that bonus !

If you give an advantage to 1 civ give you the disadvantage of not having that advantage to all other civs !

It is all RELATIVE ; if 1 because stronger in something become the other weaker in that thing !

[TacticalGrace]

quote: Originally posted by Lancer on 01-12-2001 04:02 PM 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.

Yes! this is not only a nice idea that makes sense it also makes the game enjoyable. Although CTP2 is increasingly becoming a dirty word, this is one element it did get right.

example. In CTP2 the first person to circumnavigate the world gets +1 naval movement point for 25 turns. this is a nice bonus with no danger of unbalancing play (only for 25 turns)

[N35t0r]

I don't know for the game, but YES! for the scenario editor...

[Biddles]

What I fail to see is that if you include civ's with bonuses and allow options to switch off these bonuses at the start, how is this possibly limiting your options. I don't think I have seen one person who wants individualized civs and has said "No don't even include an option for generic civ's", whereas people who don't want individualised civ's seem to be saying "No don't even include the option to have individualized civ's". It can't be too hard to switch off the individualisation at the start of the game (just have the game read the civ.txt files from a different directory where the civ's are all generic) and that way everyone is happy. I was actually p$@##$ off at something else when I was voting (so I voted 1) but I would vote 5 if I had had time to think about it. Voting for 1 or 2 is restricting the options that you have.

quote: Originally posted by bagdar on 01-18-2001 07:22 AM I'll play the Greeks (most of the time), the Chinese or the Zulu (not as much as the other two) as I always have with Civ I and II, on the world map. Both because I like being these guys, but also because I like where they start on the map. I don't think I want any limitations to things I want to do with the Zulu, Greeks or the Chinese!

I assume your playing on an earth map here. If you are your saying that you like individualized factions (who wouldn't like the greek starting position, you can wipe out 3 or 4 civs in the first turns of the game.)

All that I'm saying is at least give people the option of playing with the preset civs. Whether you want preset civs or not, I don't see how you can argue with that. (Even if you prefer the trait idea that would be replacing aspects of SE, you could still start with bonuses).



------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[lord of the mark]

Generic civs ONLY or unique civs with option to turn it off?

Well from the game play point of view, obviously the latter is all right, as long as there are no AI problems with changing from the default rules. When im playing civ it wont matter.

It matters when i step out into Apolyton. I dont want a Civ community dominated by discussions of the best "races" to play, as is AOK or SMAC. I also want Civ to continue to be a tool that teaches those who play about the contingency of history - I dont want the false lessons implied by unique civs.

I guess im being "politically correct" here - or rather politically INCORRECT in terms of the current flavor of the time. The new politically correct libertarian stance is that I should be satisfied with what i get to play myself, and shouldnt be concerned with anyone else. I also shouldnt be concerned because cultural products such as games and movies have no impact on the culture, and are for fun only and everyone chooses what they like which is best for them, and stop being such a sourpuss, anyway.

Unfortunately I dont share the above assumptions.

[Biddles]

Isn't it a bit selfish to deny other's the option of playing unique civ's just because you think that this will then dominate the discussion after the game is released. If you aren't interested in a particular topic, don't participate in that thread. Both generic and unique civ's shouldn't be too hard to implement (see above), so why deny people (including yourself) the option of greater playability (If you get sick of generic/unique civ's, you can switch to the other).

------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Biddles on 01-19-2001 10:42 PM Both generic and unique civ's shouldn't be too hard to implement (see above), so why deny people (including yourself) the option of greater playability (If you get sick of generic/unique civ's, you can switch to the other).

Well, giving the player an optional free choice, is of course better then "SMAC-style only".

However, whe problem with this poll, is that many look at it at a simple choice between 100% generic and 100% civ-unique. That is totally wrong.

With the old Civ-2 model you already had...

- AI-civs with some extensive temperament- and emphasize differences between themselves.
- Those civers who dont think that above is enough can tweak the civ text-files themselves (= more fun).
- Scenario-designers can start from a clean slate and directly tailorcut their own time/era civ-unique benefits, without having to waste time in nullify benefits, that have been force-feeded upon them by the Firaxis-team.

With the SMAC-model only you have...

The confused game-feature/bug-report problem:

SMAC had only seven factions (= easy to overview). In Civ-3 the player can choose upto 6-8 AI-civs from a pool of perhaps 30-40+ available AI-civs. Now, if each and every one of them have their own unique "hardwired" benefits, its going to be hard to overview and keep track of them all. This together with the fact that most average civers just "jump-start" without reading the manual that much, it is easy to predict that this is going to produce some bug-patch demanding e-mails, that perhaps was a result of those hard-to-keep-track-of SMAC-style civ-benefits instead.

The time/era civ-benefit/compromise problem:

Compare with a game like "Age Of Kings", with a much shorter timeline - only 1000 years; playing through pre-modern times only. In the AOK-case, its not that difficult to design historically consistent benefits to each AI-civ.
But, what about the timeline in Civ-3? Its at least 6000 years, for crying out loud. Admittedly, the first 2-3 millenniums pass by quickly. But, still; dont you guys see the obvious problems with 100% static 6000 years through several time-eras, civ-unique benefits?
Well, perhaps those "hardvired" SMAC-style benefits isnt that rigid/static after all? Perhaps they change 2-3 times through the timeline. If so, is that good? Isnt such stepwise changing SMAC-style civ-benefits, likely to produce even more "mistaken game-feature for a BUG" reports to the Firaxis-team?

The feeling of being forced down a specific path:

I didnt like that in SMAC. In theory I could choose between 7 factions, but in practice I played 1-2 factions over and over again, because the other faction-benefits simply was too far off. It really felt rather limiting after while. The problem gets even worse in multiplayer games, because then one have to argue what best civ to choose, and who is going to put up with that unbalanced crappy religious faction (refering to SMAC).

The time-consuming game-balancing problem:

No matter how much time they spent on balancing those civ-unique benefits, there always going to be weaker civ-choices, that nobody wants. And by the way; i believe that balancing those 30-40+ civ-unique benefits ala SMAC, really IS time-consuming. Developing time that could be much better spent, by instead concentrating more on game-issues that players cant tweak themselves.
By this i DONT say that they should ignore the field, of course. I just say that it would be much smarter to choose the Civ-2 style path, because the AI civ-benefit related game-balancing problems, is obviously much easier and less time-consuming.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 20, 2001).]