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

[ChrisShaffer]

In my opinion, the best of all worlds would be:

1) The option to turn off unique bonuses.
2) Earning bonuses through gameplay.
3) Changing bonuses over time, also based on gameplay.
4) Less radical bonuses than SMAC, thus bonuses that have less of an impact on gameplay.

Don't we already have one bonus system in place? Wonders.

p.s. to those who think Miriam/Believers in SMAC can only be a combat faction, you're wrong. It's quite viable to play Miriam as a builder on a large map. The support bonus allows the use of hundreds of formers (I had 300+ one game) and massive terraforming.

[bagdar]

Let's hope the second release from 'ask the civ team' says somehing about that unique civ business. They pretty much did clear up the confusion over customisability vs. 3d units. They can do likewise for the unique civs problem. I do recognize that it's deeper a subject than the graphics, however, there must be a billion questions accumulated by now.

[Sorn Xorin]

Ok first off if theres going to be Historical advantages /Disadvantages there should be an on/ off toggle similar to when you start a game in Civ2 and you choose what level of barbarians you want..

As for the way they could implament it..

Ill give you 3 seperate nations or culture as examples

1) The English upon reaching the tech level for archers the english would get a special archer with diffrent stats to that of everyone else ie a higher defense value say 6 instead of 4...Another way this could be done is all Archers produced by the English are Veterans when they come off the production line whether theres a barracks or not. This advantage would obviously be tempory as soon as the English developed Gunpowder the Archer would be retired from your build list as it would be obsolete.

2) The Spanish. Similar to the Archer when the Spanish develope the technology for medivial marine transport ie the ships that took the Spanish to the Americas, the Spanish transport ship of the era would have more room for the land units on board this would reflect that Historically the Spanish built Galeons in that time period which where larger than any other ship of that time, and that other nations did not generally build galleons hence making it a Spanish advantage. Steamships start to appear

3)Romans. Another way you could define an advantage is by if a nation used a particular form of Goverment well.
For example lets assume Civ3 contains an Imperial Empire style system of Goverment ie similar to that set up by the Roman Emperor Augstus. The Romans could have an advantage built into that system of goverment that no cities would be unhappy due to distance from the capital. Historically this would be justified because the Romans had a strong centralised system of Goverment. Now eventually that system of goverment would become less and less practical as time went and the romans would eventually choose a diffrent system of goverment (Historically the Centralised Roman system was found lacking and the empire broke in 2 ie Rome and Byzantium)

So as you can see from the above examples the advantages should be tied to when that Culture or nation was a great power historically.

The Americans for example would have no advantages till fairly late in the game as they are a very young country compared to the French, Greeks, English.

And for those who dont like national advantages turn it off at the start the of the game.

That makes everybody happy

Well thats my 2 cents

Sorn Xorin

[Theben]

My 2 @@:

1.) All civs start generic.

2.) 2 options to turn ON-
-The option to allow benefits over time & experience.
-The option to choose from a list of benefits either a) Before the game starts or b) as soon as your 1st city is settled. AI civs get to cheat in either case by comparing their immediate surrounding terrain (includes more than they can "see") vs. a table that gives them a decent bonus in areas that will be useful.

Hardwired benefits/penalties are not acceptable under any circumstances.

Number 2 above will take a lot of the developers' time IMHO and cause any number of bugs, but I can live with it. Generic civs should be standard in cases of tournament play.

[Theben]

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark on 01-19-2001 03:27 PM 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.

Excellent point!

[Biddles]

I would like the following options:

1. The option to choose between unique or generic civ's
2. The option to randomize the unique civ benefits
3. The option to specifically choose which benefit you want (i.e Morgan benefit, but playing as Spartans)

Can anyone possibly say that that isn't fair to everyone?

[Lord Maxwell]

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. Those who built their cities up would be better builders....etc

This is actually a really good idea. It makes more sense than almost every other opinion on how civ should be. (Well, most opinions mount up to nothing much more than smac bashing.

[Lord Maxwell]

quote: Originally posted by kolpo on 01-13-2001 10:31 AM I don't understand those comments that say that predeterminated SE adds te replayability. In SMAC was quite always the Hive the strongest computer opponent because his very powerfull start SE settings and could you predict the outcome of all wars between computers. I never got a game where the morgans dominated the world even while that would be intresting to play...

That is because the AI in the civ games blows so bad it's unbelievable. A human player is much more likely to dominate as Morgan than he is as Hive. (Given that he is equally adept at all playing styles.)

I mostly play multiplayer smac these days. (I can win transcendence victories on a huge planet with tech stagnation, arid land, playing as believers. Beating the AI up has always been easy, atleast once you start reading boards like Apolyton.)

Hives style lends itself well to the exceptionally near sighted AI. (It can't conduct war, it can't improve tiles rationally, it doesn't build city improvements that will be the right ones in 20 turns, it was like that in Civ, it was like that in Civ II, and it most definitely was like that in SMAC. And I pretty much figure it will be like that in Civ III.

But I don't think SMAC style SE is the right way to go in Civ III, nor is predefined bonuses. I would much prefer that you got the bonuses depending on how you played. (In SMAC I don't build a navy before I got the Maritime Control Center etc, once I get the bonus I build the associated armies, city styles, whatever.) It would be much more fun having to build and maintain a huge navy while slowly getting more and more navy bonuses. (Along with DRAWBACKS! All bonuses should have a cost. If you get better at naval combat you should get worse at say, land combat. Your naval superiority protects you army...

I want drawbacks with my bonuses, and I want both of em to be dynamic, so that I have to play a certain style, and building on my tabula rasa.


This was sorta long winded, sorry bout that.

[Tjoepie]

I like the Idea to earn bonusses according to accomplisments of a civilisation and gameplay.

For example:

1/ The first civ that sails a ship around the world (in case of a "cylindric" world) gets a bonus of +1 movement for naval vessals during 100 or so turns as they can use the experience from that expedition to improve navigation techniques.

2/ A civ that has no war during 100 turns get a happyness bonus. Or even more bonus if it is at peace with all. This would give a chance to peacefull players to get an advantage in accepting annoying things (in exchange of peace) like a civ that builds a city on your "home" island. Untill now I would destroy that city but would I think twice if I would loose a bonus because of it. One cound then try to isolate the city instead ...

3/ There could be another way to get a bonus ; By specialising, for example if a civ specialises in naval warfare (like the British did) that they would then get a naval advantage since they can use their vast experience as an advantage. They could then maybe get a chance to build "one"(and I mean this in numbers) unique unit that no-one else has but then not too good a unit as not to upset balance. In this example I would say a super-battleship or so that could shoot first in case of a battle since it would have longer range gun's or something ? This unit could then be used to enhance regard among other nations by being a sort of status symbol.

I have a few other examples but these would require more explenation and I now just wanted to explain my idea...

The idea to give civ related bonusses seems interresting but as some said there's always a bonus that's better than the others and that would make that all would play one or a select amount of civ's.
Another thing is if my country or background was in the selection I would like to play them, but the fact that they might have a bonus that I don't like would prevent that. Anyhow I don't think it would NOT be a good idea ; a civ should be build from nothing and be equal to all others at the start to give all the same chance to "succeed". If there is a bonus system there shound be an option to turn it off.

The most important thing I would like to see in CivIII is a good AI (since this sort of game takes so long I feel it's still not a feaseble "multiplayer" game) :

The AI should have a global strategic insight, like if one civ is gaining a considerable advantage compared to all others ( for example get double the population of second civ) that the AI will see that threat and attemp to get allied against that civ to make a strategic balance in the world.
An interresting AI that will not do stupidities like attack a stack using 1 unit. That the AI reacts according to what you do diplomaticaly.
That as in the real world there's a small chance an AI might dubblecross you and get you offguard.
That the AI uses geography to its advantage like bottlenecks. And that he uses the bombard fuction to its advantage to destroy resistance before attacking a city.

I think there should be a penalty for casualties, like if a number of units get destroyed in a democracy fighting far from home for a useless cause according to democratic values .

I also hope that bombarding a city will (with a percentage of chance) as in the real world cause a reduction in population and destruction of buildings.

Most important of all is GAMEPLAY BALANCE , AI and the have the ability to play all kinds of civ's peacefull , warlike , ecological , etc !


Please excuse my bad English spelling...
These are just a few tought's I wanted to share could be worked on ...
I hope I could provide a usefull idea and help create a great game !

[Lancer]

Tactical Grace, Lord Maxwell, thank you for appreciating, and taking the time to quote, my idea.

[Grumbold]

Having seen the debate expand hugely since my last comment, I'm still against preset permanent benefits because I just don't think they can be justified. England alone has gone through many phases of ascendancy and decline in many spheres. No fixed bonus can adequately reflect its changing emphasis.

I prefer the option of "buying" special bonuses after acquiring particular technologies and losing them again when the technology becomes outdated. In this respect, very much like mini-wonders.

For example, there could be the option to allow players to buy "elite musketeers" bonus, "excellent galleons" or "skilled longbowmen". While any nation could be able to buy these advances if their game position warranted it, modifiable text files could give the AI French, Spanish and English nations an optional bias toward the respective benefits that are traditionally seen as theirs. They should not be exclusive and mandatory because many civs simply have not lived throughout the whole timeline and the random terrain placement or order in which techs are acquired may make them redundant.

IMO this gives the greatest flexibility and historical accuracy. Mod makers can always turn off the ability for certain nations to gain certain skills to fit their scenarios.

[Patient English]

"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. "

I have to comment on that! From my researches (and in my opinion as an Englishman), the English were neither unbeatable before 1812, nor outclassed after then. The French beat them from time-to-time in the 1700's (in 1781, too, as an American should know). After 1812 the English - British really -formed the most powerful navy in the world to about 1925. They could still be beaten in ship-to-ship encounters, however (as in most of the 1812 encounters) because their advantage was as much quantitative as qualitative.

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by Patient English on 01-23-2001 09:36 AM "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. " I have to comment on that! From my researches (and in my opinion as an Englishman), the English were neither unbeatable before 1812, nor outclassed after then. The French beat them from time-to-time in the 1700's (in 1781, too, as an American should know). .

1781 - the battle of the capes, off of chesapeake bay, where De Grasse and the French fleet defeated a british fleet sent to relieve Cornwallis, making possible Washingtons victory at Yorktown. unfortunately our textbooks tend to neglect the role of France, Lafayette apart.

Vive la France!
God Bless America!

[Lancer]

Sure, there were exceptions, don't get me wrong. That's what I meant by 'basicly', as in 'for the most part'. Btw, what happened to DeGrasse and his fleet? The French, the Spanish, the Dutch, and even the Danes, all got crushed by the English at sea, or in port, as with the Danes, Dutch, and the all too trusting French in WW2. Some got crushed on a regular basis...and the English got used to winning, until they met the Americans.
After the days of sail, the English went on to build the fleets of WW1 and 2, but the Americans were building too, and had shown themselves at least the equal of the English sailors. After 1812, it was only a matter of time. However you are right, England was still numericly superior to the Americans in 1812 and for some time to come, and while they could get overpowering force to a battle, they still had some scant hope of surviving it.

[Biddles]

Contrary to popular(american) belief, the war of 1812 was merely a sideshow to the napoleonic wars. Besides, nobody won the war of 1812, it ended in compromise.