Tidbits from GamespotUK-civ3 preview

[Theben]

Let's start with the bad:

quote: Playing as one of 16 different civilizations, you pit your wits against up to six other computer-controlled nations as you strive to conquer the globe.

Another source for the 6-AI civ limit.

quote: It should to anyone who has played either of the first two games, and indeed it's worth pointing out straight away that Civilization III is not a radical departure from either of its predecessors. Far from it, in fact. In terms of technologies, civilizations, units and the bulk of the gameplay, Civilization III is almost identical to its immediate prequel. From the outset of development Firaxis decided that more was not necessarily a good thing and instead the development focus has been on refining all areas of Civilization II to create a more absorbing and intriguing challenge.

Interpret as you will. IMHO this is both good & bad; I think civ2 needed a lot more change, but at least no major CtP-like screwups should be present.

Now for some good:

quote: "We've also added bombardment," he continues. "Catapults can now attack city walls and we have coastal bombardment.

This is not new. However,

quote: If you build a coastal fortress and a ship goes by it will immediately open fire." This clearly makes ocean choke points (which Civ players will be familiar with) incredibly important tactical locations. This means that the first civilization to build a city around such locations will be able to control huge stretches of ocean.

Sounds good to me!

quote: And the attacking and defending potential of these military machines[armies] will be unrivalled in the game. "Say you have a tank and infantry guy in an army," comments Briggs, "and someone attacks. The unit with the best defence will stand up and do the defending until he gets worn down by the battle, then he'll stop and the other will stand up and defend. The same thing happens in attack. So big armies are really, really powerful. In order to combat somebody who's got armies you pretty much have to build your own. It's an escalating thing which has a big impact on the game." The first civilization to build an army will be unstoppable until other nations have produced their own. And this is sure to lead to a frantic arms race as each civ tries to get an edge on its rivals.

??? I believe someone mentioned this before, but I can't find it. I don't know if I like this, but it might work The idea of the toughest defender going up 1st until worn down sounds like a good imitation of bringing in reserves for relief, although simplistic in game mechanics. So how does the attacker "attack"? This better not be a "line up to fight" army. Superior numbers should have an effect.

quote: Once discovered, nationalism enables you to put your economy in one of three different states: mobilised, normal, or peace. In peace mode all military units and buildings cost twice as much to build, and all peace-related buildings, like libraries and temples, cost half as much. When mobilized, the reverse happens with all military units costing half the normal price. In addition, mobilization allows the construction of army units. This enables players to prepare more effectively for war, with cities churning out troops like a well-oiled soldier factory.

There better be some kind of cost to switch from one to the other. Not to mention your people may get pretty upset when you switch to war.

quote: "There are two types of nuclear weapon," says Briggs. "We have ICBMs that can hit anything on the map and tactical nukes which can be put on submarines and launched as cruise missiles. If you think that you can have a war and launch tactical nukes without it escalating to anything more serious you can try it, but it's a challenge in the game just to survive that whole era. "The nuclear war part of the game should be (and this is something that we're working on) something that you come to and pass through. In Civ II it's sort of the end point. When you get nukes, everybody gets nukes and the game is pretty much over. In this game, if you're the first person to get them then you will have an opportunity to benefit, but once everybody else gets them it's unlikely that you can use them and have a successful game."

So there will be tactical nukes, and the game will go well beyond the current timeline (past 2020).

quote: Nearly all the military units from Civ II will be making a comeback, plus a small selection of new ones have been promised. Most of these will be unique to certain civilizations. The Americans, for example, will be able to build F15 fighter planes and the Germans' Panzer tanks. With special combat skills, these unique units ensure that there's more to playing different civilizations than just alternative city names...

More info on set "unique units".

quote: Just pity the poor Zulus. While the Yanks and Bosch get to play around with modern high-tech equipment, they've been lumbered with the Impi as their special unit. A 20-tonne tank against a spearman just doesn't seem fair to us.

I dunno, but when the reviewers start pointing out imbalances in the game you'd think that a revision is necessary?

quote: There's also a UN victory: in the latter stages of the game, any player who can persuade all other civilizations to nominate them as the UN Secretary General will triumph. There's also talk of a corporate win, although this is still very much undecided. "We're talking about some new interest at the end, perhaps global investors, that spring up independently of any nation and control the end game if you can make a deal with them," muses Briggs. "These are very unformed ideas, but we're looking at it."

Hmmm, one vote against corporate wins.

quote: For example, without iron, Legions can't be created. Without rubber you can't build the wheeled units of the 20th Century. And without uranium you can't build nuclear weapons.

And more info on culture:

quote: But what exactly does culture do? Well, a lot. It serves three main purposes: first, during negotiations with other civilizations, you're much more likely to get a positive outcome to a proposal if they are in awe of your cultural score; second, culture can extend your borders - depending on the strength of your cultural rating, your borders will slowly expand over time as word of your civilization's greatness spreads; lastly, culture influences the successful "assimilation" of captured cities into your own civilization. This last effect is arguably culture's most important. In Civ II a captured city immediately became part of the invader's empire without any residual effects upon the population of the city. But this is no longer the case. While a captured city immediately becomes the property of the captor, the population will remain loyal to its original civilization, reflecting the citizens' desire to protect their national identity. This can have dramatic effects upon the game, especially during times of war. Say, for example, the Romans capture a Babylonian city, the Babylonian people will become resistors. Not only will they refuse to work, but they will lower the defence value of the city so that Babylonian forces can easily retake it. And in a worst-case scenario, some cities may even revolt and try to revert back to their original civilization.

Looks pretty good to me overall, but I'm disappointed with armies & queuing up to fight. Also the unique units IM(not so)HO need more work. Now about those bombers...

[Bereta_Eder]

Coastal fortresses that can open fire to passing ships? HELLO COLONIZATION Good addition tho.

Nukes coming and passing by when all got them is good. Although I know one Apolytoner that will be extremely angry at this You listen Smokey??

I'll not get started again on the Uniques. You can't ressurect the dead (usually).

[Steve Clark]

But I am all for different modes of winning, regardless what they are. Adding the ability for a 'corporate' win means more flexibile and creative custom scenarios.

[MarkG]

on armies, the question remains: is there a limit in the number of units you have in an army?

also, "worn down". does it mean "killed" or "almost killed"?

btw, it does sound like "line up to fight". from the description i get the picture of one unit fighting one unit, with units moving on as they are "worn down"....

[Buck Birdseed]

This is the preview I copied bits out of about two weeks ago, when it appeared in PC Gameplay magazine. I thought the quotes sounded familiar...

[Roman]

Corporate wins thumbs up.

Armies thumbs up.

Nukes thumbs up.

Zones of control thumbs up.

7 civilization per game limit thumbs down.

Future tech (implied) thumbs down.

Everything else thumbs up.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by MarkG on 05-14-2001 06:32 PM also, "worn down". does it mean "killed" or "almost killed"?

It means red health-bar. Only wounded.

A single lonely tank cannot kill a single tank within an army. That attacked unit only gets "seriously wounded", and then its army-buddies take over and share any continued attack-strength left from that lonely attacking tank. Then it is the armys turn...

This is why armies have such a powerful advantage over lonely units - even if that lonely unit is more powerful in itself. So if one starts to build any land-/sea-/airforce army - you better follow if you dont want to be squashed.

[Roman]

Ralf said it exactly like I understood it. I think this is an improvement over the combat system in Civ 2 and I am satisfied with such.

[Krypter]

Great news on the culture bit!

6 civ limit is terrible. That's not even the 7
of civ2. I don't understand why you can't scale
this depending on the power of the hardware.
Is it something to do with the AI interaction
and dynamics of computer-controlled civs?

The nuke news is great too. The previous
incarnations of nuclear war were realistic,
but with nukes 'realistic' means 'everyone dies'
and that's not fun.

I wonder if it's possible to build a Fallout scenario
with these new rules?

[Sirotnikov]

quote: quote: Just pity the poor Zulus. While the Yanks and Bosch get to play around with modern high-tech equipment, they've been lumbered with the Impi as their special unit. A 20-tonne tank against a spearman just doesn't seem fair to us. I dunno, but when the reviewers start pointing out imbalances in the game you'd think that a revision is necessary?

Yep. Firaxis should rethink, and possibly rebalance or remove this annoying feature.

Firaxis, I know you're reading, and I imagine it's hard to give up on a concept you put much effort into, but it'll be harder if it makes the whole game fail. you've said yourself Unique units is the default state of the game, so most reviewers won't bother to tunr it off, and then see the imbalances and give low points.

The players will notice it as well.

Let this idea go. It has nothing good for civ. It had nothing good for SMAC either, though some poop-heads may laim otherwise.

[Harlan]

Unless my memory is failing me, there's really nothing new here, except maybe some of the culture stuff. As Snapcase points out, the highlights for this article were already shown in these forums a couple weeks back. The wording is exactly the same. Which means there's no new confirmation of the 7 civ limit or anything else, just a reprint of an old article.

Aside from the culture stuff, perhaps the most important thing here is the comment by Theben that having the nuclear era being something that you move into and out of would suggest the game goes way beyond 2020.

And yes, the special unit idea sucks as implemented, but, as discussed elsewhere, if they gave one a choice over which special unit you got during the game instead of the predestination, it would go from bad idea to hellacool!

[Imran Siddiqui]

quote: Let this idea go. It has nothing good for civ. It had nothing good for SMAC either, though some poop-heads may laim otherwise

JUST CLICK THE NO SPECIAL UNIT BUTTON IN THE GAME!

Jeez, how hard IS this to understand?!!

I actually want to play the special units now, wheras I didn't before..

[Bereta_Eder]

Unique units make no sense at all in a game as civ, they unbalance it and make some civs more useful than others.
They should have put that effort in something better.

Anyway, can't moarn the dead for ever.

[Theben]

quote: Originally posted by Harlan on 05-14-2001 08:09 PM Unless my memory is failing me, there's really nothing new here, except maybe some of the culture stuff. As Snapcase points out, the highlights for this article were already shown in these forums a couple weeks back.

Yeah but I wasn't here 2 weeks ago. And before I posted this I looked back thru about 5 days of posts, didn't see anything referring to the above.

I suppose the "corporate win" could be useful for scenarios. And it is another means of victory. But until corporations start fielding huge armies, they exist at the whim of the nation-state.

Imran:

I guess the main thing that irks me about "unique units" is that Firaxis invested all this time & hype into something that boils down to something I won't use. It really doesn't belong in the civ genre, but it could be useful in scenarios. Other ideas for unique units have been presented, and IMO Harlan's suggestion would work well with minimal retooling.

It's also implied that unique units are the norm, which just rankles mah fur. For things like tournaments, contests, or just game comparison (online or otherwise) most people will be comparing games with UU's in them.

Also, as another apolytoner mentioned, some uniques are better than others. This could cause people to prefer one civ over another, exclusively play one civ, or unbalance MP games.