Biggest Disappointments With Game Engine?

[Jon Shafer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Biggest Disappointments With Game Engine?

Originally posted by Dominae
I just consider Civ3 rulers far more ruthless that real-life ones (a scary thought, I know). The alternative is for there to be a mechanism to ensure the complete destruction of a civ, but that it requires comparatively more time and resources than it does now.

In any case, I see your point, but unless you provide an idea for implementing this, I cannot really agree or disagree with much force.

I'm a history and computer science major, planning upon becoming a game designer. What that translates to is that neither you nor I want me to describe an alternative method for handling this, as it would take far too much of both of our time.

Quite the opposite from SMAC, where (I think) the game gets cooler and cooler as you go on.

I know what you mean about the beginning of the game being more fun, but I'm sure you understand that exploration and expansion must come to an end sometime, right? The problem is that these two fun things are not really replaced with anything, just more troop movement and improvement construction. But things are complex enough in the later-game (consider how the turns get longer and longer) that adding in some extra complexity would make it worse.

Dominae

As you pointed out, this isn't the case in SMAC, which means that the problem isn't inevitable, even with the current game engine. I think you've hit the nail on the head with what you've said. At the beginning there's something specific to do, but later on nothing new emerges, where you just have more of the same to do. The game engine could be tweaked a bit to allow for the removal of some of the more menial tedium (make automated Workers smarter, some sort of interface to handle 200+ units, and 100+ cities, etc.). Once that is achieved, then 'flavor' could be added to make the middle and late game more enjoyable.

[CiverDan]

Countries do get "wiped out". The only difference between civ and RL (in modern times at least) is that countries that were wiped out now get restored after the invading troops are expelled from the lands they invaded. France in WWII and Kuwait in the Gulf War are two recent examples. S. Vietnam was attacked and that country hasn't reappeared. The game is just unable to represent the current political landscape of today's world where its just unacceptable to attack a country and keep the land you take in most situations. (Imagine if the US attacked Iraq and tried to KEEP it. That would go over real well with the rest of the world.)

I do miss the random events. I wish there was larger scale random event too. Like asteroids, random climate changes etc. If the Tunguska event had happens over a populated area a major city could have been destroyed. There is also some evidence that natural climate changes also played a role in history. These things could have be implemented.

As far as hit points. It should have been changed so units can only heal in cities. Each "unit" represents probably a 1000 foot soldiers on average. each tank maybe 100 tanks. Each plane about 10. Only ships are truly 1 to 1 ratios and thats only when applied to carriers. When units are "damaged" it actually means a certain number of units have been killed/destoyed. So being able to "heal" doesnt make sense.

[Dominae]

With Battlefield Medicine, Tanks can heal in open ground in enemy territory. Talk about a Wonder that comes right at the wrong time in the game (for purposes of realism).


Dominae

[Jon Shafer]

The big problem in this area is lack of diplomacy The diplomatic engine is very limited, and a little work in that area could do wonders.

[Hugfrty]

If you want large-scale army combat, buy CTP2. Its a great game although rather buggy (not too bad though). You can have 12 units on one tile as an army (no leader or leader-style nonsense required) and have them all attack or defend at once. Each type of unit has different roles in the combat (which is automated). There are standard attacking/defending units, which are *usually* hand-to-hand (especially early on) that can attack ONLY those units directly across from them. Ranged units are the same except they get an extra shot in as the battle starts and they can shoot from behind hand-to-hand units. Next, there are flankers. These things really rule. Although occasionally less powerful and DEFINITELY more expensive (including upkeep, which comes from your production pool, not your gold), these units can attack enemy units, even if they are not directly facing them. Auto-defend units are pretty good too. They automatically bombard any enemy units that stop too close to where they are fortified, assuming they are of the correct type (air, sea, or land). There are also a ****load of special "spellcasting" units that can plant nukes, steal technology, infect the city, release the plague, destroy the city with a massive "nanite bomb," steal production with a franchaise, incite a revolution, kill a public figure, advertise, convert their religious beliefs, and many more.

[Asmodeus]

I love the game but a few things that could be improved:


Resources can be connected to any city in your empire via road, sea etc - but Food cant??? Why not? Why cant excess crops from cities unable to expand further (eg no hospital has been built) be shared throughout the empire instead of wasted?

Random Events - were a feature of SMAC i really liked. Lets have a small % chance of Volcano, Earthquake, Flood, Meteorite, Hurricanes (affect ships/aircraft & coastal cities), Pandemic (a plague that spreads over a wide area, maybe a whole continent like the Black death). I'm sure there are many others but i dont want to labour the point. The events could be scaled to the size of the map so they dont become intrusive - could also be an 'optional' rule.

More types of government or the ability to tweek them just like in SMAC.

Diplomatic Non Aggression Pact.

Optional Blind Research ala SMAC.

Automated commercial trade, ships, planes and freight. When trading with other nations have units automatically traveling on the map between countries(just a few obviously not thousands) - this allows enemies to attack your trade routes and gives your navy something to protect. It would also make Privateers worth while using and could be used to blockade islands like the u-boats in WWII.

[Dominae]

Blind Research was a wonderful idea from SMAC that I'm surprised they did not make an option in Civ3. I would love to play some PBEM or AU games with blind research. Especially in SP, where a major key to success involves figuring out what the AI researches and reacting accordingly.


Dominae

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Dominae
With Battlefield Medicine, Tanks can heal in open ground in enemy territory...

Perhaps BM gives a wrench to each tank crew?

[Vercingettyrex]

I really like the combat system in CIV3. I think it's one of the really great things about it. If there was a really good editor it would be possible to knock off a good WW2 - European theatre wargame using only slight modifications to the system. The bombardment concept in particular is an excellent modifcation to the original design.

The one area that I think needs tweaking is Diplomacy. The value of items such as trade goods and science advances doesn't seem to have an underlying rational such as the law of supply and demand that a player can use to help calculate what is a fair price.

I think that the culture idea is excellent as well. I just wish that other components of a civilisation such as law and religion had been given this sort of overhaul. At presen religion is very abstracted. I'd almost like it to be a seperate component like Government. Ritual sacrifice anyone?

Having said that, I'm not disapointed with any aspect of the game. These ideas never occured to me before playing the game and are only a result of having played it . Rather they are the same sort of feelings I had on playing CIV2 or SMAC, which is to say, wouldn't it be nice to be able to... The additions to the game were a real surprise and are most excellent.

[minke19104]

Non Aggression Pact is in Civ 3 already... Just renegotiate Peace Treaty.

That's basically what Non Aggression Pact is, We agree no war for this sum of money, techs, etc. for 20 turns.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Dominae
With Battlefield Medicine, Tanks can heal in open ground in enemy territory. Talk about a Wonder that comes right at the wrong time in the game (for purposes of realism).


Dominae

This is because you are thinking that the tank is actually healing instead think of the unit as getting additional tanks/men/materiel for replacing losses. I do think that the unit should need to be "in supply" for this to work (which would increase the game on the tactical level btw) and units should suffer penalties for multiple combats in the same turn. (how useful is the tank when its out of fuel or ammo)

[Dominae]

Mad Bomber, consider that the name of the Small Wonder is Battlefield Medicine and I think you'll see my point. I believe it was intended to complement Cavalry offensives, but the designers did not anticipate the rapid rush for tech in the Industrial corridor.


Dominae

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Dominae
Mad Bomber, consider that the name of the Small Wonder is Battlefield Medicine and I think you'll see my point. I believe it was intended to complement Cavalry offensives, but the designers did not anticipate the rapid rush for tech in the Industrial corridor.


Dominae

Dominae:

I see your point but disagree with it.
The techniques of battlefield medicine were first started in the late 1700's it is true, but even in the late 1800's were very primitive, and thus not really applicable to the age of cavalry. Battlefield medicine is a late industrial early modern development and should be placed in this era. On the whole I believe this wonder to be a misnomer. the battlefield medicine SW would actually represent the advances of increased organization and logistical support as well as the increases in medicine itself. finally this is a game, it is impossible to represent all advancements in the human experience with its own advance nor should a game developer make the attempt. Does it look awkward? Perhaps if the wonder is taken in its literal sense it would, but if you look at the synergistic advances in communication, transport, logistics and orgazinational advances then it seems to work IMO.

[Structure]

I'm not sure how you could implement point number one. I think the designers used culture flipping and corruption as a way of discouraging rapid conquest, or complete conquest. But clearly that is still the way the game is played. Some civs get crushed and incorporated into others never to reappear. But I'm not sure we'd achieve more "historical realism" by having civs reemerge. As other posts have noted, sometimes civs do persist over millennium, but more often they disappear. What we think of as persistence is often language based rather than culture. (The Persian example fits this. Though, Egypt is a good example of where even this is completely gone.)

Point two about the development of the map is well taken. The game becomes an overbuilt sprawl. Obviously, you can't have the exciting exploratory nature of early game. And there isn't really a need for it. That should be the fun of starting a new game! But something is needed to make the late game run smoother and produce less carpal tunnel. More effective automation of various tasks please! Also I think a total redesign of the landscape/landform might reduce the "fill every crack" sprawl. Perhaps reducing the amount of arable land? Or that in combination with production based upon acres within city radius which would be of much finer definition than "squares." Your workers would then be able to work x amount of acres of the land type based on tech and population. But the overhead sprawl would be limited. Add to this one obvious change: irrigation water is not unlimited! And many types of soil are not suited to irrigation anyway. Fresh water should be a limited and valuable commodity. War should be fought over it. Like in the real world. Also distance from the poles should influence production levels. With, perhaps, distance to equator influencing disease levels? (similar to jungles and disease now, but influencing production and pop)

The combat system is the final point I believe you made and in my opinion the weakest part of Civ3. I can think of several ways to improve it. Better balance between unit types so they all get built and used in their own ways being the goal. I would think a "rock, paper, scissors" system of bonuses would add tremendously to the combat system. Similar to Age of Kings and many other RTS games. Give certain unit types a small attack or defense bonus v. certain other types. For example, horsemen, knights, and other cavalry (until the development of breach loading carbines) shouldn't defeat fortified pikemen. Give the pikemen a large defensive bonus v. horse units. So how to defeat pikemen then? Bombarded, demoralized, or otherwise disrupted pikemen should be very vulnerable to cavalry charges. Foot infantry shouldn’t have a large bonus against pikes (historically swordsmen had very mixed results against well trained pike formations) but they should have a solid chance at defeating them. I could go on about various other types, but its all stuff that people have thought about and argued about a lot in other places. Esp. look at the forums for Medieval Total War. They have some awesome combat discussions.

Overall the Civ series is one of favorite all time games, but there is still a lot of room for improvement. The game company that does it right will be rewarded for it.

[Asmodeus]

Lol!!! love the picture Structure

I think there is a difference between Peacy Treaty (neutrality) and Non Aggression Pact. The latter is a defensive alliance and assurance of non-interference. There would be a big diplomatic penalty for betraying it - as Hitler did to Stalin in 1941, this is not the case with a Peace Treaty. But I admit there is not a huge difference, I just present it as an alternative to Mutual Protection Pact which often becomes 'Mutual Destruction Pact' when your new Ally goes on a rampage with the rest of the world.