What makes a good Civ-game ?

[Solver]

Educational alue of civ is a double-edged sword. It can well spark some interest in ancient cultures, but if you come to learn stuff like Pyramids were built by Egypt to change governments easily, or Leonardo would upgrade arms of many soldiers...

[Alex]

The historical flavor is just an added bonus in a Civ game. It smoothens the involvement process, it doesn't create that involvement. To me, Civ and SMAC are equally enthralling games, despite their different environments, because of the things that Spiffor is pointing out so clearly to us.

Excellent thread, Spiffor.

[Panag]

hi ,

great spiffor


, graphics , limits to what you can control ( there should be more things to control for the players in CIV III ) , realism , speed ( either slow or fast ) , are you sitting on the edge of your chair each turn , MP or not , scenarios , etc , .....


CIV III is by far the best of all civ games , CIV II goes on the second place

other "civ" games , well they just have to many things missing , okay , civ III aint perfect neither but it beats any other "civ" game

have a nice day

[Spiffor]

8. "Just one more turn"

Civ games wouldn't be the same if the player didn't always want to play "just one more turn" again and again, if the player didn't always want to see what happens next turn.

Where does such an addiction come from ?

It first has to do with the nature of a Civ game : each game lasts long, and it is reasonable to interrupt it at some point to do whatever RL demands. Not many games require to be interrupted like that, with the pleyr being very reluctant.
In my opinion, there are two desires at work : the willingness ot reach short term aims, and the curiosity to see how the rivals will react.

There are many short term objectives in a Civ game : the construction of a wonder, the discovery of a new tech that'll allow such and such, the conquest of a city or of a Civ, etc. Since these objectives aren't too far away, the player imagines he can get to them before exiting the game. This leads to this kind of thinking :
"I'll go to bed next turn, once I discover Gunpowder"
Then "I'll go to bed in two turns, once Leonardo's workshop is done. I'll sleep better knowing it is mine"
Then "I have newly upgraded knights right next to Madras. I'll take it right away, just one more turn" etc, etc.

The key for such a behaviour to arise is for the game to have many objectives which are significant for the player, but yet are can be relatively quickly achieved. If a tech was discovered in 80 turns, the excitement about getting it would be much lower. OTOH, if a tech was discovered every turn, the excitement for it would be nil.

On the other hand, the game must also offer surprises between turns, to have the player excited about them. Will the Chinese manage to corrupt my Spanish neighbours into entering war against me ? Will Wonsan heroically resist the Japanese onslaught ? Will the French beat me to the Hoover Dam or not ?

To do this, the computer needs to offer a good challenge, but the game mechanics also need to require Civs to interact much with each other.
Civ2 gives some examples of lack of surprise coming from the AI : a builder strategy could be completely autarchic, and as far as you had peace, you had nearly no business with your neighbours. Besides, there was nearly no thrill when building a wonder, since the AI didn't know to use caravans as well as a player, giving the player a definitive edge. To some extent, this lack of suprises has reduced the "just one more turn" feeling.

There are also elements which ruin the "one more turn" feeling quickly :
- tedious turns. If the player feels he is forced to micromanage too many things, he can consider the game to be more like a job. And he wouldn't look forward with enjoyement to the next turn. In the Democracy game, I've seen turns lasting more than 3 hours : you can be sure nobody wanted to play "just one more turn" after a 9 hours session
- long waiting time between turns. Civ3 is made such a way, the game becomes exponentially slower on bigger maps, which means even modern computers can experience serious slowdowns on huge maps or more. If the waiting time becomes too much of a pain, the incentive to play "just one more turn" tanks.

In short, the "just one more turn" feeling means the player is excited with the near future, whether it is about his close objectives, or the surprises the opponent will make in an effort to hinder the player reaching them.

[TheArsenal]

Well said. I think you've hit it all.

[Arrian]

Since these objectives aren't too far away, the player imagines he can get to them before exiting the game. This leads to this kind of thinking :
"I'll go to bed next turn, once I discover Gunpowder"
Then "I'll go to bed in two turns, once Leonardo's workshop is done. I'll sleep better knowing it is mine"

Well put, Spiffor. That's EXACTLY what I do. "Hang on honey, I just gotta finish the Sistine." "Well, I woulda come to bed a hour ago, but the *#&$@(*ing so-and-sos attacked me."

Good thread

-Arrian

[Spiffor]

Well, I've edited the 3rd point and added a blurb about the educational value of Civ. I think I haven't forgotten anything. If I have, please don't hesistate to tell me about it. I think I'll post this as an Article to Markos tomorrow morning (European time)

[Soren Johnson]

this is an excellent thread, Spiffor...

I would only quibble with your assertion that Civ3 lacks cohesiveness because (accorind to you) it "insist[s] on the importance of superior weaponry." Since it is possible (if very unlikely) that a spearman can beat a tank, Civ3 does not insist on any one military style (tech vs. numbers, for example). While I understand why this dynamic bothers some people, I don't think it makes the game uncohesive. Unrealistic, perhaps...

[TheArsenal]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Arrian
Well put, Spiffor. That's EXACTLY what I do. "Hang on honey, I just gotta finish the Sistine." "Well, I woulda come to bed a hour ago, but the *#&$@(*ing so-and-sos attacked me."

I find the "One More Turn" for me is greatest when I am in the middle of a massive (multifront) battle, especially if it is a surprise attack where I have not planned out my strategy in advance. The handful of times RL has forced me to leave unfinished business, I found I would forget to do things I had in my mind before I left, and it cost me when I came back to the game and lost units stupidly. I now write myself little notes to remember to do things upon my return.

[Spiffor]

Wow, I've been read by a Firaxian

Well, I admit this example of uncohesiveness is a bit farfetched, because I had trouble finding the "spirit" of Civ3 (it is much more easy to find the "spirit" of SMAC for example, with the storyline and all).
I had just a better (yet fictious) idea for uncohesiveness out of my head : Civ3 would have been uncohesive if the best way to win had been diplomatic isolation despite the many diplomatic tools at disposal. Or if there had been magicians in this game whose background is realistic.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis
this is an excellent thread, Spiffor...

I would only quibble with your assertion that Civ3 lacks cohesiveness because (accorind to you) it "insist[s] on the importance of superior weaponry." Since it is possible (if very unlikely) that a spearman can beat a tank, Civ3 does not insist on any one military style (tech vs. numbers, for example). While I understand why this dynamic bothers some people, I don't think it makes the game uncohesive. Unrealistic, perhaps...

hi ,

the dynamic is great , but it would be greater with bigger era's and more techs , ....


spearman versus tank , well i have come to this ; " just imagine its a rogue unit that puts a spear on a fragile place of your one million dollar tank" , .... or a guy with a molotov cocktail , in real live military hardware can sometimes be destroyed to many small things , ....

thanks to your "tweaking" its okay now


Spiffor ; well the one more turn syndrome , ones you have that you know its a good game , many people buy games , play them ones and trow them away or let them collect dust , ....

many civ players have only civ and stay with it

and this one more turn must be the cheapest drug in the world , ....

have a nice day

[SpydraXxX]

I'd have to say, you've made a good case for the civ series... I'm a person that likes things to be as accurate as possible. I'm currently learning how to create units so I can meet that end with civ3. I might have to get ptw though, because with civ3 I can only range 8. On a huge or even large area, thats nothing!!! Also with reality in mind, I'm trying to get my numbers for abilities in order so that foot units and special forces get used more. Because as for warfare, not to many countries just roll tanks into town without foot soldiers, recon planes, attack helos, bombers, mobile infantry, howitzers, towed artillery, you name it... If you played civ3 without altering anything, one could try and build nothing but tanks! And mount an invasion with tanks.
Of course I'm talking about modern times, I don't care to much about pre-modern times to much. Once in w whilie though. If you have special forces with lets say a LCAC Hovercraft that sinks in ocean squares. Then you must have an Amphibious Assault Ship (which sinks in sea squares) but can carry helos, planes, and transports, to bring your units close, but not to shore. Making your units work as they should and having the right ones makes all the difference for me. Once I can create that balance, GAME ON!!!!!! Even giving SEALS partial stealth abilities, quick hit and run missions. I've studied tactical warfare a bit and that seems to be where the game really needs it's help. I could go on and on, but you get the idea....

[Panag]

Originally posted by SpydraXxX
I'd have to say, you've made a good case for the civ series... I'm a person that likes things to be as accurate as possible. I'm currently learning how to create units so I can meet that end with civ3. I might have to get ptw though, because with civ3 I can only range 8. On a huge or even large area, thats nothing!!! Also with reality in mind, I'm trying to get my numbers for abilities in order so that foot units and special forces get used more. Because as for warfare, not to many countries just roll tanks into town without foot soldiers, recon planes, attack helos, bombers, mobile infantry, howitzers, towed artillery, you name it... If you played civ3 without altering anything, one could try and build nothing but tanks! And mount an invasion with tanks.
Of course I'm talking about modern times, I don't care to much about pre-modern times to much. Once in w whilie though. If you have special forces with lets say a LCAC Hovercraft that sinks in ocean squares. Then you must have an Amphibious Assault Ship (which sinks in sea squares) but can carry helos, planes, and transports, to bring your units close, but not to shore. Making your units work as they should and having the right ones makes all the difference for me. Once I can create that balance, GAME ON!!!!!! Even giving SEALS partial stealth abilities, quick hit and run missions. I've studied tactical warfare a bit and that seems to be where the game really needs it's help. I could go on and on, but you get the idea....

hi ,

have you looked at the downloads and the civ3 creation and files section yet


you are going to find what you need

and if its not there , it shall be made


when you get PTW , get the US english version (!)

have a nice day

[SpydraXxX]

I've checked the download files, but I haven't downloaded anyone's mod's. I've gotten a couple of unit creation files though; Civ3 Multi Tool and FLICster.
However, I'm still trying to get a created unit completly working with pics everywhere their supposed to be and animation looking right. I have someone helping me with that on another thread in "Help" area. I'm close though. I've also downloaded some units, but haven't done anything with them yet, they are still in my holding folder. I want to get mine working before I use someone else's, ya know.... As for someone else's mod, are you still able to alter abilities, or add your units? Or go through the whole add units thing again? I saw someone say somewhere that they saw some guys units list sheet or something, and it had 332? DAMN!!!
And if you can't transfer them to another mod, that would sorta not be good no? Unless I'm missing something there too, my civ3 I think I can rename any unit, and use it anywhere, but does a created one work the same way?

XxX

[Spiffor]

Spydraxxx :
You can mod an existing mod without any problem. It is exactly the same process as creating your own one.