cracker
Gil Favor's Sidekick
This is an open letter to the Firaxis development team, Sid (the Game God), and all the game players and mod makers who can focus on what we like about Civ3 and how to get the next level of enjoyment with the minimum programming changes and time lag.
I think that most of the key tools and code features are already in the game, it is just that the game is handicapped by lack of a big picture approach to implementation.
Much of this is found in hard-coded kluges to problems instead of implementing the same solution with a broader approach that will allow for flexibility, adjustment, and adaptation without each increment commanding programming resources in each subsequent patch.
The best Worst Example in the current game is probably found in the implementation of Armies.
Armies are a unique unit in that they are currently the only unit that is limited to the number of cities AND Armies are also unique in that they are the only unit that can be limited to being built in a city that has a specific small wonder or improvement already built.
FLASHING LIGHTBULB :enlighten AND CLANGING GONG.
Why would someone spend the effort to write these coding constraints and then hardcode the restrictions into the general settings for the game that limits the use of the programming to only one specific unit???
Why not set these choices as options on the units dialog and then make Armies the only current choice where this dialog applies to the unit released in the standard Civ3 product?
Expanding the usefulness of this programming would only require adding a drop down menu to the units dialog page that would let the editor restrict building of units to a city where a specific wonder or improvement has been built. FLASHING GOLD STAR and CASH REGISTER DING.
You would also add a check box to engage a ratio restriction on the units that would let you restrict the number of units that can be maintained relative to the number of cities, or number of improvements, or number of another type of units. For simplicity this Ratio should be implemented per 100 items of the restricting prerequisite. ANOTHER FLASHING GOLD STAR and CASH REGISTER DING.
Implementing these army like features to be potentially applicable to any or all units will give you a set of tools that can be used by the game play balancing Nazis to help control balance without just simply making the units worthless, ineffective, technically and financially inaccessible.
Other simple unit features that should be implemented along the same philosophical approach should include:
Note that most of these simple drop down box restrictions and other ratio restrictions already exist and have been tested in the game code for units and for improvements/wonders (witness Armies, Wall Street, Battlefield Medicine, and SDI). Just take the coding and tie it to the appropriate drop down boxes and ratio boxes on the units pages and improvement/wonder pages and the result will be 15 orders of magnitude closer to a rave reviewed product by the core group of users that will drive all the market expansion.
This open letter really is meant to focus on encouraging the philosophical shift to make the features of the game more accessible for simple adjustment because we need to recognize that the hundreds of creative minds in the game play and modification community will use features in new and creative ways that may go well beyond anything that the original creators can envision.
Also, this letter should emphasize a need for an approach to game play balancing that does not simply focus on rendering the included unit incapable of reasonable and cost effective functioning. There ought to be a winning game strategy that includes valid reasons for building and using each unit in the game instead of a philosophy that actively tries to prevent the units from being any advantage to the human player if the unit are built and utilized in an appropriate strategy.
... cracker .... (I have a real name and prewritten help files, just email me)
I think that most of the key tools and code features are already in the game, it is just that the game is handicapped by lack of a big picture approach to implementation.
Much of this is found in hard-coded kluges to problems instead of implementing the same solution with a broader approach that will allow for flexibility, adjustment, and adaptation without each increment commanding programming resources in each subsequent patch.
The best Worst Example in the current game is probably found in the implementation of Armies.
Armies are a unique unit in that they are currently the only unit that is limited to the number of cities AND Armies are also unique in that they are the only unit that can be limited to being built in a city that has a specific small wonder or improvement already built.
FLASHING LIGHTBULB :enlighten AND CLANGING GONG.
Why would someone spend the effort to write these coding constraints and then hardcode the restrictions into the general settings for the game that limits the use of the programming to only one specific unit???
Why not set these choices as options on the units dialog and then make Armies the only current choice where this dialog applies to the unit released in the standard Civ3 product?
Expanding the usefulness of this programming would only require adding a drop down menu to the units dialog page that would let the editor restrict building of units to a city where a specific wonder or improvement has been built. FLASHING GOLD STAR and CASH REGISTER DING.
You would also add a check box to engage a ratio restriction on the units that would let you restrict the number of units that can be maintained relative to the number of cities, or number of improvements, or number of another type of units. For simplicity this Ratio should be implemented per 100 items of the restricting prerequisite. ANOTHER FLASHING GOLD STAR and CASH REGISTER DING.
Implementing these army like features to be potentially applicable to any or all units will give you a set of tools that can be used by the game play balancing Nazis to help control balance without just simply making the units worthless, ineffective, technically and financially inaccessible.
Other simple unit features that should be implemented along the same philosophical approach should include:
- A unit support cost multiplier and a transport utilization factor. Both of these factors should be implemented based on a 100 factor being the 100 to 100 ratio.
- An obsolete by upgrade flag that allows units to be built and then upgraded without eliminating the ability to build the first unit as is the current default implementation.
- Units upgrade cost multiplier that allows the upgrade costs to be defined as more or less than the standard calculated shield to gold ratio of 100%. This feature will allow units to be built in some towns and cities and then sent to school in other cities for the upgrade without making it impossible for towns to build the lower units.
- A targeted unit selection box and factor that allows each unit to have a defined other unit where its major attack or defense strength is most effective. This last item will have significant impact on letting the game play balance advocates control specific results without creating universal destroyer or universally worthless units. Examples of implementing this set of choices would be perhaps an A10 Warthog against tanks or a machine gun against infantry. These selective choices would avoid the seemingly silly scenarios where a longbow man kills a tank or where galleys can sink privateers 60% of the time.
Note that most of these simple drop down box restrictions and other ratio restrictions already exist and have been tested in the game code for units and for improvements/wonders (witness Armies, Wall Street, Battlefield Medicine, and SDI). Just take the coding and tie it to the appropriate drop down boxes and ratio boxes on the units pages and improvement/wonder pages and the result will be 15 orders of magnitude closer to a rave reviewed product by the core group of users that will drive all the market expansion.
This open letter really is meant to focus on encouraging the philosophical shift to make the features of the game more accessible for simple adjustment because we need to recognize that the hundreds of creative minds in the game play and modification community will use features in new and creative ways that may go well beyond anything that the original creators can envision.
Also, this letter should emphasize a need for an approach to game play balancing that does not simply focus on rendering the included unit incapable of reasonable and cost effective functioning. There ought to be a winning game strategy that includes valid reasons for building and using each unit in the game instead of a philosophy that actively tries to prevent the units from being any advantage to the human player if the unit are built and utilized in an appropriate strategy.
... cracker .... (I have a real name and prewritten help files, just email me)
