Building a Civ 2.5 MP Group (Moderators!: Please read, do not relocate thread)

[Civ 2.5]

<NOTE TO MODERATORS:

Civ 2 is a (by now) ancient game, and though many people still play it and cherish it, they have since dispersed all over the Civ fanatics site, and to a greater extent all over the web, having diversified their interests (or just simply grown old and started families... that's not a joke). But many of them played Civ 2 MP before, and many of them would still be willing to do so again, as it is an experience that has seldom been equaled or bested. Many could argue that under the right format, circumstance, and roster of players Civ 2 MP simply got it right in many ways that have been compromised since then in more recent iterations. It's simplicity and reliability was one of its biggest strengths if nothing else.

I know you may be tempted in one quick, broad stroke to classify this thread as being in the wrong location and move it to where you feel it should technically belong, but I ask that you leave this thread here by acquiescing to the argument that Civ 2 players are potentially everywhere, in every thread, and also that the actual Civ 2 MP forum site is rarely visited by only a few members. Such a thread as this would get minimum exposure if relegated to that section only, and achieve only very limited success.

Therefore, because of the age of Civ 2 and the diminished interest and traffic in the Civ 2 section, along with the broad range of players visiting all the many forum sections for Civ 2 through 5 who might very well be interested in joining a Civ 2 MP group, I ask that you bypass cold technicality and allow this thread to remain here. (Also, there is an identical thread as this started in all the sections, Civ MP 2-5, to get the broadest coverage possible)

Leaving this thread here so players can see it and read the intro, but then rerouting them to the sister thread in the Civ 2 section if they want to post, might also be harmful toward my goals because then all the other threads except the one in the Civ 2 section might be relegated to obscurity in fairly short time and go unnoticed after a few days without anybody actually posting in them.

Thank you.

END 'NOTE TO MODERATORS'>
______________________________


Hi, my name is Dan, I am currently in Seattle, Washington. I have played Civ in all its many forms and specifically Civ 2 multiplayer for many years, off and on, but lately I wanted to play MP again so I decided to put together a new playing group.

Of course I have played civ 2, 3 and 4 multiplayer as well, but I prefer 2's MP, for many reasons I won't go into detail here. In short, I simply find the quality of multiplayer gameplay to be superior in Civ 2 to the other iterations, all things considered. To be precise, I prefer a custom variation of Civ 2 which I designed and call Civ 2.5. It is basically an enhanced version of the original game. I am currently playtesting it one last time in order to fine-tune it even further before finally submitting it to civfanatics.com's download section, so that anybody I play with in the future can access it more easily without having to go through me for the file. However, it is all already complete and ready to play on at any time at a very high caliber of balance and fidelity, all future minor 'perfection' changes aside.

I included as an attachment the UNITS file just so you can get an idea of what Civ 2.5 looks like and encompasses.

Here is a glimpse of Civ 2.5 in summary;

- All new enhanced graphics, for absolutely everything. Very few things in the entire game have remained the same, and as a result it looks like a far better game graphically.

- Most of the rules for gameplay and unit stats have been improved for depth and balance.

- About 10 additional units added, and all previous units have been reworked. New units meticulously designed to improve/diversify gameplay and array of military choices, such as anti-air ground units, defensive escort fighter airplanes in addition to regular fighters which have a range of 2 like bombers and can stack to defend them, elite amphibious units for all historical ages, two gradations of tanks, among others. One example of the improvements is how all units now have a visually implied stealth value which basically determines how well exposed their unit shield and health bars are to plain view on the map. Most units have shields out in the open and easily seen, but about 15 fall into the stealth category at some range of the spectrum, and their shields are either partially or totally obscured from plain sight. Missiles and submarines, for example, are considered almost 100% stealth units and only their health bars are visible at any given time, no shield color/ nationality can be seen. Barbarian leaders, spies and diplomats don't even have visible health bars, only the graphic of the figure can be seen onscreen, to accentuate their slippery and low profile nature.

- About 10 new technologies added in strategically important areas of the tech tree, and the entire tech tree has also been tweaked to improve gameplay.

- About 6 or so of the unrealistic 'magical' wonders which in the original version cheapened and dumbed down the game have been removed, such as Leonardo's Workshop and the Great Library.

- Slower, more realistic and more intense pace: 1/3 the normal science research rate, food boxes doubled for 2X slower growth, settlers cost 60 shields to slow expansion rate early on. City improvements and wonders roughly 1.5X more expensive, with military improvements costing about 2X more to better reflect real-world values, such as barracks, city walls, etc. Settler and engineer land-improvements generally take 2X longer to complete. Units have all been kept at the same general price range, to make the game more tactical and unit-centric, but some units have been made much more expensive, such as engineers, carriers and nukes.

- Simultaneous play: by altering a civ system file, it is possible for all players to move at the same time in peacetime, which greatly speeds up the game. But when war breaks out, one-turn-at-a-time gameplay resumes between the fighting units of each warring faction, via a simple honor code that has the person who declared war or attacked first move all their battle units first, then the 'defending' player moves all their battle units, global turn after global turn, until a truce is declared or one player annihilated. After declaring a truce opponents can move simultaneously again and the turn-based system is reset for them until someone again decides to declare war or attack first. Only those enganged in an 'Alliance' may move their pieces at the same time during wartime. If you are a peaceful nation that is moving your units while a warring nation is moving theirs, and they tell you in advance to wait to move units in a certain region of the map until they do so, you must wait until they clear you to proceed moving. In other words, the movements of warring nations take precedence over those of peaceful nations, in order to avoid simultaneous-movement unit jumbling/ confusion at crucial times/ map regions. Other than that all regular rules apply.

- Custom designed maps designed for realism and optimal gameplay, including: believable continents with geographically realistic mountain ranges, deserts, jungles, etc. ~70% planet surface ocean coverage (large oceans and smaller continents in 'Large' maps, 75x120 squares). Dynamic rivers which are traversable by land but simultaneously navigable by boat along certain stretches. Balanced starting positions with minimized available inhabitable land for increased value of buildable-land and stretches of perpetually unoccupied terrain (large deserts, long mountain ranges, etc) such as occurs in reality. Only half the regular amount of 'goodie' huts. Barbarian 'nations' evenly dispersed across the world, composed of small, tight clusters of size 1, 2 or 3 'red' cities in inhospitable terrain not fit to build regular cities on. Small islands and archipelagos throughout the world, which the map randomizer typically omits, and many other unique design features. Additionally, in order that I don't remember any specific map being played on, being the map creator, we always play 10 maps behind the current queue. Meaning, I have to design 11 maps before we can play on the first, 12 before we can play on the 2nd, etc (each map takes about 1 hour to design in a creatively random way, and it's extremely difficult to remember old maps and starting locations even after designing a few new ones, let alone 10.)

- Some random examples of the rules changes: no tech from conquest, spaceship components are much more expensive, monarchies can support 4 units rather than 3; triremes do not founder in deep waters as easily; the AI is always set to Aggressive/ Militaristic/ Expansionist and starts with more cities/ settlers than humans in order to make them more powerful/ challenging, harder to manipulate diplomatically, and more unpredictable and hostile (when applicable, depending on the game). All units now ignore zones of control, much like in Civ 3. Many other larger and smaller changes as well.

Overall, Civ 2.5 was designed with both realism and gameplay in mind, especially by slowing the pace down and allowing for a depth of play simply impossible with regular civ. It is the result of a huge concerted effort to make the game more balanced in all respects, to enhance the overall experience and to provide players, especially in MP, with a much broader array of choices and considerations, especially regarding units and battle.


Additional Requirements:

- Civ 2 Multiplayer Gold Edition with the latest v1.3 patch, installed on a Windows-based PC, not a Mac, since we have tried before but they are incompatible to run scenarios in MP.

- The Civ 2.5 folder copied into the /Scenarios folder.

- Wippien VPN (virtual private network) program, which is free to download and relatively easy to install and set up. Just google "Wippien download". Ask me if you have trouble doing this, I will help guide you through the process, but most of it is straightforward. Basically this allows everyone who has it running and synched up to play online as though they were on the same LAN (We used to play with Hamachi VPN, but people started having trouble getting it to work so we abandoned it and switched to Wippien)

- (Not required, but ideal) Skype and a free account along with a headset (and webcam if you want), for open communication while we play.

- No dial-up connections, too much lag, must have broadband of some kind, at least DSL.

- A submitted schedule with a decent allotment of free 'windows' of time on a more or less regular and predictable basis, so that a compatibility window of gameplay time can be agreed upon and committed to week by week, as availabilities change. And hand in hand with this is required a generally agreeable and willful level of commitment to play and commit to agreed-upon play times. (Don't worry, all drawn up schedules will be flexible and reasonable, I have a life, a job and a girlfriend, among other things so most likely, just like you, I will only be able to play for a couple hours at a time a few times a week, at the most. In any case, schedules have to be agreed upon by everyone)

- Above all, the main requirements is honor. Players who are caught or detected cheating or trying to subvert the rules or quality of the game in any way will be ejected out of the group indefinitely. This cannot be tolerated even once due to certain specific 'honor rules' on which the core of the gameplay depends- especially as they pertain to simultaneous play- which require the willful and honest cooperation of all players involved. However, even without these additional rules it is always quite easy to cheat in regular Civ through the use of offline save files, hex editors, etc, so this pretty much goes without saying. Any player who suspects this is going on is to report it to everyone else, then we discuss it as a group to determine what is really going on and what to do about it.

____________________________________


I am forwarding this exact text as well as posting it in several forums/ sites to all potential players I find. If all of the above sounds intriguing and acceptable to you, then email me back and we'll talk. If not, I appreciate your time in at least reading this and considering it, but there are plenty out there willing to participate, believe me. We used to regularly host games exactly as described above with the maximum of 7 human players on the same game, many times. It's been a couple years since the last such full game (I've played a few smaller ones since then with one or two other players), since life has disrupted those old routines and playing groups, but I want to achieve that level of gameplay again as soon as possible. I don't mind playing games with less than 7 humans at first, but I am dead-set on building up a new group, hopefully consisting of many more than 7 players for variety, redundancy and group-reliability, and maybe even multiple games running concurrently.

The rewards are great, trust me- there is no other game that I know of more satisfying or challenging than civ MP with a full roster of skilled human opponents, nothing even comes close. There are still plenty of civ players out there fond of Civ 2 multiplayer, I just have to put in the investigation/ browsing/ networking time and effort to compile a good number of them into one group.

If you can recommend anybody besides yourself that may be interested, forward them this email (with the UNITS attachment included so they can see what you saw), and have them reply to aux.account1@gmail.com or link them to this site/ page. I am just contacting people by email at this point but if you want to talk on an IM service let me know, I think I still have AIM or ICQ or one of those, I just never turn it on.

In addition to emailing me directly also post your contact info below (as much as your privacy deems prudent of course) so that other players can interconnect more easily. Eventually as we reach a critical mass of serious-enough players we'll coalesce on to the best and most efficient means of communication (most likely an IM program of some kind, such as ICQ or Trillian, etc)

Thanks, and Civ on

- Dan

(For the UNITS file, click here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=283095&amp;d=1298006808

)

 

[Smote]

Weird. Is this a team project, or solo? What are other people's opinions? How many people have played this? Is it done currently?

 

[Civ 2.5]

If 'weird' is a synonym for 'different', then yes, absolutely, intentionally, and as much as possible.

The 'enhanced Civ' version I specifically worked on and refined over time that's called Civ 2.5 is a solo project, yes, technically speaking. But to be fair I've played on earlier variants of it with a good number of other people (read below) along with their own custom versions. We've all played around with the concept for years- out of love for Civ 2's basic MP engine but growing dissatisfaction with alot of the original version's rules and gameplay caveats- and I guess this is just the latest incarnation of that progress, made over the last couple years off and on by myself.

Although, I should credit the literally hundreds of different scenario and civ-content artists and modders who are responsible for the graphics I borrowed (far too many to list). I basically downloaded every imaginable piece of civ DLC available and picked and chose the best graphics for my needs, along with creating whatever wasn't already available from scratch.

As for those other people, could I get opinions, could I get witnesses and testimonies? Sure. But those people have moved on, alot of them are older and we don't keep in touch in anymore. I''m sure I could scrounge around and find them and then drag them to this forum as an old favor to vouch for me, but somehow I don't think I'm going to go that far... I've contacted a few of them, still waiting for a reply, so if they stumble back here by chance, then great. So to answer your question with numbers, anywhere from about 12-15 people have played some earlier (but relatively identical) version of it during the last 2-6 years.

I've been playing Civ since I was too short to go on the rides, but I also come from the school of Starcraft and Battle.Net, where unit, race, and map balance and gameplay fidelity is of utmost importance to the quality of MP play. The extra units, techs, etc I added are not frills or there just for show. In conjunction to the changes made to existing components, they all serve a specific and vital function to gameplay. Experience over time more than creative whimsy has served to determine what the game lacked and needed the most.

If you're at all curious my recommendation is to contact me for the scenario folder (soon enough I will make it available in CFC's download section, just tweaking a couple last things to bring it to 99.9% fidelity before I do), install it into your CIV 2 program file, play it against the AI and judge for yourself. I have a high degree of confidence that anybody who does so will not only notice visually and technically but also simply feel the huge positive impact of the overall changed gameplay experience right away. But keep in mind it was designed mostly for MP, for human minds. The AI doesn't know how to make use of practically any of the added depth. It's Civ 2 AI, after all...

Some more quick examples:

The Ironclad now founders in deep water, so you have to keep it in coastal waters and inside navigable rivers for the most part. Its contemporary counterpart is the Ironside, basically a wooden sailing vessel outfitted with an additional steam engine and iron hull plating, a sort of hybrid evolutionary link of warship technology towards the latter half of the 19th century. The Ironside is cheaper, but is a little weaker than the ironclad, with the advantage of being an ocean-going vessel. And in my maps there are large oceans. Its a strategic tradeoff, depending on what you need most.

One last example... There are two anti-air ground units, the Flak Cannon (WWII tech-era AA gun) and the Mobile SAM (modern missile-based AA platform). They are weak against most competent ground attacks but when fortified stand up to air bombardment well, but are not anywhere invincible against air like AEGIS cruisers are. The gradation of the two units in strength, movement, cost and tech-era mirrors the same gradation in fighter, ship and tank technology, the whole system of which was before severely lacking or half-spun and has been revamped.

I *could describe the whole game and all of its changes, but I'm not going to. I'm trying to be open and play ball, but I'm only willing to write so much about it. I can 'say' that I know what I'm doing and that Civ 2.5 is polished and well thought out enough to smack of a professional effort, but at a certain point, yes, a small bit of faith might be required to jump into it and try it.

 

[CanuckSoldier]

Looks like you have put alot of effort into this, well done. Being a Civ2MGE MP player in the "glory days" of the MS Gaming Zone and CivLeague, I do appreciate your efforts. But I really question why you are trying to slow down the game? I've ran a Civ MP league for almost 10 years now, and in my experience slow is exactly what MP players, especially competitive MP players do not want.

Most people have only 2-4 hours on a given week night or weekend day to play a game and the traditional long SP style games just don't work for us.

And having played Civ2MGE in a league I can say for sure that we alwayed used turn limits on our games so that they did not go on forever and even with that, 90% of the time the winner was obvious well before the turns ran out.

I've even considered running a Civ2MGE league at CivPlayers, but with Civ5 coming out we never got around to code that, and to be honest I have not really seen a core resurgence of Civ2 MP players popping up. But I will be watching your progress with interest.

CS

 

[Civ 2.5]

Your Civ MP experience, especially concerning this CivLeague, is quite interesting, so I will definitely check out all the sites/ groups/ links you just listed or commented about. I welcome your input and invite you to take part in this new but fast-growing group.

Just since a couple days ago when I started this effort I am already talking with 3 other very interested players via email and skype, so it should only be a week or two at most before I have enough players who have installed, playtested and agreed to the 2.5 version, and who are synchronized and ready to launch the first game with this new group. One guy is actually an AI programmer for CivEvo, one of the private 'free Civ' efforts out there where I also posted the same proposal as I did here, so its looking like a diverse bunch so far. I also posted at Apolyton, and as this goes on I will branch out wherever else I need to in order to accrue the desired volume and talent of Civ 2 MP players.

You are right about the game speed and people unwilling to play it if it drags on too long... but only if a regular version of Civ 2 was in question, and only if it involved just any random collection of players. Having said that, your concerns are definitely valid, and I'm sure you speak from experience.

You have to keep in mind though, that the people I used to play with comprised a small tight-knit group, largely insulated and self-satisfied from dipping too much into the online MP Civ pool, because for the most part we always had a good number of people and we all didn't mind playing extended games. But also the version of Civ 2 you're playing makes all the difference...

The regular Civ 2 version out of the box, or only slightly modified, essentially supports/ encourages/ facilitates turtling, cheaping, cheating and manipulation of a deeply flawed game engine and rules set. I'll address cheating further below in more detail, but in short, the breakneck research rate combined with imbalanced wonders and other holes/ weak points in the gameplay force everyone to try to expand as fast as possible, which isn't at all difficult, then quickly teching up to Republic, then using the celebration-to-population-explosion loophole (which is forbidden in the MP honor code system of Civ 2.5 as enforced by the methods I'll explain below) and then zip their way up the tech tree, with a race to see who gets the spaceship first or some combination of size/ military tech which makes everyone else raise the white flag before the official 'end', as you describe often happens.

If anybody tries to threaten or 'punish' such a turtling/ fast-teching player by building an army and attacking, they in turn are counter-intuitively punished for it. Not only do they fall behind in population (monarchy followed by communism is the best gov to wage war with, but doesn't research very fast and also can't use the pop-explosion trick), but their army is also soonafter thwarted- even if not necessarily decimated- by a science-rabid Republic/ Democracy suddenly acquiring gunpowder, or conscription, or mobile warfare, etc, thereby constantly obsoleting anybody's costly and fleetingly-useful incoming armies.

In regular Civ 2 MP that is the dominant strategy, and I can't blame anybody for pursuing it, cheap and boring as it may be, because in that style of play that's how you win: hunkering down and taking advantage of cheap game mechanics.

In Civ 2.5, on the other hand, the game is generally slowed down by a few multiples, with all other rules and gameplay devices such as food box size, settler cost, city improvement cost, settler and engineer transformation speeds, etc all having been increased to complement the slower research rate, which starts out at 1/3 normal.

The other limiting factor is the maps themselves, which are designed for realism, meaning they're not friendly. They don't like being built on. They don't like your cities. Players start in balanced and equal locations for fairness, but they all have their challenges finding suitable places for the new colonies of their expanding empire. 30% landmass in a 'Large' map setting isn't very much land to begin with, but after you factor in realistically vast mtn ranges, jungles, deserts, alpine forests etc with few clearings amongst them, players are faced in their respective starting regions of the world with limited patches of habitable land here and there. Other non-optimal spots allow cities of minimal productivity until settlers can slowly alter and improve the landscape in their city radius, but those aren't immediately strong and fall into the category of small, longer-term investment colonies. (Clearing jungles, i.e., in Civ 2.5 takes one settler 22 turns. You and some guys try picking up some saws and machetes to clear out roughly 100x100 square miles of thick jungle- roughly the equivalent of one Civ square- and see how long it takes you...)

All combined, and this is speaking from experience with this specific game type, is that all human empires are checked from ballooning out of control for a good while, keeping turn lengths consistently short on average. Tech doesn't stagnate because eventually nations and governments ramp up their govs and research rates, along with trading, stealing, etc, but what effectively does happen is prolonged war within any single tech era such as ancient, medieval or renaissance suddenly becomes possible.

Now, that cozy Republic or whoever else across twenty squares of ocean, or on the other side of your continent, has something to worry about, because you can build an army of archers, swordsmen and chariots (one of the earliest effective mixed-army varieties in Civ 2.5) and keep pumping them out, and there is no way he will reach tempered metals or even gunpowder soon enough to save his poorly defended, bookworming hide.

Watch out for your flanking borders in your warring obsession with one neighbor, however, there's other human opponents about waiting nearby for an opportunity under the pretense of a shallow peace treaty... in other words, diplomacy becomes more important than ever before as well.

What ends up happening is all players build units and armies, and wars inevitably happen. Because not all skill levels/ circumstances/ armies/ tactics are ever equal, so someone will end up getting the upper hand and taking over land/ wealth/ tech and becoming more powerful. Then they wait, consolidate, and attack again on an even bigger scale, until the game is eventually won without dragging on forever.

In other words, the games check themselves from stagnating or rambling on needlessly because of military campaigning. I have been in some longer, protracted games, sure, but they weren't long and boring, they were long and chock full of intense, fight-or-flight, excruciating moments and complex, immersive gameplay. Plus the group of players were familiar with each other, not just random people from the internet on a per-game basis, so they didn't mind scheduling in advance for the next play session (usually about 2-3 hours apiece).

Civ 2.5 still allows victory through tech progression, building wonders, spaceship, etc, and rewards players for those efforts in the long run, but its not a given anymore, and actually quite difficult. After all, looking at history, how did any leader or general achieve victory over other nations, scientifically? rarely. Economically? Sometimes. Spaceship? Uhmmmm... No, mostly it was through military campaigning, and this version reflects that reality.

The whole point of creating a "Civ 2.5 MP group" is not to just pick anybody off the internet game by game. It is to build up a seriously interested, hopefully experienced/ skilled, dedicated and more or less inter-familiar group of players who know, agree to and play this specific enhanced version of Civ 2 beyond any one game/ week/ month but continuously. That group cohesion also instills an inherent elevation of gameplay quality not readily found in most other MP pools/ groups.

CHEATING/ SUBVERTING THE HONOR CODE

As for cheating or breaking the honor code, which has quite a fair number of rules everyone needs to remember, there is an effective way of stopping it and thwarting it completely. They are all reasonably construed and refined with time and experience, just like Civ 2.5 itself, as well as always open to suggestion/ improvement. Go to Apolyton.com's Civ 1 & 2 section and look up the "Rah Rules" thread for a rough idea of what Civ 2.5's honor code will be, though of course we will have our own and probably be tighter and a few degrees more restrictive than theirs. To say that we can catch and eliminate just about all cheating is a bold claim I know. I mean, if someone saves the game and then looks at all the other human opponents' nations and unit placements offline, how is anybody to know? ...

The anti-cheating mechanism consists of three core functions/ policies:

1. A zero tolerance, two-strikes-and-you're-out system. Caught once of absolutely anything, minor infraction or heinous cheat, doesn't matter, the group convenes to verify what was done, and you're suspended from the group for a month. If you want to come back after a month and you're caught again, you're out forever. No exceptions, no leniancy. This isn't designed to punish/ shame anybody or to make the people that slam the ban-hammer down to get a sadist woodie. Cheaters do exist, humans are humans, and they will occur, even in this group I'm forming, it's inevitable. But when they are caught and banished without leniancy, cut dry and cold by the book, then everyone else who remains suddenly understands and realizes very clearly: "I love Civ. I like this MP group and love the MP games we're playing. If I cheat and am caught, of which there is a good likelihood (explained why below) I will be deprived of both. Therefore, I should refrain from doing it, because these motherf****ers are serious about it and I really want to keep playing here because the game quality is so high."

It's basically just very strict positive/ negative reinforcement, it works wonders on human psychology.

2. In every game, more than one person playing saves the game on every single turn from first to last into a pre-designated folder (as simple as pressing Ctrl-S then ENTER once every turn). This provides a turn-by-turn archive of all player's activities on a turn by turn basis to be reviewed after the game if needed (and also by choice even if nothing is suspected, as players are allowed to review these files to see the strategies of other players and what they did AFTER a game, there's no harm in that type of post-game education.)

3. Group awareness and communication. Again, maybe I won't know the life story of anybody in the group or go to their house for barbecue every Sunday, but on the other hand this isn't just any random bunch of mugs I found on Craigslist one day, either. They're here for a reason, they know the rules, they know the honor code and so there's no excuse for not knowing or having 'forgotten'. Zero tolerance still applies, even honest ignorance is a minor tragedy for the player who falls victim to it, but not an excuse for leniancy, otherwise the system falls apart. If someone detects something fishy going on, he tells a few others (obviously not the suspected player) and they all observe and scrutinize more closely until evidence or proof is found. Nobody is immune from suspicion and observation, not even me, this keeps everyone honest.

Examples:

If someone looks at save files offline in between sessions, then they will never be surprised and their preternatural battle awareness will reveal what they're doing. In a warfare-centric game style, map awareness and unit-location knowledge is key to the honest player, hence it also highlights the dubious actions of a cheater. I.e., if we're at perfect peace and I'm going to surprise you with an undetected amphibious landing from the south of your empire where there's nothing but swamp and jungle, and the next game session you suddenly have an army standing at that south shore doing nothing but waiting, as well as your fleet swinging around the cape to meet me before your units even spot my first ships... well sure, that could be improbable coincidence or amazingly sharp foresight, but there's also a chance you may be cheating. So I tell a couple other players and you fall into observation.

The key is to doing this dispassionately merely as intelligent group conversation, and not as an interpersonal, emotionally driven agenda of any sort, even though that might be inevitable sometimes.

This type of cheating is a little trickier to catch, but basically, unless its so blatantly obvious we don't need to, we review the save files after the game and and look at the suspected player's movements turn by turn, and look for certain irregular movements/ decisions/ alterations that are a dead giveaway he knew something he shouldn't. One isolated event isn't enough to go off, sure. But in the course of a game if these telltale aberrations occur, it's a pretty dead giveaway. Some players in the group get together, talk about it, review it, then like a jury make a decision and banish the player in question. For practically all other cheats its much easier to spot, but this just goes to show that even a cheat as illusive and insubstantial as 'illegal knowledge' can be spotted and proven, so long as the three core staples of the honor enforcement are always in place.

Another simpler example: If someone investigates a city with a diplo/spy and they see a Republic player using the celebration-pop-explosion trick, all they have to do is save the game and tell a couple other players to do the same if they haven't already as part of the save archive. Proof of cheating. You're out.

If someone sabotages production but the defending player uses the trick that enables him to buy the rest of the shields and salvage it, and on the next turn an improvement is built or a unit pops out of they city that shouldn't have, everyone reviews it and agrees. Proof of cheating. You're out.

Etc, etc...

I personally don't like this anti-cheating system, but I do know from experience that it works. I wish the game was designed to be cheat-proof on its own, but unfortunately this system has to be harsh to ensure gameplay integrity and enforce honor and sportsmanship for the group members that do remain on a dependably honest basis. Fortunately, Civ 2.5 MP has the proven potential to be so immersive and rewarding without cheating that the majority of people in the group won't be willing to sacrifice it just to get a little upper hand here and there or come away with one cheap win or two.

As we go the entire honor code will be written out in full and agreed upon by everyone, but whatever the actual rules are, the above system will be used to detect cheaters and preserve the game for everyone else, and there's no way I can prove to you that it works other than the above text, you'll just have to join the group and give it a try.

 

[CanuckSoldier]

Well I wish you luck, I will say that one of the major factors in the downfall of Civ2 MP in it's original heyday was that it was easily hacked by memory trainers, I doubt this has changed at all, with more than a decade of time I would think the hackers are even better now than back then.

But then you seem to be aimed at forming a small group of players, than an honour system may very well work for a system like that.

I unfortunately run a league designed for random lobby games for a large number of players randomly playing each other when it is convenient for them to do so. So the honour system is not something I use as my first line of defence, I have a in-depth rule set for each league and general rules as well, and a well established "justice/investigative" system to deal with complaints.

But feel free to look at how we do business at www.civplayers.com And I'll answer any questions you have.

CS

 

[Civ 2.5]

I feel your pain lol. The corrupted nature of come-one-come-all random Civ MP games are the reason I've only played sporadically on and off through the years, because to have the right quality you do need a custom version, a dedicated group and the effort that goes into all. Sometimes that's not so easy to maintain over the long run. It just so happens that recently I decided to give it another go.

I'll check it out tonight at some point, maybe I'll post there and steal a couple of your players lol

 

[CanuckSoldier]

Well if you can find some old Civ2 players in the crowd you are welcome to invite them

CS

 

[Civ 2.5]

Someone, I will keep them anonymous, wrote me quite an interesting email about Civ 2.5 that I had the great pleasure of responding to. I thought the discussion that began with his letter, and my subsequent debate on the issues interesting enough to post here, mostly just because the content paints a very clear picture of what Civ 2.5 is all about to anyone who reads it.

Enjoy

___________________________________________


Here is their original email:

As a Civ Fanatic I am glad to hear that you like the game so much and that you made your own custom version of it. I applaud your effort and I will try your game but I do not fancy the direction you took. In an effort to make the game more unit centric you made the following adjustments: 1/3: sci-rate, 2x slower growth rate, increased settler cost, and increased wonder and building cost.
However, I think a fair question to ask is does the game need to be made more unit centric? You assume that it does but I disagree. Good game play is made by providing meaningful choices. Adding more units and adjusting the game mechanics to force more unit production does not provide meaningful choices.
As far as units go the Civilization combat system is basically a complicated Rock/Paper/Scissors system. What makes Civilization great is that you have other choices like advancing technology, expanding, or building wonders. By changing the game mechanics to discourage these options you provide fewer choices making the game less dynamic.
Also I would argue that by removing the ZOC system and adding a few new units the combat becomes less interesting because you have fewer meaningful choices.
Consider a game of Rock/Paper/Scissors. We could adjust the game by adding a fourth option book that draws rock, wins to paper and loses to scissors. Although we now have more choices the choice is not meaningful and the game is not improved. However, suppose we modified paper/rock/scissors so that it was played outside in a circle and designated three safe zones paper, rock, and scissors respectively. After a player wins he or she must then tag the player before he goes to his specific safe zone. Now the game is much more interesting because the players have to consider their respective distance to each safe zone when they choose paper/rock/scissors.
By getting rid of ZOC and adding more units you are removing a meaningful choice with a meaningless one. In my opinion there are two reasons to remove ZOC, one is that it is confusing for new players and the other is that it can confuse AI. As a group of CivFanatics playing MP neither of these applies.
It is curious that you chose six specific wonders to tweak or remove, may I ask which ones and why?
Please do not say realism because it is hard to see where realism fits into a fictional game other than as an artistic element and most people seemed happy with the general feel of the game. I do not know anyone when playing who said this game is so unrealistic if only they removed the Great Library then it would be realistic! Though you could be the first!
Please do not take my criticisms to harshly. We are both Civ nerds, do the nerdy thing respond in kind.
Best Regards

___________________________________________________

And here is my response. Brace yourselves, it's a small book in its own right, but I guess being a Civ addict and being somewhat obsessive when talking about Civ sort of go hand in hand... Or, as Brittney Spears might say, "Oops, I did it again."

___________________________________________________


Hi, thanks for the meaty, introspective analysis and critique. Feedback is always welcome, unless it's psychotic of course lol. Don't sweat it though, whether talking Civ or anything else in life, I've heard far, far worse! You seem enough of the scholar and gentleman.

And yes, I would not dare do anything but the proper nerdy thing and reply in kind. I don't mind discussing Civ-theory, game theory, strategy, design etc no matter what time of the day it is.

So, I'm ready to get my hands wet, let's begin...

"...I will try your game but I do not fancy the direction you took"

I have to say, right off the bat, it's a little conspicuous that you don't like the game even before playing it. This tells me that maybe upon hearing my initial description that you had some kind of adverse defensive reaction to it, mentally, but to be fair I think you really do have to play the game in multiplayer, for which it was designed, before committing too heavily into any grievance or distaste for it.

Firstly, I will have to say that most of the design changes/ implementations of Civ 2.5 come from extensive MP experience, so I didn't just decide one day after playing so much single player by myself that somehow I could make the best version of Civ 2. I have played many MP games with regular Civ, not only 2 but also 3 and 4, including scenarios and customized 'enhanced' versions similar to mine. Civ 2.5 is an amalgamation and synthesis of all that experience over time to create a more intense, deeper, less 'cheap' and altogether more enjoyable Civ 2 MP platform.

"In an effort to make the game more unit centric you made the following adjustments: 1/3: sci-rate, 2x slower growth rate, increased settler cost, and increased wonder and building cost."

Those are just a few bullet points of all the gameplay redesign tenets, and do not accurately portray the total net effect that they have on gameplay in order to both slow the tech rate down and make it more unit-centric. Others might include- 1/2 worker productivity rate; additional units that allow for many previously non-existent avenues of military strategy/ tactics; rebalancing of all units- old and new combined- to make every unit "valuable" in its own specific niche, since in regular Civ 2 many units were simply useless, for the most part, either because they were too weak for their cost, or not effective, or obsoleted too soon (this means you Warrior, and you too Rifleman); the element of multiplayer for which this version was designed, which brings all of the enhanced gameplay and unit diversity into practical function and applied focus, and other elements I'm sure I'm leaving out. In other words, the grand total of the changed playing experience is not a mere reductionist sum of the parts, but a more holistic game-wide benefit resulting from the synergistic balance of all the many parts coming together in the right way, if that doesn't sound too hokey.

"However, I think a fair question to ask is does the game need to be made more unit centric? You assume that it does but I disagree. Good game play is made by providing meaningful choices. Adding more units and adjusting the game mechanics to force more unit production does not provide meaningful choices. As far as units go the Civilization combat system is basically a complicated Rock/Paper/Scissors system. What makes Civilization great is that you have other choices like advancing technology, expanding, or building wonders. By changing the game mechanics to discourage these options you provide fewer choices making the game less dynamic."

To correct a misstatement, I have not assumed much at all about anything regarding the design of Civ 2.5. Again, it all stems from extensive MP experience, even if only with small groups here and there over time and not on any kind of vast online 'ladder'. The concluding results of what works, what doesn't, what should be changed, what should be added, what should be taken out, etc, comes down not only according to me alone but almost as an unofficial consensus between me and all the people I've ever played with or talked with about what the game's lacks and shortcomings are.

Does the game need to be made more unit-centric, yes, absolutely. But I think we differ on the definition of what exactly a unit-centric game implies...

In regular Civ 2 MP (and most other Civ iterations in fact) most players are afforded any number of cheap and pre-packaged easy 'strategies' which do not amount to anything more than pre-memorized gimmicks and manipulations, to be blunt. These are design flaws of the regular game. There is little actual strategic movement, diplomatic evolution, military campaigning, or any other seriously engaging/ interesting level of play that would one would desire and expect in a creative, chaotic and immersive experience such as Civ MP at first promises to be, at least on paper. But the reality is much more shallow and disappointing, unfortunately. Wonders are cheap and have outsized effects, such as the ludicrous Great Wall, so players gun for those right off the starting gates and it becomes a race to acquire these super wonders, woe to the players that don't get them first. How important have wonders ever been in actual history? Not nearly as great as regular Civ makes them out to be. Having said that, they are still in my version, and despite a few dumb and mindless ones having been removed and the rest being up to 2X more expensive, they all last the entire game, never going obsolete. In a game that is slowed down considerably, this can be a huge deal. The Colossus, for example, merely provides more trade for its host city, but in Civ 2.5 it never goes obsolete so it becomes accumulatively precious over time, across many turns, so long as the owner still possesses its host city. This also gives individual cities more lasting identity and value on top of their size and real estate, because any city with a functional valuable wonder will always have a functional valuable wonder which other opponents might like to seize for themselves at any point during the entire game.

Players also gun for Republic as fast as they can, acquiring it quickly enough, and use the population explosion trick to grow disproportionately fast, quickly outpacing anyone who doesn't employ the same 'trick'. They then also employ the elevated Republic science boost to unrealistically quickly obsolete any potential incoming armies before those armies even have a chance to make themselves useful, when in reality ancient and medieval armies were useful without upgrading for thousands of years, let alone any one single campaign! They gun straight for a handful of exaggeratedly powerful wonders such as the Great Library, Leonardo's Workshop among others. Basically, in regular Civ MP the turtling, peaceful, Republic/Democracy, science-and-spaceship-seeking, Wonder-building 'Sim City' builders always come out on top, because the way the game is designed they are vastly more rewarded for exploiting that route of play and all its many loopholes and kickbacks than any other. Before any other nation even has the chance to wage war in ancient times after amassing even a small army, they already have gunpowder, then conscription, then mobile warfare, and so on. In other words, a more realistic, warfare-solvent, "unit-centric" style of play is all but relegated to a losing strategy. Games in regular Civ 2 are over quite quickly, relative to the number of turns, or they stagnate without much new happening for long stretches, but with no real amount of deeper, era-specific, historic or military complexity ever being allowed to develop. Again, this comes from playing more than my fair share of MP, not from theory alone. Civ 2.5 in its current form may be new but I have played before on slower, modified games and those were always better by far.

As for meaninful choices and variety of gameplay, that is exactly what Civ 2.5 MP succeeds in attaining. On the other hand, it is almost inevitably regular Civ 2 games which always end up being the same and providing few choices. It's always the same race for the same wonders, for the same science-greedy Republics and turtling micromanagers, albeit in slightly different continents and starting positions each time with slightly different details, but all in all unchanging. In Civ 2.5 however, nations need to maintain armies, despite their other ambitions such as trading, science, infrastructure-building, expansion, etc, and these armies need to be maneuvered, positioned and utilized with some tactical wisdom, even in peacetime, without the immediate and absurd hope of being relieved by some new wonder weapon technology that's always just around the corner. Sounds alot more already like how actual history played out.

This brings into light all sort of previously rarely-explored options such as the need for more demanding and reliable alliances and diplomacy in order to successfully defend or attack other nations/ alliances. Also, because no nation can immediately 'tech' their way out of any potential invading force, they must rely more not only on brilliant and creative tactics/ deceptions but also on the other players of the world, forming economic ties that before were totally useless, or other venues of coercion/ agreement, if unable to fend off physical threats on their own. Science also becomes way more valuable, preventing it from being stolen becomes a bigger priority, and trading it away becomes a much more cautious affair. Actually, successfully being a peaceful scientific nation in Civ 2.5 is far more difficult because (with more historical accuracy than regular Civ 2) the threat of an invading army is always a dangerous and very real possibility and shouldn't ever be ignored, but the rewards for a scientific nation are potentially much higher.

A nation in Civ 2.5 that chooses the peaceful Republic/ Democracy route (the population-explosion-trick is strictly forbidden, and effectively enforced from being used in our MP group, via the anti-cheating mechanisms in place), if they can successfully defend themselves, stands to gain a significant advantage over other more violent and warmongering monarchies/ communisms. Once they have established a decisive lead in tech, especially if the science is well protected by garrisoning more defensive diplomats/ spies inside their cities (another example of the increased unit-centrism) also because 'tech from conquest' is no longer available, it is much harder and takes the other players much longer to catch up than normal. Suddenly that Republic that has 10 more techs than their adversaries can gather up a Rome-like momentum in force and technology that the neighboring human players are hard pressed to follow, and this lead will have been well earned and fought for if it is materialized. That lead can then be capitalized on for long enough to actually maneuver, build and otherwise shape the surrounding world in a meaningful and impressive way without fear that in a couple dozen turns everyone else will have the same tech you have, despite your ongoing but fast-waning lead.

That is the great letdown and shame of regular Civ, is that in making the game so breakneck fast and cheap as far as imbalanced wonders and other loopholes, it actually homogenizes everything into a uniform experience with little deviation from the norm. It rewards the cheap player who uses the same strategy almost every time to get great but predictable results and shuns/ punishes the creative or tactical player for investing the time into any enterprising plans beyond the self-same rocket-shot to easy victory ala regular Civ 2's easily exploitable broken mechanics.

As far as the game unnaturally 'forcing more unit production', nothing of the like actually happens once you play the MP version, because city improvements are even more useful in Civ 2.5, especially military ones like barracks, city walls, etc which have been made up to 2X or greater costlier (most other city improvements are only roughly 50% more). For example, instead of pumping 3 regular-strength war units out like an opponent that didn't feel like 'eating' the investment time of building costly barracks, the player who manages to build a (more expensive but still valuable) barracks will find that one good veteran defender in a good position may be able to take on all 3 of that opponent's weaker regular infantry, or whatever the case may be. As opposed to regular Civ 2, where barracks are so cheap you're stupid not to have one and so all the units of all nations are of the same caliber and strength without much differentiation.

Also, protecting your cities from enemy diplomats (still cheap and cost-effective units) who might potentially destroy costly improvements becomes an even greater necessity, leading to units being fielded out on the map and engaging more as opposed to just sitting back inside cities the whole time where they can actually leave those cities vulnerable, at least to diplo-attacks. It doesn't becomes a game that forces any one option or another, but every option even the military one has its added challenges, as well as its rewards. In Civ 2.5, as another example, if you can manage to build libraries and marketplaces early on in all of your cities, even though they are more expensive and the threats against you are greater while investing in the time/ resources to build them, then the scientific/ economic advantage you will have gained will be proportionately large to the hardship in attaining it because none of your supposedly unit-pumping adversaries were able or willing to do the same. But that's the entire point of this version- with the game being slowed down, deepened and made more complex (even while achieving a smoother balance) everything is more challenging and deserves constant planning and revision. Nothing comes easy, which makes any progress or success or victory that much more enjoyable. As far as the speed itself being slowed down and the game taking forever to play in real life, this is an illusion, really. Yes, the historical development and expansion rates have been slowed down, but this doesn't make the game any less frenetic or any less liable to end at any minute when somebody begins to dominate. In fact the opposite, because now with many more options, with greater risks and rewards, nations will develop even more differently quicker, leading to various expressed inequalities and variations of manifested power, than in regular Civ 2, and so the liability for winning actions and decisive blows for any one player might be even more imminent.

"As far as units go the Civilization combat system is basically a complicated Rock/Paper/Scissors system."
...
"Consider a game of Rock/Paper/Scissors. We could adjust the game by adding a fourth option, book, that draws rock, wins to paper and loses to scissors. Although we now have more choices the choice is not meaningful and the game is not improved."

At a basic level, you have a point. For example, fortified Pikeman beats Knight, Knight beats Legion, Legion beats Pikeman. But, respectfully, I think that might be an over-simplification, even though you do indeed say a "complicated" version of it, so you also recognize the same thing. I believe even in the original version the entire map with all of its situations and all the range of units encompasses a significantly deeper battle system. I never got the feeling while playing regular Civ 2 that it was a linear rock/ paper/ scissors system, and certainly with Civ 2.5 I tried to distance it from that kind of one-dimensional linearity as much as possible. In fact, I can remember playing complete duds like Empire Earth and Rise of Nations and thinking to myself that their combat and unit system failed so miserably exactly because they adhered so unimaginatively to a very plain R/ P/ S system. The impression I always did get was that the ADM stats (attack, defense, movement, as well as cost, hit points and firepower) of units should be set to reflect what their real-world capabilities, strengths and weaknesses might be as faithfully as possible, while also keeping in mind the balance of all units to one another within the context of the game, as opposed to dumbly designing unit A to defeat unit B, and unit B to defeat C, and unit C to defeat A... so on and so forth.

In Civ 2.5 I have redesigned the unit system to be based on cost as a function of performance, in conjunction with the prerequisite tech which now also better reflects its period of availability along the game's timeline, making more valuable and more advanced units come intuitively later than others, but also making sure every single unit is allowed the timeframe and breathing room to remain on the field effectively for longer before being obsoleted. The slower tech rate helps, but I also revised and rearranged the tech tree quite a bit to achieve this (which is a painstaking labor, let me tell you, the tech tree can be highly, deceptively complicated...). With the additional units, rebalanced existing units and additional avenues of warfare in all ages, I would say that Ro-Sham-Bo even if a complicated version cannot accurately describe it.

For example, in Civ 2.5, with Iron Working, which is still available fairly early in Ancient times, you only get Swordsman, ala Civ 3, at a 3/2/1 ADM, and only 30 shields (I didn't outright copy it just for the sake of emulating Civ 3 in 2.5, but for this specific unit it just happened to be a really good fit). So the Swordsman is an excellent early infantry attack unit, and with a 2 defense is well rounded and survivable, especially en masse, but with a very average 3 attack you can't hope to conquer the world with just them alone, because they'll get whittled down too fast attacking a well defended enemy army/ position. But at 30 shields they're cheap, and so you can use them to fill out your army nicely, providing the dependable, affordable backbone of your ancient military as you march through the land.

But now a new tech has been introduced called Tempered Metals (stemming from Monarchy and Iron Working), which brings the Legionnaire and the Phalanx, both of which have essentially been recast as more elite units. If you want a simple 1/2/1 defense unit, the 20 shield Pikeman now comes with Bronze Working right out the starting gates and even still gets a defense bonus against mounted units (and if you read back into history, spear and pike-wielding infantry were some of the oldest ground troops fielded in Mesopotamia and Egypt, the world certainly didn't have to wait until Medieval "Feudalism" in order to have soldiers with big sticks...) To make up for this early defensive bonus Chariots are 4/1/2 and elephants 5/1/2, although Elephants are more expensive than before too because of the extra attack. There's also Swordsmen for affordable 2-defense with an added kick to boot, among others.

Getting back to the point though, Phalanx are now a 2/3/1 and 50 shields, a heavy defense infantry with a little bit of a sting to bite back, but you'd be stupid to ever attack with them unless an enemy unit was in the red or it was just a given win against a helpless diplomat or something. Yes, that's right, a 3-defense unit in ancient times (still only 1 HP though). So you could buy one phalanx, and yes the 3 defense is great, but at what cost: you can build 5 Pikemen for 2 Phalanx! But its your choice, because a more expensive elite defense unit may just be worth more than its cost in a decisive battle where that pricey 3-defense makes the day...

Then there is the Legionnaire, also with Tempered Metals, which is now a mighty 5/2/1, in order to better counteract its brother-in-arms the Phalanx, but it costs 60 shields. You could have 2 Swordsmen for 1 Legion, but then would the 3 attack be strong enough, even with 2 such units? On the other hand, you could have the Legion's deadly 5 attack, but at a great cost, do you really need all that strength in one unit which is still just as vulnerable with a 2 defense? The choice is yours, and both have their merit and function, but at least now you have a choice between an ordinary military and an elite one. The same is true for practically all the ages, especially modern. As for a 4-attack ancient unit, now that the old 'Legion' is no longer one of them, the archer is now a 4/1/1 at 30 shields (but sees two spaces, as a 'scout', and ignores city walls to make up for its lack of defense), the new elite Skirmisher is 4/3/1, 70 shields (amphibious, comes with Feudalism), and the Chariot too attacks with 4 as does the Knight, so all ranges of unit cost/ performance are accounted for and available.

Hell, even the lowly warrior, now at 2/1/1 and still only 10 shields might have a better role to play, maybe as a mass diversionary force that still cannot be ignored completely as a laughingstock like they were in the regular version (believe me from playing, you get enough 2-attack warriors together in one place, they do damage, and you can't argue with the price...)

That was a detailed explanation, but basically, more like in reality, units and battle in 2.5 are based on need, performance, situation, cost and implementation, rather than anything resembling a simple Ro-Sham-Bo system. Of course certain units are still weak to others and vice versa, but if that basic observation is to define the whole battle system, then it could also be argued that real life militaries operate on a Rock/ Paper/ Scissors basis because real units like Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Nimitz Class Carriers are weak to other units and vice versa (Bradleys to Main Battle Tanks and Carriers to submarines and anti-ship missiles) but of course we know it's not that simple. In the modern era of Civ 2.5, the price range and performance spectrum, as well the availability of extra units with additional previously lacking functions is even broader and more filled out than in the ancient era.

(CONTINUED ON NEXT POST)

 

[Civ 2.5]

"However, suppose we modified paper/rock/scissors so that it was played outside in a circle and designated three safe zones paper, rock, and scissors respectively. After a player wins he or she must then tag the player before he goes to his specific safe zone. Now the game is much more interesting because the players have to consider their respective distance to each safe zone when they choose paper/rock/scissors.
By getting rid of ZOC and adding more units you are removing a meaningful choice with a meaningless one. In my opinion there are two reasons to remove ZOC, one is that it is confusing for new players and the other is that it can confuse AI. As a group of CivFanatics playing MP neither of these applies."

Ahh ZOC. Unfortunately for our good friend ZOC, I think Civ 3 did the right thing by doing away with it, and I'm glad the editor of Civ 2 allows it to be retracted completely. Yes, you are right in some ways, there is a certain charm and value to having units forcibly respect each other's zones and front lines, and I will talk about the concept of ZOC in a minute. But first just to set the stage let me bring up an obvious examples of what's wrong with it...

Let's say my army is trying to get past a bottleneck of land exactly 3 squares wide from coast to opposite coast. However, there is a settler/ caravan/ explorer (doesn't matter which) of a nation I'm at peace with (on the way to my enemy's territory) standing in the middle square of those 3, in the middle of the bottleneck. There is still 1 open square on either side of that unit, and mind you, whether it's a settler or a caravan, they have absolutely 0 ability to project their power or movement to stop a herd of buffalo moving past them or around them, let alone a massive maneuvering army armed to the teeth with arms and manpower. And also mind you, each square, at least on a 'Large' map, is roughly the equivalent of a square on the map of Earth 100x100 miles in its dimensions, or 10,000 square miles in area! So you're telling me that in a bottleneck of land roughly 300 miles across (approximately the width of a tiny island called... Madagascar), that a few thousand settlers or caravan or whomever positioned anywhere along that line would effectively be able to stop my movement, via some sort of invisible projection of force past which my men simply could not move across??

Now, of course a Civ map isn't a real map of the Earth, in fact it's really just an oversized chessboard with different terrain types, so thinking about it in overly realistic terms helps more than it hurts any effort to truly understand Civ and come to terms with its gameplay elements, I admit. But the question is still a valid one: should you really be able control an entire massive mountain range or city radius with just one or two units, each representing just several thousand soldiers at most, by means of some highly assumptive area-of-control, or mobile-interception mechanic that forces all enemy units in all squares all around to either have to gravitate toward your units' exact positions and destroy them or else be hindered from all movement, sometimes literally frozen in place despite having an ample amount of open squares in almost all directions except a couple? ZOC means well, and it's not all bad, but ultimately it's flawed, it hurts more than it helps, and it needs to go.

I too used to think that ZOC enhanced tactical gameplay by forcing armies to have to engage instead of 'cheaply' skirting around one another and exploiting open pockets in between enemy lines, but gradually as I played more MP, including some variants made by players in our group experimentally which took out ZOC altogether, I began to see that the opposite was true: that ZOC actually limited and hampered true and more realistic unit maneuvering, and that without it a much finer and more intuitive system of battle took place.

Without ZOC, an enemy unit can slip right through your ranks, this is true, but ask yourself, to what avail? If an enemy Knight slips in between two of your Pikemen (since they form a strong front line for your army but they can't protect every single square, after all) to try and take out an exposed Legionnaire sitting behind them, and it succeeds, what then? Well the Pikemen were never confronted, they are still there, so your front line is still intact, meaning that lonesome Knight was brave, but stupid. He's now alone, behind enemy lines, and next turn he's dead. A Knight (50 shields in 2.5) for a Legionnaire (60 shields)? It's just about an even trade. Sure, the tradeoff might not always be so even, but the point is, no matter how you slice it, there is no significant unfair advantage any player can take by moving into unoccupied squares, even if they seem to temporarily cause havoc, because you have the same exact physical ability on your turn, not only in dealing with any rash intruders or slick sideskirters but also to harass the enemy's open flanks and 'tooth gaps' just as they did to you. Tactical supremacy then comes into much greater play because invariably the player with the greater situational awareness and unit positioning will rule the battlefield and win the day, as they should. Without ZOC's, just like movement in Civ 3, the battlefield becomes much livelier and more dynamic (even though battle itself is grotesquely boring and simplistic in Civ 3 due to its infamous 'Stacks of Doom'), and unit placement and maneuvering becomes so much more crucial since every road, hillock and otherwise empty square becomes a potential tactical linchpin seized upon either to your glory or your demise.

With regular-style ZOC play in effect, however, all each player has to do is move a couple units forward, the other player is forced to attack them without considering much in the way of movement, and vice versa, attrition warfare ad-nauseum. It's a constant homogenizing stalemate kind of battle system where terrain and tactical cleverness play a much diminished role. Another way to think about it is in terms of territory control. Because each Civ square in theory denotes such a vast swath of land, when you move a few units as a group side by side together as though they were an army formation, you can't think of them being in the same place. What you're actually doing is advancing a massive, continental-sized front line one way or another by moving units in unison. And naturally, as in real warfare, whenever you leave a large piece of territory amidst your land holdings unmanned and undefended, there is nothing stopping the enemy from walking right in and occupying it themselves.

The problem with ZOC is therefore a bottom-up, theoretical one: it assumes that your units together compose a sort of tight-knit localized army formation, like Alexander the Great's Greek Phalanx lined up in formation ready to take on Xerxes across a river plains, or Patton's Third Army Shermans all rumbling along down a French valley to fire on a German Panzer division in a neat and small-scale battle. This simply isn't so. Remember that Civ is almost purely a conceptual game, and that all the tiles, units and actions are mere stand-ins for the real life 'concepts' of what's actually supposed to be physically happening. And when you have several units 'marching' down the map together, they do not represent a military formation all grouped together locally under one Field Marshall, but rather they symbolize you systematically moving an entire front, literally extending a boundary hundreds if not thousands of miles long, along the map, with your very units standing in as the slowly moving border fence itself. In such a conception, ZOC quickly becomes obsoleted as ridiculous and unnecessary.

"It is curious that you chose six specific wonders to tweak or remove, may I ask which ones and why?"

I only removed those with unreasonably magical effects, as listed below:

Lighthouse: It allows its owner's triremes to never sink, and all its other ships to move one square 'faster' than anyone else's so long as it's in effect, anywhere in the world. Flagrant application of wonky magic.

Great Library: It allows its owners, for practically the entire game until Electricity is discovered in modern times, to freely and effortlessly receive everyone else's techs, absolutely magically. A flying elfling brings you Banking at night. A gnome pops out from your rosebush the next morning to hand you Gunpowder. And the tooth fairy leaves you Railroad under your pillow. All in a day's hard work. This is by far the most coveted ancient wonder in regular Civ 2, probably because its the most asinine ludicrous, since the player that gets it is guaranteed a free ride for the whole game. He can turn his science totally down, rake in the gold, forget about building libraries, and just cruuuuuise....

Great Wall: If I could choose to take out the very blatantly magical Great Wall wonder that instantly grants its owner an insta-wall in every city he owns, in every continent, automatically... as opposed to every player in the game who wants a wall having to build it himself, then yes, I think that would be a big step toward making the game 'more realistic'.

Marco Polo's Embassy: Free automatic contact, and embassy even with nations totally in the dark part of your map across possibly an ocean that nobody will travel across for another thousand years. Why even venture out and explore your neighbors, not like this is a game of Civilization or anything. Stay home, microwave some dinner, put on some Sportscenter, and build Marco Polo.

Magellan's Expedition: It allows it's owner's ships to move TWO squares faster than anyone else's, so long as he owns it, and there's no technology anyone can study or nothing they can do short of capturing Magellan's host city, they're just stuck being slower, 'cuz Magellan said so. More flagrant application of wonky magic.

Leonardo's Workshop: So long as the wonder is in effect, which is quite a while, all units in a player's possession automatically get upgraded to the latest technological equivalent. If there was ever an easier way to manipulate a game, I can't think of it. One time just to see how far I could go with it, I started a random game against the AI, expanded early to get about 15 cities or so, then after a couple basic improvements like temples and garrisons started to build nothing but warriors, meanwhile gunning for Invention so I could build the Workshop. Right after I got Gunpowder a short while later, I instantly had about 130 musketeers, ready to take over the world in one fell swoop. Plus it's all the more skewed because there's no ordinary method to upgrade for all other players, short of disbanding units inside cities.

Statue of Liberty: Build a statue, and transform your entire culture overnight into any government you want, even currently non-existent ones not due to arrive for another couple hundred years! I wonder if people pray to that same statue for rain during a drought... it might be able to help them.

Darwin's Voyage: Be the first one to reach railroad and pump a few caravans into this wonder, and you automatically get two free techs, such as (by that point) Industrialization and Electricity, in one free grab. Plus it just doesn't make sense. It's like, for example, how would you 'build' Einstein's Theory of Relativity? You can't. Einstein was born, he thought, he realized, he theorized, and the gifts he gave us and the world of physics are not the focused undertaking of anyone except Einstein. Nobody else had anything to do with it. Same goes for Darwin.

Hoover Dam: Automatically "provides hydro power to every city on every continent". Civ 2 designers were so subtle. The real Hoover Dam, by the way, provides power for only part of just 3 US states, or about 1.3 million people. Nice try Civ 2.

United Nations: The forcible, automatic peace treaties with anyone you're at war with is just too obscene and obnoxious of a power to have, I'm sorry. Everyone always complained about this one as being pretty cheap, and I have to agree. I almost left it in, and it's not so heinous as the others, but then I realized the tiny sliver of extra political intrigue it can bring to the table doesn't make up for how annoying and unrealistic it operates in-game.

I guess that's more than six, more like 10, I guess I underestimated. Trust me, the game runs much cleaner without those, and all the other wonders are just fine. Also, in Civ 2.5 no wonders go obsolete, and because none of the remaining ones are overpowered, that has a positive effect too. It makes wonders more important strategic points since those cities are valuable eternally, their wonders never expire. If the absurd or magical wonders were still in the game that might present obvious imbalance problems, but as it stands it works out really well that way.

"Please do not say realism because it is hard to see where realism fits into a fictional game other than as an artistic element and most people seemed happy with the general feel of the game."

As for realism, if you were keen to note while reading thus far, I inserted the word 'realism' and 'realistic' all throughout, and I did that partly to make points I was going to make anyway, and partly because obviously I had read your entire letter before attempting to form a reply, and I just thought the best way to respond to this was by inserting the case for realism in every other field of discussion. The only point I can make about realism other than those many sporadic insertions embedded in the above text is that realism is not a ON/ OFF switch, a simple decision that either something IS realistic or it is NOT. It is a greyscale, with an infinite number of degrees of realism falling all long the spectrum. I personally think, given the tools the editor allows, and short of developing and programming another game from scratch, it is definitely more desirable to make the game 'more realistic' even if, as you say and I agree, the game is altogether highly fictional and conceptual and not very realistic at all.

As far as most people seeming happy with the general feel of the game, maybe some people are, but I can also just as truthfully say that most people also have a lot of requests and wishes for things that aren't in the regular game along with complaints about flaws and shortcomings. And those two groups of people can also be one and the same. After all, I myself am pretty happy with the 'general feel of the game', otherwise I would never have been playing Civ this long. But to speak on 'general' terms is to offer a very loose and broad definition, and even though I'm a Civ addict for life I ended up redesigning Civ 2 as far as the editor would possibly allow me, because while I do love it, I also saw tons of room for improvement.

I hope the exhaustive text above has answered all your questions/ concerns. You can continue to write me, but I don't think I will be able to provide as detailed counter-arguments in future letters, since the reason I gave such a detailed account this time around was so that I could post this exchange, if you don't mind, without revealing your name or any private contact info of course, (you'll remain totally anonymous), on some of the Civ 2.5 MP posts I have up in several different sites. Considering how generously I responded to your relatively brief inquiry I should think this to only be fair, no... Plus I think this will help other Civ players to understand not only Civ 2.5 better but Civilization game design as a whole.

Thank you for writing, really. Even though we disagree on several points, I definitely appreciate someone who cares enough to write to debate all of these finer issues that most people don't give a second thought to. I hope to hear from you again. I hope maybe I have won you over to my way of thinking on at least a couple of the above points, or at least managed to persuade you to take another closer look at Civ 2.5 before judging it again. In any case, I highly recommend that you join our group and try it for yourself, I think you may just be very pleasantly surprised with the experience once you try it.

Enjoy the game in single-player just to get used to the basic changes, but I must say, I will be disappointed if one so scrutinizing as yourself chooses not to play with us...

- Dan

 

[Tabarnak]

I used to play civ2 for a very long time 10 years ago. With all these changes it's almost a brand new game you offer. I'm not going to play this game again, but i read this with interest since it's one of the versions i played the most in my life. Good luck to you in the future!

 

[Civ 2.5]

@Tabarnak

Civ is like chess, it's an eternal game, you can't just 'not' play, its inconceivable! lol

Seriously though, if this kind of stuff still interests you and you like Civ, you should give Multiplayer in our group (already about 8 people) a try. I think it might be the one thing that you haven't played too much of (most people haven't). Let me know, and thanks