PTW: The downfall of Civilization
- Thread starter Nicosar
- Start date
Trev
Prince
Civilization 2 is the best game i have ever played, although i have not played many games as i have enjoyed civ2 so much that i have felt little need to purchase other games
An update to substantially improve civ2 was impossible so the designers have with civ3 created a new game, not an update, a wise choice.
as a new game it appeals to a different personality than does civ2, i enjoy both, but prefer civ2 as civ3 is unbalanced as a game in some ways
To win at higher levels, the science rate must be set at zero and all science purchased, this is not realistic and an absolutely absurd winning strategy. Learning technology for yourself should be an integral part of this type of game genre and while purchasing technology is acceptable, it should NEVER be the dominant winning strategy in a game
The comments on stack building are misplaced, as this strategy has always been used in civ2 as well as civ3, all it takes is 2 engineers to build an instant fortress in civ2, engineers which by ignoring zoc's could provide routes for entire stacks of armies to move up to and conquer enemy cities, placed for security in instantly built fortresses
Too much complexity and realism in a game is damaging from the point of view of enjoying a game, many of nicosar's ideas add to the complexity of the game and some of his ideas to create realism in the game, although all good on their own, will damage the game experience and reduce game enjoyment. The current level of realism and complexity in civ2 and civ3 is about right for maximum enjoyment
Bugs in a game are disappointing and therfore i never purchase games on day of release but instead wait for some time, therefore do not yet own PTW, will probably purchase it in mid December (hopefully shipped copies by then will include all the patches), i will buy it despite some faults in it as i do enjoy the challenge of human opponents much more than playing against a computer
Goodbye for now, may add more opinions at some other time
An update to substantially improve civ2 was impossible so the designers have with civ3 created a new game, not an update, a wise choice.
as a new game it appeals to a different personality than does civ2, i enjoy both, but prefer civ2 as civ3 is unbalanced as a game in some ways
To win at higher levels, the science rate must be set at zero and all science purchased, this is not realistic and an absolutely absurd winning strategy. Learning technology for yourself should be an integral part of this type of game genre and while purchasing technology is acceptable, it should NEVER be the dominant winning strategy in a game
The comments on stack building are misplaced, as this strategy has always been used in civ2 as well as civ3, all it takes is 2 engineers to build an instant fortress in civ2, engineers which by ignoring zoc's could provide routes for entire stacks of armies to move up to and conquer enemy cities, placed for security in instantly built fortresses
Too much complexity and realism in a game is damaging from the point of view of enjoying a game, many of nicosar's ideas add to the complexity of the game and some of his ideas to create realism in the game, although all good on their own, will damage the game experience and reduce game enjoyment. The current level of realism and complexity in civ2 and civ3 is about right for maximum enjoyment
Bugs in a game are disappointing and therfore i never purchase games on day of release but instead wait for some time, therefore do not yet own PTW, will probably purchase it in mid December (hopefully shipped copies by then will include all the patches), i will buy it despite some faults in it as i do enjoy the challenge of human opponents much more than playing against a computer
Goodbye for now, may add more opinions at some other time
Park Ranger
Wonder hog
I beg to differ. I've been playing all emperor level games lately, and on turn one I turn the science slider up to 80-90%, and keep it above 60% for almost the whole game. I've won 2 out of six games this way, which I think is a pretty good share. Hopefully by Monday this will be 3 for 7!
Park Ranger
Wonder hog
Nicosar your point about the realism that ZOC offers is well taken: it does not make sense that enemy forces should be able to just skirt around and pillage improvements...
Or does it? Consider the area a tile is supposed to represent; I believe on most maps it would be hundreds or even thousands of square km. You COULD say that having a unit occupy a tile represents the maximum range a unit can defend, i.e. the "zone of control" is entirely within the single tile. In the ancient era you have to maintain a unit for 50 years (turn duration) in one tile to effectively secure control, by the modern era technology allows your units to cover this area in one year. Plus remember in civ3 on home turf you do have the movement advantage, though I know it doesn't seem like this when Cavalry or the Rider can penetrate deep into your territory before you can respond. I don't have PTW yet, but the turnless mode intrigues me because it should alter this aspect of warfare.
I'll admit that if you accept this interpretation of the game then you are opting for an interpretation that is more simplistic. But that's what I was saying in my first post: civ3 IS tactically simplistic, at least in comparison to what you envision (which I think would make a great game, btw, just not necessarily for civ3).
Similarly, if you argue realism for ZOC, how do you justify stack vulnerability? I'm not trying to be smug here - if you can come up with a rationalization I will consider it seriously.
Oh and one other thing about ZOC's: if a unit can prevent flanking moves with ZOC, should they still get the terrain bonus on defense? I mean either they're holed up in the mountains and impossible to kill or they're out and about preventing flanking manoevers, yet more vulnerable. Also, what if I simultaneously send horse galloping past either side of a ZOC? shouldn't that make it more difficult to prevent movement, at least requiring another defensive unit exerting ZOC's? Civ3 makes an attempt at this with horse units taking HP off slower units, though I admit the effect does not seem to carry the weight it should.
In any case, I'm sure its possible to work out some rules for a combat system that is way more realistic. The trick is to do this without over-complicating things. In comparing civ2 and civ3, I find civ3 has added some welcome realism (bombardment, retreat rules, etc) without adding tons of rules for the player to remember. I'd even go so far as to say you could set the defensive values of terrrain to vary according to the type of unit (I'm thinking that pikemen should fare better than knights in defending a mountain, or infantry better than mech inf in the jungle.) But I never liked ZOC's - it does not give players more strategic options, rather the opposite. And when you add in the old firepower rating system in civ2 you end up with basically invulnerable positions in the civs with the best defensive units. Personally, I LIKE civ3 for giving us the fear of hordes of inferior units rampaging around your defensive positions. You either have to build a solid wall of units, OR well-placed fortifications with enough horse and bombarment capabilities.
Last minute thought: what if units exerted a ZOC until they were directly attacked? Once engaged, other units could slip by, unless there was another defender to force a direct attack...
just a thought
Or does it? Consider the area a tile is supposed to represent; I believe on most maps it would be hundreds or even thousands of square km. You COULD say that having a unit occupy a tile represents the maximum range a unit can defend, i.e. the "zone of control" is entirely within the single tile. In the ancient era you have to maintain a unit for 50 years (turn duration) in one tile to effectively secure control, by the modern era technology allows your units to cover this area in one year. Plus remember in civ3 on home turf you do have the movement advantage, though I know it doesn't seem like this when Cavalry or the Rider can penetrate deep into your territory before you can respond. I don't have PTW yet, but the turnless mode intrigues me because it should alter this aspect of warfare.
I'll admit that if you accept this interpretation of the game then you are opting for an interpretation that is more simplistic. But that's what I was saying in my first post: civ3 IS tactically simplistic, at least in comparison to what you envision (which I think would make a great game, btw, just not necessarily for civ3).
Similarly, if you argue realism for ZOC, how do you justify stack vulnerability? I'm not trying to be smug here - if you can come up with a rationalization I will consider it seriously.
Oh and one other thing about ZOC's: if a unit can prevent flanking moves with ZOC, should they still get the terrain bonus on defense? I mean either they're holed up in the mountains and impossible to kill or they're out and about preventing flanking manoevers, yet more vulnerable. Also, what if I simultaneously send horse galloping past either side of a ZOC? shouldn't that make it more difficult to prevent movement, at least requiring another defensive unit exerting ZOC's? Civ3 makes an attempt at this with horse units taking HP off slower units, though I admit the effect does not seem to carry the weight it should.
In any case, I'm sure its possible to work out some rules for a combat system that is way more realistic. The trick is to do this without over-complicating things. In comparing civ2 and civ3, I find civ3 has added some welcome realism (bombardment, retreat rules, etc) without adding tons of rules for the player to remember. I'd even go so far as to say you could set the defensive values of terrrain to vary according to the type of unit (I'm thinking that pikemen should fare better than knights in defending a mountain, or infantry better than mech inf in the jungle.) But I never liked ZOC's - it does not give players more strategic options, rather the opposite. And when you add in the old firepower rating system in civ2 you end up with basically invulnerable positions in the civs with the best defensive units. Personally, I LIKE civ3 for giving us the fear of hordes of inferior units rampaging around your defensive positions. You either have to build a solid wall of units, OR well-placed fortifications with enough horse and bombarment capabilities.
Last minute thought: what if units exerted a ZOC until they were directly attacked? Once engaged, other units could slip by, unless there was another defender to force a direct attack...
just a thought
Trev
Prince
I haven't long owned civ3 and my statement about the necessity of needing a zero science rate and purchasing techs at higher levels was based on information i had read on other threads, as i struggle to win even at regent level in civ3 despite being able to win in excess of 95% of games on deity in civ2. I will accept the Rangers comment on being able to win with a high science rate and therefore withdraw my statement on the necessity of zero science rate. I just wish I knew how he does it!
Everyone,
First let us all take a step back and breath deeply. Nicosar is no debating genius. In fact, he is committing one of the most basic logical fallacies - the straw man. The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.
On multiple occasions, Nicosar makes the claim that Civ3 is not realistic. This is true. But this has nothing to do with the intent of Civ3. It is a straw man. Since the beginning of Sid Myer's career as a game designer, the goal has never been realism...it has been playability and fun. Realism does not equal playability.
Justifiable arguments against the game would be that it is broken ("the first to get The Great Library always wins") or fun (obviously not an objective fact). Saying the game is no good because it is not realistic is akin to saying the game is no good because it is overpriced. Both claims (realism and cost) may be true, but they have nothing to do with the debate.
Like it or not, Sid set the grounds of the debate with Civ1. While Nicosar makes an intersting case that a more realistic game would be more enjoyable, some may not agree. I happen to think a more realistic version of Chess would not really be all that great relative to the original game (I can hear it now: "A queen cannot kill a knight or destroy an entire castle on her own. That's total BS!").
That said, make your new game/mod/whatever. Maybe it will be more fun. I'm sure no one on these forums or the market in general would pooh pooh a game that was more fun that Civ3. I certainly wouldn't.
First let us all take a step back and breath deeply. Nicosar is no debating genius. In fact, he is committing one of the most basic logical fallacies - the straw man. The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.
On multiple occasions, Nicosar makes the claim that Civ3 is not realistic. This is true. But this has nothing to do with the intent of Civ3. It is a straw man. Since the beginning of Sid Myer's career as a game designer, the goal has never been realism...it has been playability and fun. Realism does not equal playability.
Justifiable arguments against the game would be that it is broken ("the first to get The Great Library always wins") or fun (obviously not an objective fact). Saying the game is no good because it is not realistic is akin to saying the game is no good because it is overpriced. Both claims (realism and cost) may be true, but they have nothing to do with the debate.
Like it or not, Sid set the grounds of the debate with Civ1. While Nicosar makes an intersting case that a more realistic game would be more enjoyable, some may not agree. I happen to think a more realistic version of Chess would not really be all that great relative to the original game (I can hear it now: "A queen cannot kill a knight or destroy an entire castle on her own. That's total BS!").
That said, make your new game/mod/whatever. Maybe it will be more fun. I'm sure no one on these forums or the market in general would pooh pooh a game that was more fun that Civ3. I certainly wouldn't.
sumthinelse
civ investigator
Originally posted by Park Ranger
I beg to differ. I've been playing all emperor level games lately, and on turn one I turn the science slider up to 80-90%, and keep it above 60% for almost the whole game. I've won 2 out of six games this way, which I think is a pretty good share. Hopefully by Monday this will be 3 for 7!
In civ3 there are several victory conditions. For example, a weaker civ could win a diplomatic victory even though it was losing in every other way. Rather than asking whether you can win on emperor/diety (obviously it is very possible), a better question would be whether it makes sense to do your own research. In other words, which way gets you more growth, strength, and science in the long run? I think you can win either way.
If the AI civs can make contact with each other early in the game(under some conditions they can't do that for a long time), in my games, when they can make contact with each other, they seem to always get get a tech lead in the first part of the game, even when I do everything possible to promote research. Later in the game, I can get a tech lead when I have enough citizens to produce enough gold. Other very skillful players report the same thing (Sulla, Qitai for example). This aspect of the game design seems wrong to me, and for that reason new civ3 players criticize it practically every day on this forum after they discover it.
Park Ranger
Wonder hog
This is true! I forgot to mention that I also trade a heck of a lot, deliberately pursue more advanced tech/alternate paths to have something the AI wants, and I rely on non-research methods to help keep up with AI (be first to find new continent, build Great Library and Theory of Evolution, extort tech or trade tech for peace).
Research alone is NOT enough for a tech lead on emperor, I'm finding, and I am rarely more than 1-2 techs ahead, this usually only when the tree bottlenecks to 1-2 paths, and never until late middle ages or later. And I do pull the science slider down when a new tech is a turn or two away and see how much cash I can get without postponing the tech. I also trade anything I can for gpt, and try to keep luxuries at 0-10%.
Ayatollah So
the spoof'll set you free
Other things being equal, realism IS fun. Or to put it the other way around, when the "willing suspension of disbelief" becomes a monumental effort, it's not fun. When Civ3 rules force us to take a counterintuitive, unnatural approach to combat, for example, it's not fun. Sometimes additional realism comes at a high price in micromanagement -- I suspect that a game designed by Nicosar would kill my appetite for realism -- but it need not. This forum has seen many suggestions that would significantly improve realism at little cost, and that is exactly what irritates us Civ3 critics. (Where oh where did Zouave go, anyway?)
Some obvious improvement possibilities:
-make terrain X unit type interactions for defense bonuses,
as Park Ranger suggests above.
-ditto for movement costs
-more unit types (leg, horse, artillery, motorized), editable in
the Editor
-more unit type X unit type interactions (as in Civ2: some units
are doubled in defence vs air, etc.)
I could go on (and on and on ... trust me) but lunch ends soon and I haven't had my vitamin F yet. (F=fat, i.e. dessert) And that's just unit abilities. Don't get me started about diplomacy, or trade.
Some obvious improvement possibilities:
-make terrain X unit type interactions for defense bonuses,
as Park Ranger suggests above.
-ditto for movement costs
-more unit types (leg, horse, artillery, motorized), editable in
the Editor
-more unit type X unit type interactions (as in Civ2: some units
are doubled in defence vs air, etc.)
I could go on (and on and on ... trust me) but lunch ends soon and I haven't had my vitamin F yet. (F=fat, i.e. dessert) And that's just unit abilities. Don't get me started about diplomacy, or trade.
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
civ3 panders to the masses. it has been oversimplified to make it more acessable, and this is what frustrates me. the bugs released are unforgivable. i work in software (as i'm sure others here do as well), and there is only one reason for releaseing such a shabby product...
...MONEY
ptw is not released in the uk yet, but i will be buying it as it will make single player more enjoyable. i bought civ3 without a second thought.
these are _not_ mutually exclusive views as it is valid to find something woefully inadequate, and yet it can also still the best option available. just look at politicians
i agree with nicosar on nearly all his gameplay-related views. it's a shame that he enjoys baiting so much.
good luck in getting funding to do your game - we need more inspirational people and ideas to stop everything becoming too stagnant
having said that, there is a correlation between making civ3 way to simple, and the average age of the consumer. it is a shame that a truely complex (and more realistic) game is so unlikely to happen in the future as all the kids won't buy it. i'm sorry if this upsets some of the younger people here, please understand that this is a generalisation, not a comment about all young people...
...MONEY
ptw is not released in the uk yet, but i will be buying it as it will make single player more enjoyable. i bought civ3 without a second thought.
these are _not_ mutually exclusive views as it is valid to find something woefully inadequate, and yet it can also still the best option available. just look at politicians
i agree with nicosar on nearly all his gameplay-related views. it's a shame that he enjoys baiting so much.
good luck in getting funding to do your game - we need more inspirational people and ideas to stop everything becoming too stagnant having said that, there is a correlation between making civ3 way to simple, and the average age of the consumer. it is a shame that a truely complex (and more realistic) game is so unlikely to happen in the future as all the kids won't buy it. i'm sorry if this upsets some of the younger people here, please understand that this is a generalisation, not a comment about all young people...
/* civ3 panders to the masses. it has been oversimplified to make it more acessable, and this is what frustrates me
*/
Right on. However, I don't share your pessimism about complex games. In fact, if you look at the evolution of games over the last 10-12 years, there's a steady increase in complexity and realism (in general anyway).
Nicosar, I actually agree with most of the changes you propose (and I don't have the time or energy to argue with the other ones). However, I'd like to say this:
"dreaming is easy but doing is hard"
I've seen so many people in my life with great ideas (including me). I've also seen many people with good (or even excellent) debating skills but the fact of the matter is: there's a hell of a difference between dreaming of a good, realistic and FUN game and actually making and coding (a stable bug free) one.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to discourage you (on the contrary!). Quite frankly, if you ever make the game you dream about, I'd probably buy it. But the real hard part is getting a company to make it. Wether that company is your own or not, if the game is more fun than Civ3, you're sure to become rich. That's the difference between you and Sid.
*/
Right on. However, I don't share your pessimism about complex games. In fact, if you look at the evolution of games over the last 10-12 years, there's a steady increase in complexity and realism (in general anyway).
Nicosar, I actually agree with most of the changes you propose (and I don't have the time or energy to argue with the other ones). However, I'd like to say this:
"dreaming is easy but doing is hard"
I've seen so many people in my life with great ideas (including me). I've also seen many people with good (or even excellent) debating skills but the fact of the matter is: there's a hell of a difference between dreaming of a good, realistic and FUN game and actually making and coding (a stable bug free) one.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to discourage you (on the contrary!). Quite frankly, if you ever make the game you dream about, I'd probably buy it. But the real hard part is getting a company to make it. Wether that company is your own or not, if the game is more fun than Civ3, you're sure to become rich. That's the difference between you and Sid.
It seems as if I've come into this "debate" way too late. I read through (pretty much) all of the posts here, and I've come to the conclusion that Nicosar is nothing more than a little boy who has learned some big words and catchy phrases.
Had I been here since the start of this thread, I could have pointed out countless flaw in every "argument" you have made Nicosar. I tried to make a mental list of the many, many, many, many, many (etc.) flaws in your posts, but after only your third post, there were just too many to remember. I could, of course, go through all your posts again and write down everything, but then by the time I got done with this post, it would be pages long, and I don't have the time or inclination to do something like that anyways, so I'll just focus on what I (emphasis on the I) think has been the main focus of this thread (whether you intended it to be or not).
You seem to think that you are the first person ever to have control over such a large and intelligent vocabulary, and that you have better ideas, more knowledge, and more determination than anyone, because you WOULD need all of these things to do what you seem to think you can do. In reality you are nothing. I've been on many different forums for many different games, and I have seen people who would tear your arguments and fancy phrases to pieces without even thinking about it. I have also seen people who have had ideas so astonishingly brilliant that I would bow down to them if I ever met them in real life. But you know what? These people are nothing either. All of you are the same, all of you think you are the first person ever to feel like this, or have ideas like these. Some of you may move on to become programmers, and you will still have all these brilliant ideas and what not, but thats when you realize that you cant do anything about it. Do you honestly think that between the thousands of computer game programmers, they havent collectively come up with anything you could possibly think of and more? Do you really think that Sid Meier, or anyone else thats made a game for that matter, has never dreamed of making games like the one you described at the start of your thread? I guarantee you almost all of them were just like you, they all had their grand ideas of making this badass game where everything came together in perfect harmony and everything worked out just fine. Thats all they ever became though, ideas and dreams. Technology doesnt allow something like you have described, nor does human nature. There will always be powergamers out there who's life goal is to exploit games, and learn how to use the system to their own advantage. They will exploit every loophole they can find, and maybe if you havent played any REAL online games (mmorpgs like Ultima Online, Everquest, DAoC, and many more) then you dont realize this. Quicker than you can blink an eye people will have found every possible way to exploit your system, no matter how well designed it may be. I realize that this was quite scattered, but with your intelligence level I'm sure you can pick through it with relative ease.
Now all of this is assuming you have solved some previous problems in advance. You make it sound like you think it was a unanimous decision by all the programmers to push out this unfinished product, and that none of them minded as long as they make some money. This of course, is another indication of your naievette (I have no idea how to spell that word, but I know it exists, lol... just look through your massive vocabulary, I'm sure you'll find it in there somewhere). As I said earlier, all, or at least most, of those programmers, were exactly like you when they were younger. They are all just as dissapointed, or possibly even more dissapointed at what they had to do. And now they are suffering for it, but lets not forget that it wasn't their decision in the first place was it? It was the decision of the company, and they did their best to put as much **** in and make it as bug free as possible, in the amount of time that they were given. It's not as simple as it sounds, even the company didn't have complete control over when they could put it out. They have to think of the fans who arent going to like waiting for years upon years for just an expansion pack, and then theres the fact that if they take too much time making something completely bug free, new technology will have come out and then by the time their product is out on the markets its out-dated, and they can do nothing about it, because updating it would take more time, and more money, and then they are losing money because they have been spending years on a single game and havent made a dime from it, or their fans have all deserted them for the newer games.
I have much more to say, but there is no point in saying it, and I have better things to do anyways.
In short (since the above paragraphs are very scrambled and probably nobody except our good friend, the genius Nicosar, has the wit to understand them) you are living in a fantasy world, where no problems or limitations arise to cause you problems. You are nothing special, there are thousands out there like you, all of you with good intentions, but none of you with the ability, resources, or support to carry them out. You need to get a grip on reality man. The programmers did their best, as I'm sure you will if you ever get the chance, but until then stop criticizing them, because you have no idea what they are doing, or the pressures they are under.
I've left out a lot of stuff I would like to have said, but it took me almost a whole hour to write this because, unlike Nicosar, I don't type very fast, and I'm trying to do several other things at the same time.
Had I been here since the start of this thread, I could have pointed out countless flaw in every "argument" you have made Nicosar. I tried to make a mental list of the many, many, many, many, many (etc.) flaws in your posts, but after only your third post, there were just too many to remember. I could, of course, go through all your posts again and write down everything, but then by the time I got done with this post, it would be pages long, and I don't have the time or inclination to do something like that anyways, so I'll just focus on what I (emphasis on the I) think has been the main focus of this thread (whether you intended it to be or not).
You seem to think that you are the first person ever to have control over such a large and intelligent vocabulary, and that you have better ideas, more knowledge, and more determination than anyone, because you WOULD need all of these things to do what you seem to think you can do. In reality you are nothing. I've been on many different forums for many different games, and I have seen people who would tear your arguments and fancy phrases to pieces without even thinking about it. I have also seen people who have had ideas so astonishingly brilliant that I would bow down to them if I ever met them in real life. But you know what? These people are nothing either. All of you are the same, all of you think you are the first person ever to feel like this, or have ideas like these. Some of you may move on to become programmers, and you will still have all these brilliant ideas and what not, but thats when you realize that you cant do anything about it. Do you honestly think that between the thousands of computer game programmers, they havent collectively come up with anything you could possibly think of and more? Do you really think that Sid Meier, or anyone else thats made a game for that matter, has never dreamed of making games like the one you described at the start of your thread? I guarantee you almost all of them were just like you, they all had their grand ideas of making this badass game where everything came together in perfect harmony and everything worked out just fine. Thats all they ever became though, ideas and dreams. Technology doesnt allow something like you have described, nor does human nature. There will always be powergamers out there who's life goal is to exploit games, and learn how to use the system to their own advantage. They will exploit every loophole they can find, and maybe if you havent played any REAL online games (mmorpgs like Ultima Online, Everquest, DAoC, and many more) then you dont realize this. Quicker than you can blink an eye people will have found every possible way to exploit your system, no matter how well designed it may be. I realize that this was quite scattered, but with your intelligence level I'm sure you can pick through it with relative ease.
Now all of this is assuming you have solved some previous problems in advance. You make it sound like you think it was a unanimous decision by all the programmers to push out this unfinished product, and that none of them minded as long as they make some money. This of course, is another indication of your naievette (I have no idea how to spell that word, but I know it exists, lol... just look through your massive vocabulary, I'm sure you'll find it in there somewhere). As I said earlier, all, or at least most, of those programmers, were exactly like you when they were younger. They are all just as dissapointed, or possibly even more dissapointed at what they had to do. And now they are suffering for it, but lets not forget that it wasn't their decision in the first place was it? It was the decision of the company, and they did their best to put as much **** in and make it as bug free as possible, in the amount of time that they were given. It's not as simple as it sounds, even the company didn't have complete control over when they could put it out. They have to think of the fans who arent going to like waiting for years upon years for just an expansion pack, and then theres the fact that if they take too much time making something completely bug free, new technology will have come out and then by the time their product is out on the markets its out-dated, and they can do nothing about it, because updating it would take more time, and more money, and then they are losing money because they have been spending years on a single game and havent made a dime from it, or their fans have all deserted them for the newer games.
I have much more to say, but there is no point in saying it, and I have better things to do anyways.
In short (since the above paragraphs are very scrambled and probably nobody except our good friend, the genius Nicosar, has the wit to understand them) you are living in a fantasy world, where no problems or limitations arise to cause you problems. You are nothing special, there are thousands out there like you, all of you with good intentions, but none of you with the ability, resources, or support to carry them out. You need to get a grip on reality man. The programmers did their best, as I'm sure you will if you ever get the chance, but until then stop criticizing them, because you have no idea what they are doing, or the pressures they are under.
I've left out a lot of stuff I would like to have said, but it took me almost a whole hour to write this because, unlike Nicosar, I don't type very fast, and I'm trying to do several other things at the same time.
I don't play Civ3 much anymore, and so I don't come to these forums very much, so it may be a while before I respond to any responses to my post, so don't expect anything too soon.
I apologize again for the disorderliness (sp?) of the above post. Many points and arguments were left hanging or werent emphasized as well as I had meant to as I tried to keep up with all the ideas flowing through my head.
I apologize again for the disorderliness (sp?) of the above post. Many points and arguments were left hanging or werent emphasized as well as I had meant to as I tried to keep up with all the ideas flowing through my head.
Algernon Pondlife
Prince
I know you tactical gurus will understand that title.
I have just read Nicosar's opening post. All the rhetoric lifted my hopes that he was going to discuss the (arguably) wrong direction of civ3. But there was nothing behind it. He complains about a few tactical points and failure to exploit modern graphics abilities. Nothing about the game's (and many players') obseesion with individual units; nothing about the artificial ability to plan for nuclear weapons research while building your first granary; nothing about the problems in scale of space and time; nothing about the fact that the earth surface is a cylinder rather than the globe we have all been taught about (in earlier versions, I accepted this because I appreciated the extra power and logic required to resolve it, but surely it is easy enough now); etc.
So I read it again and there is a clue right at the beginning: "or, in the case of this, a strategy game, how to deepen the complexity of tactical gameplay"
Wow! the point of a strategic game is to have rich tactics! So what kind of game will provide me with rich strategic optons? If six thousand years of history is not a sufficient canvas to develop a focus on strategy, way beyond the trivia of bombardment and stacking considerations then what is?
Having said all that, let me add that I believe civ3 greatly enriched the game, whereas civ2 was the stage at which the focus shifted away from the grand design.
I have just read Nicosar's opening post. All the rhetoric lifted my hopes that he was going to discuss the (arguably) wrong direction of civ3. But there was nothing behind it. He complains about a few tactical points and failure to exploit modern graphics abilities. Nothing about the game's (and many players') obseesion with individual units; nothing about the artificial ability to plan for nuclear weapons research while building your first granary; nothing about the problems in scale of space and time; nothing about the fact that the earth surface is a cylinder rather than the globe we have all been taught about (in earlier versions, I accepted this because I appreciated the extra power and logic required to resolve it, but surely it is easy enough now); etc.
So I read it again and there is a clue right at the beginning: "or, in the case of this, a strategy game, how to deepen the complexity of tactical gameplay"
Wow! the point of a strategic game is to have rich tactics! So what kind of game will provide me with rich strategic optons? If six thousand years of history is not a sufficient canvas to develop a focus on strategy, way beyond the trivia of bombardment and stacking considerations then what is?
Having said all that, let me add that I believe civ3 greatly enriched the game, whereas civ2 was the stage at which the focus shifted away from the grand design.
Algernon Pondlife
Prince
Nicosar,
I have taken the time now to read through much of the thread, including most of your detailed posts. Let me apologize now if I cover points already made by anyone, as I do not have time to do a more thorough reading.
Firstly, I think you are correct in much of what you say, with just a few exceptions. However these exceptions are fundamental to understanding the issue. The primary quibble I have is that in your long and detailed list of changes, you do not address a single strategic issue. In fact your ideas are so far from strategic thinking that I almost resent your "fellow strategists" phrase and can barely comprehend what you mean when you express the opinion that civilization is the greatest strategy game to have been designed. I also believe that, but we seem to be talking of something very different.
When you say that you are making it more realistic by putting in extra detail, you are following a line of reasoning ploughed by board wargame designers in the 1970s, when the games got bigger and bigger until a major campaign (say the battle of the bulge or even bigger scenarios) was played out to the extent of moving individual supply trucks and checking each for fuel shortage and breakdowns. The final result was often an admirable design (of a sort) but not anything people would play all the way through.
If I want to tackle the evolution of technology and the conflict of cultures in a context of diversity but with limited resources, over a period of six thousand years or more, I certainly don't want to get bogged down plotting ambushes (a platoon up a tree with plenty of sandwiches to keep them going for a year or two until an enemy squad strolls along?), or calculating range bombardments as I deploy forces (five years ahead of the actual assault?).
What you seem to be doing is taking the civ engine and noticing its efficacy for wargaming of a certain type and then bemoaning that the development of the game has not abandoned its original concept and intent in favour of creating an ever cleverer wargame engine. Ironically, that is broadly what Alpha Centauri did. And in my opinion it did a rather good job of it, discarding the vast scale of time and implementing such delights as unit design.
Essentially there is nothing wrong with what you want, but it is not civ. It is a whole other game and since civ is one of very few truly grand strategy games to have been designed, could you please leave it alone for those who desire such things.
I have rather hurried myself through this post and for that I apologize. however I did once previously discuss this issue to some extent. Unfortunately I cannot trace it on the forums (I'm not a very skilled navigator) and so I shall reproduce it in a following post on this thread. (If anyone knows how to find the original, feel free to substitute a pointer to save forum space).
I hope, Nicosar, that this meets your stated intention that "this thread was meant by me to be used for logical debate" to some extent. I have to confess that I have found it difficult to get to the logical core of your position.
I have taken the time now to read through much of the thread, including most of your detailed posts. Let me apologize now if I cover points already made by anyone, as I do not have time to do a more thorough reading.
Firstly, I think you are correct in much of what you say, with just a few exceptions. However these exceptions are fundamental to understanding the issue. The primary quibble I have is that in your long and detailed list of changes, you do not address a single strategic issue. In fact your ideas are so far from strategic thinking that I almost resent your "fellow strategists" phrase and can barely comprehend what you mean when you express the opinion that civilization is the greatest strategy game to have been designed. I also believe that, but we seem to be talking of something very different.
When you say that you are making it more realistic by putting in extra detail, you are following a line of reasoning ploughed by board wargame designers in the 1970s, when the games got bigger and bigger until a major campaign (say the battle of the bulge or even bigger scenarios) was played out to the extent of moving individual supply trucks and checking each for fuel shortage and breakdowns. The final result was often an admirable design (of a sort) but not anything people would play all the way through.
If I want to tackle the evolution of technology and the conflict of cultures in a context of diversity but with limited resources, over a period of six thousand years or more, I certainly don't want to get bogged down plotting ambushes (a platoon up a tree with plenty of sandwiches to keep them going for a year or two until an enemy squad strolls along?), or calculating range bombardments as I deploy forces (five years ahead of the actual assault?).
What you seem to be doing is taking the civ engine and noticing its efficacy for wargaming of a certain type and then bemoaning that the development of the game has not abandoned its original concept and intent in favour of creating an ever cleverer wargame engine. Ironically, that is broadly what Alpha Centauri did. And in my opinion it did a rather good job of it, discarding the vast scale of time and implementing such delights as unit design.
Essentially there is nothing wrong with what you want, but it is not civ. It is a whole other game and since civ is one of very few truly grand strategy games to have been designed, could you please leave it alone for those who desire such things.
I have rather hurried myself through this post and for that I apologize. however I did once previously discuss this issue to some extent. Unfortunately I cannot trace it on the forums (I'm not a very skilled navigator) and so I shall reproduce it in a following post on this thread. (If anyone knows how to find the original, feel free to substitute a pointer to save forum space).
I hope, Nicosar, that this meets your stated intention that "this thread was meant by me to be used for logical debate" to some extent. I have to confess that I have found it difficult to get to the logical core of your position.
Algernon Pondlife
Prince
Here, as promised is my earlier attempt to discuss the nature of trategy in civ:
<<< Strategy STRATEGY Strategy
As a relative newcomer to the mixed blessing of online communication and as someone who, many years ago, declared that Civilization was the reason computers were invented, I have been rapidly trying to assimilate all the thinking and debating that has been going on here. And I am afraid.
This morning I dug out the original game to refresh my memory. One thing on my mind is the widespread obsession with unit types and realism in combat in this forum. So, how many unit types were there in the original? NONE! There were tokens to represent Cities, population and sea travel. Full Stop. Oh, just in case some of the late-comers have the Avalon Hill Licence, I have never seen it and I don't know how much
they changed the Hartland Trefoil game.
I quote from the preamble to the rules:
"Although battles and territorial strategy are important, this is
not a war game becuase it is not won by means of battles. instead, the object of the game is to gain a level of overall advancement involving cultural, economic and political factors so that such conflicts as arise are due to rivalry and land shortage rather than a desire to eliminate other players."
Of course that was all several years B(P)C. Sid Meier took that game and extended it in time and space and fleshed out the detail in ways that could only work with computers. The result was a strategic game, the object of which was to expand and develop a society from the very origins of historical times to the near future, coping with population pressures, the assimilation and harnessing of technologies, conflicts stemming from resource limitations, expansionist zeal and idealogical conflict.
This is a strategy game. All games that require decision making that is even partially or statistically predictable, be it Warcraft or Quake or Panzer General, are amenable to the application of strategies which facilitate tactical advantages but very few are about strategy. And even fewer have the grand sweep of human history as their subject. and only one has the mark of genius. If you want a shoot-em-up or a war simulation or pseudo real time burn-your-finger-tips-action, then go play those games. Don't steal this unique game!
So when I read that Civ 3 should have more unit types, should have ways to prevent pesky AI powers spoiling things, should have a battle mode, should have tactical complexity, I shudder. Don't get me wrong. Any or all of those things are worth considering, but only if they enhance, or at least do not damage, the core game. For example, someone suggested a retreat ability in battle; perhaps that would make conquest a harder path to victory (because the units become hard to kill) and
swing the balance back towards social, political, economic and
technological factors.
Why do we need a Civ 3? Well, it's about realism. Not the issue of "it takes 200 years for a phalanx to cross France" or the issue of tanks losing to archers. The first of those is resolved by remembering that we are not talking about physical bodies of men but rather of the attainment of expanded areas of influence and control and the second could easily be tweaked into irrelevance by some tightening of the combat and obsolesence mechanisms. No, the realism we need is at the level of the game itself. It should not be possible to target Adam Smith or Hoover Dam the moment you sit down to the game.
"Go straight to monarchy and get the Great Library."
"Plan to get Michaelangelo's Chapel at the same time as Democracy."
No thanks! Why can't the future be dark? I recently played the Science fiction game in ToT and revelled in the fact that I hadn't a clue what anything did until I tried it (real life!). You can do the same with the fantasy game, but soon enough you will learn it all even if you leave the charts in the box and mostly resist the temptation of the help button. If you know all the rules then the game is a (admittedly very big) closed system and ought either to be abstract like chess and go or a simulation like Sturm Nacht Osten or Third Reich.
How about not knowing if gunpowder will ever be invented? Or if, say, some combination of religious and economic models make it virtually impossible to perform the transition to democracy - but you don't find out until you're well and truly in it? Too radical? Okay but perhaps we could have whole alternate development trees that you cannot readily predict? And a foggy future, so that you know what is possible one or two steps down the line but are fairly clueless about the longer term.
There are other things that can be done for a new game especially to do with scaling in time and space. someone has already suggested something on these lines but I think the implications were not picked up. The game could start in neolithic times with a full map that covered just, say the middle east and could explode into a map of the entire mediterranean basin about 2000BC with new peoples scattered about at relatively similar rechnology levels. This could happen two or three more times and even out to the far future being galaxy-wide (I can dream). And of course it could be China you start in, or Africa, or whatever. And that way you could also play the whole game at one time zone with a slower turn of years and restricted advances available, like a scenario but with the feel of a full game (full range of choices for peoples, levels random maps etc.) >>>
Of course I knew we were not going to get anything like that when I wrote it. The development was already well down the road and you can't patch in ideas like that as if they were just a new Centurion tank or something. My faint hope is for the future. But even that is not very likely because I suspect the paying "audience" for such a design would be a bit smaller and the development costs would be just as great.
The present game is a bit of a compromise, but it is not atall bad. I won't get into the debate on bugs and costs, because when all is said and done, I am happy that the developers are sincere in there efforts and even very poor games with minimal gameplay have been marketed in a far from perfect condition.
<<< Strategy STRATEGY Strategy
As a relative newcomer to the mixed blessing of online communication and as someone who, many years ago, declared that Civilization was the reason computers were invented, I have been rapidly trying to assimilate all the thinking and debating that has been going on here. And I am afraid.
This morning I dug out the original game to refresh my memory. One thing on my mind is the widespread obsession with unit types and realism in combat in this forum. So, how many unit types were there in the original? NONE! There were tokens to represent Cities, population and sea travel. Full Stop. Oh, just in case some of the late-comers have the Avalon Hill Licence, I have never seen it and I don't know how much
they changed the Hartland Trefoil game.
I quote from the preamble to the rules:
"Although battles and territorial strategy are important, this is
not a war game becuase it is not won by means of battles. instead, the object of the game is to gain a level of overall advancement involving cultural, economic and political factors so that such conflicts as arise are due to rivalry and land shortage rather than a desire to eliminate other players."
Of course that was all several years B(P)C. Sid Meier took that game and extended it in time and space and fleshed out the detail in ways that could only work with computers. The result was a strategic game, the object of which was to expand and develop a society from the very origins of historical times to the near future, coping with population pressures, the assimilation and harnessing of technologies, conflicts stemming from resource limitations, expansionist zeal and idealogical conflict.
This is a strategy game. All games that require decision making that is even partially or statistically predictable, be it Warcraft or Quake or Panzer General, are amenable to the application of strategies which facilitate tactical advantages but very few are about strategy. And even fewer have the grand sweep of human history as their subject. and only one has the mark of genius. If you want a shoot-em-up or a war simulation or pseudo real time burn-your-finger-tips-action, then go play those games. Don't steal this unique game!
So when I read that Civ 3 should have more unit types, should have ways to prevent pesky AI powers spoiling things, should have a battle mode, should have tactical complexity, I shudder. Don't get me wrong. Any or all of those things are worth considering, but only if they enhance, or at least do not damage, the core game. For example, someone suggested a retreat ability in battle; perhaps that would make conquest a harder path to victory (because the units become hard to kill) and
swing the balance back towards social, political, economic and
technological factors.
Why do we need a Civ 3? Well, it's about realism. Not the issue of "it takes 200 years for a phalanx to cross France" or the issue of tanks losing to archers. The first of those is resolved by remembering that we are not talking about physical bodies of men but rather of the attainment of expanded areas of influence and control and the second could easily be tweaked into irrelevance by some tightening of the combat and obsolesence mechanisms. No, the realism we need is at the level of the game itself. It should not be possible to target Adam Smith or Hoover Dam the moment you sit down to the game.
"Go straight to monarchy and get the Great Library."
"Plan to get Michaelangelo's Chapel at the same time as Democracy."
No thanks! Why can't the future be dark? I recently played the Science fiction game in ToT and revelled in the fact that I hadn't a clue what anything did until I tried it (real life!). You can do the same with the fantasy game, but soon enough you will learn it all even if you leave the charts in the box and mostly resist the temptation of the help button. If you know all the rules then the game is a (admittedly very big) closed system and ought either to be abstract like chess and go or a simulation like Sturm Nacht Osten or Third Reich.
How about not knowing if gunpowder will ever be invented? Or if, say, some combination of religious and economic models make it virtually impossible to perform the transition to democracy - but you don't find out until you're well and truly in it? Too radical? Okay but perhaps we could have whole alternate development trees that you cannot readily predict? And a foggy future, so that you know what is possible one or two steps down the line but are fairly clueless about the longer term.
There are other things that can be done for a new game especially to do with scaling in time and space. someone has already suggested something on these lines but I think the implications were not picked up. The game could start in neolithic times with a full map that covered just, say the middle east and could explode into a map of the entire mediterranean basin about 2000BC with new peoples scattered about at relatively similar rechnology levels. This could happen two or three more times and even out to the far future being galaxy-wide (I can dream). And of course it could be China you start in, or Africa, or whatever. And that way you could also play the whole game at one time zone with a slower turn of years and restricted advances available, like a scenario but with the feel of a full game (full range of choices for peoples, levels random maps etc.) >>>
Of course I knew we were not going to get anything like that when I wrote it. The development was already well down the road and you can't patch in ideas like that as if they were just a new Centurion tank or something. My faint hope is for the future. But even that is not very likely because I suspect the paying "audience" for such a design would be a bit smaller and the development costs would be just as great.
The present game is a bit of a compromise, but it is not atall bad. I won't get into the debate on bugs and costs, because when all is said and done, I am happy that the developers are sincere in there efforts and even very poor games with minimal gameplay have been marketed in a far from perfect condition.
Algernon Pondlife
Prince
Another point I want to make about units is that their true role in civ is to serve as a concrete representation of the developments of technology harnessing resources (a bit like Dawkins' "extended phenotypes" in another context). In other words all they are there for is to differentiate technology and resource (including populace) levels and to do that there need not be very many. for this reason the less the game is cluttered with unit varieties the better.
The principle problem with the conflict mechanism in the game is that it cannot work to the same scale as the rest of the game. Theoretically this can be addressed by building a "zoom" feature which jumps to a battlefield environment to reslove as detailed a conflict as you like. However, for those of us who want to get through six thousand years in less than six thousand days, it would also have to have a bypass mechanism whereby conflict was resolved, say, as simply as it is in the present version.
I have played a game (it was a Risk clone) that did this and the problem is that with the best will in the world, I couldn't leave the battles to the AI because I "knew" I could do better.
If you want me to address the realism issue for such features as unlimited railroad travel or correlation to historical events and cultures (or, my pet bugbear, special units), etc., I will be happy to do so. I noticed that you asserted a dislike of this, but you did not explain why. Suffice it to say that I disagree with your position and am happy to put mine forward if you so wish. But for the moment I feel I may have overstayed my welcome here.
sincerely,
Algy
The principle problem with the conflict mechanism in the game is that it cannot work to the same scale as the rest of the game. Theoretically this can be addressed by building a "zoom" feature which jumps to a battlefield environment to reslove as detailed a conflict as you like. However, for those of us who want to get through six thousand years in less than six thousand days, it would also have to have a bypass mechanism whereby conflict was resolved, say, as simply as it is in the present version.
I have played a game (it was a Risk clone) that did this and the problem is that with the best will in the world, I couldn't leave the battles to the AI because I "knew" I could do better.
If you want me to address the realism issue for such features as unlimited railroad travel or correlation to historical events and cultures (or, my pet bugbear, special units), etc., I will be happy to do so. I noticed that you asserted a dislike of this, but you did not explain why. Suffice it to say that I disagree with your position and am happy to put mine forward if you so wish. But for the moment I feel I may have overstayed my welcome here.
sincerely,
Algy
Chairman Yang
Member
I am simply not going to read all that text...Im outta here...
JoeM
Imperator
He's right though Chairman Yang.
Good post Algy!
A battle mode a la Medieval Total War would be nice, but in the grand scheme of things single battles aren't worth the time. CtP had an embarrassing 'zoom' to battle feature.
Good post Algy!
A battle mode a la Medieval Total War would be nice, but in the grand scheme of things single battles aren't worth the time. CtP had an embarrassing 'zoom' to battle feature.
Similar threads
