What does Civ2 need? Are future patches still possible?

[yoshi]

Civ3 was meant to be the next great leap in CIV. Didn't turn out that way but it still has stuff that Civ2 really needs.

Two of this most important things are a way of limiting Settlement (e.g. a 'Settle:yes/no' field in the @TERRAIN section of Rules.txt) and a way of preventng units from attacking land without the use of the 'Submarine advantages/disadvantages' flag (e.g. 'Cannot attack land' flag) --primarily to prevent the AI from making suicide attacks on coastal fortresses but also to remove certain ships from the field of land combat.

A bombardment factor would bring the idea of a support role into Civ2 --there's something just not right about Riflemen doing damage to Bombers.

The other main thing is the AI. It could really use some help. Just getting it understand air unit range limitations and sending more than one unit at a time to attack an enemy would be nice.

Oh, and one more thing: air units without the 'Can attack air units' flag (Bomber) should only defend when attacking a city garrisoned by units with the flag (Fighter). If you set a Bomber's attack too high, it can win against Fighters.


How could this as yet unbeaten game be made better? Is it still possible to alter the Civ2 program since Microprose no longer exists? What would it take?

 

[SlowThinker]

That's too long story. Too many bugs and too many imperfections in every respect: game mechanics, balance of strategies, interface, SP, MP, PBEM...
There were many threads about that over forums.

 

[yoshi]

There were many threads about that over forums.

Which threads? The reason why I bring up the topic is because I relly like MODing Civ2 and am displeased with the devlopement of Civ3 (I will just say that it is an elitist piece of software that is lacking much of what Civ2 has and cannot be improved without overhauling the whole engine --I'm referring to program performance, not features). The only incentive to play Civ3 is the fact that it has bombardment, units cost gold, air unit missions and most importantly, units can stack without being destroyed after one attack...and there is a difference between Settlers and Workers which is good for scenarios (the No Settle flag for terrain has a similar effect).

What I'm saying is that were Civ2 to be rid of the (may I say, absolutely f***ing stupid --I can't imagine what designers must have been thinking) stack problem, include bombardment, some means of air units not being blocked by land/sea units, units costing gold and a means of limiting settlement, the game would have additional life added to it. Notice all of the features I mentioned are unit-based. That's because the biggest problem with Civ2 is the lack of flexibility in unit abilities. THe only other thing is the AI but Civ3's AI sucks too so it's not worth comparing --just smoothing out the AI during diplomacy and getting it to attack in large numbers rather than 1 by 1 would be enough.

There are also some issues with Civ2's macro language that should be dealth with. After all, Events are what make Civ2 scenarios so great. Most of the time I spend on Civ2 I spend experimenting with the macro.

Also, where the game is concerened, there are solutions that are just meant to make the AI more competant without having to modify the AI itself. An example of this would be to add 'Cannot attack land' flag that would prevent ships from attacking land...so no more spectacular mass suicide by the AI attacking cities with Coastal Fortresses --this would also have other applications like Torpedo Bomber units and ASW naval forces, ect. without having to resort to the 'Submarine advantages/disadvantages' flag. THat brings me to an other point: the AI can SEE subs without the 'Unit can spot submerged units' flag. And one thing that I also mentioned in a Civ3 thread, why are ships without the 'SeeSub' flag able to attack subs? It seems to me that a simple alteration here--in either game-- would actually make the submarine the unique weapon it is in reality (makes Battleships obslolete).

There are quite a few issue, but most of them could easily have been dealt with through a patch. That's why I'm asking, what would it take to come out with a patch that includes fixes that amazingly were never addressed in any of the Civ2 releases, and a few minor additions that would improve the game enough to make it perfect...and no, it's not perfect already (I'm sorry to say).

If you don't understand something, please post it and I will clarify.

 

[ElephantU]

It would take a release of the original source code, a forum for agreeing on necessary modifications and appropriate source algorithms, and a group of people willing to wade into the gritty detail. The first is probably the biggest hindrance.

I doubt it would be legal to reverse-engineer the compiled code, as it is still being sold in retail stores so someone still has "fiduciary interest" in it.

 

[SlowThinker]

About modding... Look at these threads:

Scenarios from strategic point of view
Changes in rules.txt
Rules.txt modifications for SP games
How is waste calculated?
More than 11 terrains?
How Do You Adjust Basic Civ2

 

[SlowThinker]

Concerning strategic defects:
See links in my last post.

Concerning bugs:
A big problem is the Black hat bug (see 'happiness quirk' thread - link from my signature). It forces a player to build tens of cities. Most people don't finish their games because they hate to micromanage 50 cities.
Bad choice of the defender of a stack (see end of 'Info: Combat' thread), combat math is clearly different that Civ2 authors supposed.
KeyCiv bug (see 'The Key to the Tech Gifting' thread).
Famine bug (you can rotate food surplus +1 and hunger -100) - it allows several tricks.
Copper and Dye bug (see 'How Supply and Demand Lists Are Determined')
There are ugly bugs like Blackclicking etc. (Quite comprehensive lists of bugs are in 'Great Library Player Cheats', 'GOTM Techniques thread, Cheats, Rules & Discussion' thread). Notice that people must create their special rules (like GOTM rules, or rah rules (in Apolyton-Multiplayer forum) to cover the biggest Civ2 holes.
hut outcome and battle outcome should not change after reloading

MP and PBEM:
MP password may be easily washed out,
work of Settlers is doubled and fortification is immediate in MP (see end of Info: Settlers),
MP mode allows you to manage your cities when other players move, but doesn't warn you that your turn is coming - this way you can finish with an unwanted Elvis (and to lose a unit with lack of shield support for example)
MP includes some real-time elements: for example you can sold an improvement when it is opponent's turn and you see he will take your city
no PBEM support
almost no hotseat support (no diplomacy)
F11 bug in hotseat and PBEM
and many others

Interface:
there is a lack of a tool that would remind what you wanted to do.
Settlers and Engineers don't show cumulated work
lack of turn replay, game replay

I made this post very quickly, surely I forgot many serious bugs and problems

What I can't understand is that they never tried to patch them.

 

[la fayette]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
I made this post very quickly, surely I forgot many serious bugs and problems
[/B]

46 minutes
Who else would mention so many bugs and problems within such a short spell of time ?

(not me )

 

[ElephantU]

A numerical display of accumulated beakers would be nice too...

 

[funxus]

Originally posted by ElephantU
A numerical display of accumulated beakers would be nice too...

When translating the game files I came across a section that would show how many beakers are accumulated, but this section is not used for the science advisor for some reason. It shows that they thought of it though.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

I know they have the 'accumlated beakers' number in the cheat menu. Maybe they wanted the game to be 'simple' so they left some of that info out. It shoudl have been at least an option to have it though. Maybe the programmers were just 'simple'.

 

[ElephantU]

And a fix for the Dateline bugs (GoTo, TradeRoutes, etc)...

 

[yoshi]

Originally posted by ElephantU
I doubt it would be legal to reverse-engineer the compiled code, as it is still being sold in retail stores so someone still has "fiduciary interest" in it.

I agree. What is the status of Civ2 now that Microprose no longer exists? Has that had an impact? Who owns Civ2???
I guess my original question should actually be: what would it take for the source code to be released?
Amazingly, "fiduciary interest" still applies after all this time and I’m all for keeping the good name of this game free of tarnish, but this is just too good a game to be left ‘as is’ –it deserves better. Note that “this game” only refers to Civ2 and its subsequent expansions/versions, not Civ3 (or Civ1 for that matter –considering that Civ2 is Civ1 and a bag of chips with dip on the side…you could say that Civ3 is Civ2 but without the chips or the dip and a whole bunch of questionable enhancements with a turn rate that would bankrupt even the richest civer if each hour were to cost you a dollar…”just one more turn” could involve marriage, children, grandchildren, death, rebirth only to have the game freeze on you). Can you tell I’m not impressed with Firaxis’ latest creation? (Don’t reply to that, I’m just ranting. Sorry.)
It could be argued that Civ2 is the Counter-Strike of strategy games. Both need improvement but are still being played by gamers everywhere. Note that the new CS: Condition Zero will keep the game pretty much the same but will focus on improving AI and making the interface more user friendly as well as giving MODers more flexibility. Sound kind of like what we're talking about here: just altering the program enough to make it work perfectly and meet the needs of newbie and hard-core players/MODers alike.


I am familiar with some of the ‘bugs’ mentioned, but I’m a little more interested in AI-associated bugs (the length of the AI stupidities thread should end any doubts that this isn’t a priority). In addition to just seeing bugs fixed, the game could really do with some changes that have more to do with features of gameplay. Increased ‘flexibility’ in Rules.txt should be more of an issue considering that elaborate scenarios (particularly those of a historical nature) are a huge part of what is keeping this game alive.

I want to go over the threads linked by SlowThinker before I really get into this discussion. Until then, here are of some of the big issues I think should be addressed (including fixes, changes and additions) –note that most of the aforementioned bugs still take precedence over these in that they are crucial to the game as it is presently:

1. Fix: AI never attacks units beyond point-of-no-return –exception: ‘Destroyed’ flag.
2. Fuel field in Rules.txt applies to units of any domain.
3. Hold field in Rules.txt applies to units of any domain.
3. New ‘Settle’ field in @TERRAIN (prevents cities on terrain set to ‘no’).
4. Air units with ‘Attack air’ only have ‘scramble’ bonus when facing units without this flag. (Fighter overrides ‘scramble’ bonus?)
5. Bombardment (unit attacks for one round and receives no damage. (MOD of ‘Destroyed’ flag?)
6. Fix: MOVEUNIT takes unit type into account; functions at all times.
7. New MOVEUNIT ‘override=[Yes], [No]’ (orders not wiped when contact)
8. New ‘Cannot attack land’ flag (MOD of ‘Submarine’ flag)
9. Units without ‘See sub’ flag cannot see or attack units with ‘Submarine’ flag (cannot enter square)
10. Individual Advance cost as fraction of Tech Paradigm in @CIVILIZE
11. Fix: ‘2x defence versus horse’ flag actually doubles unit defence (i.e. works properly)
12. Railroad movement line in @CONCEPTS (0=infinite/default)
13. CHANGETERRAIN event action does not destroy/units/cities/improvements in maprect (optional?)
14. New MASKEVENT action prevents a specific event in the ‘list’ (top to bottom) from being triggered (similar to flag system only more specific)
15. Include ‘duration=’ parameter into TURN trigger (determines when event stops triggering –sort of makes EVERY redundant) --not to be confused with the CONTINUOUS modifier in ToT
16. AI used ‘sea’ Carriers and Airbases properly (i.e. sees them as cities)

(Note: I just assume that if anything were to be ‘tweaked’ in Civ2, all the Rules.txt and Events.txt information in Test of Time would be transferred to MGE format.)


I should think all of these are possible since they only involve tinkering with already-existing aspects of the program (keep in mind I’m not a programmer so this is an assumption based on logic, not necessarily facts).

I'll post more once I go over the threads linked by SlowThinker.


BTW, I heartily agree, a numerical display of accumulated beakers in the Science Advisor screen (F6) would be a big plus.

 

[MikeLynch]

How about:
"Siege" flag -- unit can only attack units stationed in cities (and maybe fortresses too)?

This would prevent the illogic of having Siege Towers engage Chariots in the middle of a vast expanse of desert.

Maybe also a flag prohibiting a certain type of unit from being able to attack ground units? AFAIK this isn't currently possible.

 

[H Tower]

why do you punish yourselves? There isn't going to be another patch. And the source code isn't going to become available because so much of it is still used in civ3

 

[yoshi]

Microprose isn't going to release another patch because the company no longer exists. No one said anything about that.

The idea is that if the source code were released, players could come out with their own patch --essentially addressing some of the issues that have been stated above. In fact, people woudl probably start coming out with their own patches all over the net, the same way people post Civ2 scenarios/MODs and utilities.

And what about FreeCiv?

And the source code isn't going to become available because so much of it is still used in civ3

What do you mean by that?

Technically, if you don't sell the patch (and there's no reason why you would even if you could) and do not take credit for the work done by Microprose, you haven't broken any laws.

BTW, I should clear up the comment about Civ3 being elitist. I say that because pretty much anyone these days can play Civ2 at best performance whereas people with 2-year old systems will find Civ3 to be sluggish (it should be noted that the long turns are only partially due to this). IMO CIV shoud be universal and not limited to a 'monied' audience. This why, with a few tweaks, Civ2 could be almost as good as Civ3 --it's already better when it comes to scenarios (and that's taking 'Civ3: Conquests' into account).

 

[SlowThinker]

yoshi, what is Counter-Strike?

Concerning the stack, I don't think the solution where all stack dies simultaneously is so bad:
1. It is a simple solution. Simplicity first!
2. A player has to decide if he will risk moving ahead in one stack (covered by one defender only) or if he will 'hire' say 3 defenders and move ahead in 3 stacks.
3. It stresses importance of choke points

But things would be different if you introduced super-defenders: say 2x more tough and 3-4x more costly units than a standard defender (phalanx, pikemen, musketeer...). It could be used as a stack-defender.

Originally posted by yoshi
And what about FreeCiv?

Why do you post it as a question? I think it is an answer to your question. IMHO It is better to move to FreeCiv than to 'wait' for a Civ2 source code release.
(But I never tried FreeCiv.)

I am experienced with Civ Evolution (c-evo.org) a little: it is more distant from Civ2 than FreeCiv, but you could be interested about it since it tries to attract developers of AI - it provides an interface for them. But AIs are still quite weak there.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Counter-Strike is one of the most popular First Person Shooter games. I normally hate the genre, but Counter-Strike is actually enjoyable (in MP).

Re: the elitism charge, CivIII certainly can get slow even on impressive computers, but the actual systems requirements are actually quite modest compared with most games today, or indeed when it was released, and the extreme turn times are chiefly found when you're using more than the ~8 civs the game was primarily designed for.

 

[Cedric Greene]

Originally posted by The Last Conformist
Counter-Strike is one of the most popular First Person Shooter games.

I believe they are talking of the Half-Life mod, which I have not found enjoyable due to horrendous load times and rather quick deaths. Maybe more fun on a LAN w/out lag though

 

[yoshi]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Concerning the stack, I don't think the solution where all stack dies simultaneously is so bad:
1. It is a simple solution. Simplicity first!
2. A player has to decide if he will risk moving ahead in one stack (covered by one defender only) or if he will 'hire' say 3 defenders and move ahead in 3 stacks.
3. It stresses importance of choke points

Although you make a valid point, MANY players have complained about this. Civ3 doesn't have this 'problem,' so it is clearly something the majority of players don't want.
Note: SMAC uses the collatoral damage in which a stack being attacked may resut in more or less damage to the non-defenders regardless of the outcome.

I asked about FreeCiv because technically they are using the source code, only they aren't calling it Civilization II.

I'll check out Civ Evolution.

Re: the elitism charge...

My point is that the requirements are way too high for a TBS game. Even the lastest RTS games (CandC:Generals) have requirements that are inappropriate (or at least uneccessary) to the genre.
Since one of the reasons why many players go for Civ3 is because it allows for 8+ players, the fact that it runs slower when you exceed 8 certainly only emphasizes its faults.

About CS: The point I was making is that you want to go for the the line of improvements that are to be introduced in CS:Condition Zero (i.e. improving AI and some other things that need work without necessarily coming out with a completely different game). I just used this piece of software as an example, so don't think too much into it.

 

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by yoshi
I'll check out Civ Evolution.

Do it, it is interesting.
I like the idea of CivEvo (strategy over simulation), but not always the realization.