 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
the AI has a tough enough time dealing with Civs complexity
the added complexity of the unit design process in SMAC was not all that fun (you ended up using the same units.. here was the offensive one, here the defensive one, etc) and the computer couldn'thandle it (the default units which the computer used all sucked)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PJayTycy
|
|
(Sorry for using smac terms, I have never played Civ)
Micromanagement in Civ4 shouldn't be a problem. I think we will be able to change the way automated city governors, formers, ... work.
Now we almost always play with as less automation as possible, because it's not 100% like we would do it. If we can change these automation orders, we have the best of both worlds.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
 |
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:23
|
|
BinTravkin,
It is not neccessary to have/do a lot of MM to be a good player. No, surely, the best players such as Aeson do micromanage a lot. However, a good portion of that MM can still be avoided. In my opinion, MM of workers is the best example of this. Just look at how CtP does that in contrast to SMAC and Civ, the CtP way is much easier.
They don't even have to get rid of Workers to do that. But, for instance, implement this. You build Workers, but they don't appear on the map, instead they go to a "worker pool". Then, using the interface, you can place tile improvements on tiles. When you do, a Worker from the pool will be assigned to that tile. It can even be made so that construction of the improvement starts after x turns, where x is the amount of turns needed to get to that tile from the nearest city.
This would stay true to the traditional Civ Settler/Worker model, but with doing much less MM. This is because there is no way how moving 100 workers is fun just by itself. The same reason why we need good stacked movement. When in a modern war, you don't want to move 80 units each turn by hand.
SMAC was great because of the options it provided, sure. Yet I never had much fun in actually moving my Formers, I'd have preferred if I could place tasks for them like above. Or maybe implement some sort of action queues for terraform units - sort of like you can do in RTS games. Yet, of course, each game I built a ton of Formers and moved them around because that was required. On the upside, indeed, some SMAC automation options were good - for instance, the auto roadbuild.
Still, Civ4 can provide such simplicity without depriving anyone of the chance to MM. After all, even if you get easier tile improvement assignement, you can still sit with a calculator in front of the computer and count what and when you need to.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
So far, we only know that they'll tackle micromanagement by having no more "whack-a-mole" pollution, and apparently by reducing the amount of military units in later eras.
Such orientations don't reduce the complexity of the game any bit. Pollution remains a problem that has to be tackled, and war remains tactical (actually, war will be more tactical than in the previous games).
By tackling MM, Firaxis doesn't tackle complexity off the game. At the contrary, when fewer decisions are tedious repetitve work, the player is confronted with more interesting decisions.
The reason why Civ3 has fewer gameplay features than SMAC isn't because of the lack of MM, but because of a design decision to make the game less complex, for the AI to be more competitive. From what we've seen now, Civ4 has reintroduced almost all of SMAC features, while also keeping the new Ci3 features (trade, culture), and adding a whole new religion model to the mix.
There is only one aspect where Civ4 will be less complex than SMAC and Civ3, it's diplomatic bargainings (apprently, you can only trade something for some other thing of the same nature, i.e. tech for a tech, resource for a resource etc.). On all other matters, Civ4 will provide more complexity than either Civ3 or SMAC.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
and war remains tactical (actually, war will be more tactical than in the previous games). |
You reall hit the nail on the head, Spiffor. Up until now, war in Civ has been a real NUMBERS GAME-i.e., the nation that can put the most units on the field tends to win the battle. This tends to give the greatest advantage to the largest nation (i.e., the nation with the most cities). Now, however, it seems like the specific abilities of your units, and the terrain in which you choose to fight, will have a MUCH greater role than sheer numbers in whether you win or not. If unit construction also impacts your rate of population growth, then so much the better!!!
Seriously, almost everything that I have seen regarding the presence or abscence of MM makes me very happy indeed.
My only concern, though, is that it seems like pollution will have NO impact on surrounding terrain AT ALL-hope I am wrong though. Its not that I want brown slime for workers to clean up every turn. Just that, if you do nothing to curb your pollution, then the output of your tiles should drop-first health bonuses, then food, then finally hammers. The only way to reverse it would be by reducing the pollution and time-perhaps influenced by how environmentalist your society is.
Anyway, just a thought.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
|
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:23
|
|
quote:
My only concern, though, is that it seems like pollution will have NO impact on surrounding terrain AT ALL-hope I am wrong though. Its not that I want brown slime for workers to clean up every turn. Just that, if you do nothing to curb your pollution, then the output of your tiles should drop-first health bonuses, then food, then finally hammers. The only way to reverse it would be by reducing the pollution and time-perhaps influenced by how environmentalist your society is. |
The first time Soren mentioned health, he mentioned it as sort of a replacement for pollution. Therefore, pollution has a negative effect on health. Makes sense - it is so in the real world, too, and only massive pollution kills land. Speculation - if your citizens are unhealthy, then the production output will decrease, as their work will be less effective. If so, pollution will actually be more of a problem than in Civ3. In Civ3, you polluted a square, cleaned it up the next turn, in Civ4, pollution might actually hurt your capabilities.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
They don't even have to get rid of Workers to do that. But, for instance, implement this. You build Workers, but they don't appear on the map, instead they go to a "worker pool". Then, using the interface, you can place tile improvements on tiles. When you do, a Worker from the pool will be assigned to that tile. It can even be made so that construction of the improvement starts after x turns, where x is the amount of turns needed to get to that tile from the nearest city. |
Ahhh, Solver, you are a man after my own heart-so to speak. I have advocated this system almost since Civ3 came out. I was really hoping for a hybrid of the CtP PW system and the Civ3 worker system-where your PW budget determined how MANY infrastructure projects you could do in a turn, and your worker pool-and how you allocate it-would determine how FAST each project was completed.
For me, there are about 4 areas which should be in the Strategic-rather than Tactical-realm (i.e. areas which are dealt with at a more abstract level than a unit by unit basis):
1) Infrastructure Development.
2) Intelligence Operations.
3) Diplomacy and Trade.
4) Religion.
These should go into the realm currently occupied by Culture, Entertainment and Research. Unfortunately, it seems like both (2) and (4) are going to be Tactical Level decisions-which is an especially backward step for (2). I just hope that they change their mind before the game's release.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:23
|
|
Seriously, Solver, I can assure you that I do NOT want a Civ2/Civ3 pollution model-and love almost EVERYTHING about the way in which pollution is being implemented in civ4. The truth is, though, that we know that pollution DOES effect, not just the health of a city's population, but the health of its landscape too-just look at algal blooms, soil erosion, soil and water salinity, toxic waste in waterways and soil, not to mention the degredation caused by Global Warming and Deforestation. The issue is that ALL of these things are best dealt with at a broad Strategic level, rather than at a tactical, whack-a-mole with workers level. So long as these effects of pollution are in someway represented in the game-then I will be happy!!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
|
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:23
|
|
The effects of pollution are represented by that health factor of your cities. What exactly does the health do we're not sure as of now, but I think that my speculation on it affecting citizen effectiveness can be right. Hopefully, of course, effects such as erosion, global warming and such will also stay. Since extreme pollution has caused terrain changes in every Civ game so far, both CtPs included, I believe it will stay in Civ4.
As for handling some things strategically... absolutely agreed. I don't see a need for worker units, as explained above. I love the PW in CtP, but Firaxis aren't obviously going to do exactly that, but the "worker pool" might be done.
Handling intelligence ops strategically... they tried than in Civ3 and, IMO, that was horrible. Basically, espionage options were so useless in Civ3 that you could say this part of the game was non-existent. I definitely prefer Spy units over that. A good abstract implementation can probably be reached, but I don't see how it could be done easily. And there's something cool about dropping Spies off a ship on enemy land  . I don't have a problem with that mainly because you're unlikely to ever have such a huge amount of Spies that it would become "whack-a-mole".
Religion, however, does not seem to be an entirely tactical thing. There's the tactical element of bringing Missionaries into enemy territory for conversion, but it seems that religions also spread otherwise, sort of like culture in Civ3. I see Missionaries as something close to the CtP Monks - units that you will probably want to have a few of, but not any big number. And slipping them through the enemy land might be good fun on its own.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Daniel Frappier
|
|
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
Sid was once asked in an interview: "What makes a great Strategy Game ?" I tought his replied was simple, deep and brillant, he replied: "What makes a Great Game is a succession of Interesting Decisions".
I don't mind a game that is complex and last 40 hours or more but I don't want to be spending those hours moving dozens of workers, reshuffling my citizen's assignment inside a city because shields do not carry over and I can build something in the same number of turns but maybe get one extra gold or food. I do not want to have to change my science tax everytime I am about to discover something because beekers do not get carry over, etc etc.
None of those and many others like it are not "Interesting Decisions" , they are trivial and dillute the fun.
I think that many gamers wrongly thinks that number of features equates to game complexity wich is untrue. You can have very few features but its how those features interact together to create decisions that makes up complexity. The best example of all this is CHESS. I saw all the rules of chess explained on one single page of paper, it as only 64 terrain sqare of all the same type, only 6 different unit types, no ressources, cities, almos nothing and yet after millions (probably billions) of men hours on the game players are still arguing on how to play it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Handling intelligence ops strategically... they tried than in Civ3 and, IMO, that was horrible. Basically, espionage options were so useless in Civ3 that you could say this part of the game was non-existent. I definitely prefer Spy units over that. A good abstract implementation can probably be reached, but I don't see how it could be done easily. |
I agree, Solver, that Civ3's Intelligence system 'screwed the pooch', but that doesn't mean you 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'-in fact, I would say that civ3's system was not abstract enough, as it still required the player to perform intelligence operations on a mission by mission basis. For my money, the very BEST Intelligence system I have seen-which was abstract-was the one in 'Birth of the Federation. In fact, Espionage, Ship Combat and Planetary Management were the things which made that game so GREAT (Ground Combat, Resources and Diplomacy left a LOT to be desired). If I had ANY complaints about it it was that there COULD have been a more 'hands on' element to it-perhaps allowing the player to occasionally override the automatic missions, by asking your agents to perform a specific mission against a particular nation-or city. That said, though, the fact that the player was allowed to make long-term strategic investments into his Intelligence Operations-determining how much of his manpower went into Intelligence, what type of missions his Agents Specialised in (Espionage, Counter-Intelligence or Sabotage), who his Intelligence Assets were directed at, and what sectors of that nation (economic, military, domestic etc) they were directed at, made the system incredibly fun AND easy to use.
Then once those key strategic decisions were made, you could 'sit back' and recieve regular feedback from your agents in the field-with an occasional offer to 'set up' another nation for your crimes  ! Even the AI was able to understand it-and not only used it against me frequently, but would actually go to war with a nation that I had set up for MY crimes!!!!
It would need to be slightly adapted for Civ, but I REALLY think this would be the best direction for Civs Intelligence system to go, IMHO!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Last edited by The_Aussie_Lurker on 27-05-2005 at 05:44
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Daniel Frappier
|
|
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
Thanks Locutus,
Civs games have been a disappointment for me in the past years, none have lived up to half their promises. My wife use to complaint about the time I was spending playing Civ II (In all fairness rightly so). Since then I have found a other great game to replace it, namely Poker, but now she is complaining about the time I am playing Poker (In all fairness rightly so). If Civ 4 become what it looks it could become by next winter I will need some serious professional help.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-05-2005 19:29
Indeed. Check out this Civilization screenshot:
|