 |
|
Travathian
|
|
Chandler, AZ, USA
May 1999
time: 21:14
|
|
I like the idea of having just the standard 7 civs, and just make customiziation of them done thru a utility like ACEdit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shining1
|
|
Christchurch, New Zealand
Apr 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
Some comments:
The major/minor civs thing should be included - but not using different civs. If you have around 30 cultures available, you can then have 16 as the main players, and another 8 or so as minor cultures, providing players with the ability to capture minor techs (plug for my idea), new towns, and possibly units. As well as spawning barbarians.
Holy Warrior: No, don't think easter island for the polynesians - think Tonga, Samoa and New Zealand.
Civs should be included on the basis of distinctiveness, geography and greatness. Hence the swedes are not the vikings, because they achieved different things in different eras.
And there definitely should not be any difference in the civilisations along the lines of social engineering stats. This would cause unimaginable damage to the game on any number of levels. What with SMAC's wildly imbalanced sides (PK's anyone? Anyone? Oh well...), it's highly debatable whether this was a good move AT ALL.
There hasn't been any response so far to the minor techs idea. Does this have any potential?
Shining1 (citys & regions threadmaster)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
NotLikeTea
|
|
HRM, NS, Canada
Apr 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
Been thinking about special abilities again.. no doubt this has been discussed before, but here goes.
As I tihnk most people agree, any special abilities based on civilizations borders on racism, and is clearly a bad idea. On the other hand, different civilizations in history are different from eachother. How to manage this?
Leaders. Take the Scythians (a rather obscure civilization, I know) They were extremely warlike, with the men in front killing people and raiding villages, and the women and children behind, slitting the throats of the wounded. Why were they like this? It was a choice. The Scythians never developed agriculture. They had the choice of trying to invent it, or just going out and capturing food from other civilizations.
This is how civilization differences could be implemnted, a bit like SMAC. This civ would take the Conquer option over others if this is a choice given. Another civ may have a leader who would try to take a diplomatic solution, or a scientific solution...
This should be somthing that, liek in SMAC is randomizable, so you get civs with character, but not predictible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eggman
|
|
I am starting to dislike the idea of civilizations have starting advantages and disadvantages. As people have mentioned, they may not remotely fit the starting area of the culture.
While I like the idea of Civs "earning" advantages, how about the concept of "experience points" as used by many fantasy games? From time to time, you will be given points to spend on whatever particular advantages that you want.
Not sure if I like the idea, but I thought I would throw it out there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CormacMacArt
|
|
At present (Civ II) there are 27 different possibilities for unique civilizations. What other personality qualities are we adding to get more?
Also, part of what made each civ unique, was how they applied technology to their situation. For example, the Aztecs used obsidian/wood weapons that were sharper than any metal blade. I think that we should let some qualities "develop" depending on where each civ is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Harel
|
|
Ramat Hasharon, Israel
May 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
The option to edit 7 civ is bad, mainly because in today multi-player world, 7 player game ISN'T ENOUGH.
A new game, Malkari, allows up to 40 ppl over e-mail.
Now, that IS a too-high number, true. But still, Civ III should allow as many players as I want. It should as customaziable as possible.
Same thing about minor civ. You decide how many you want. Don't like them? Don't belive in minor techs? Choose 0. But we should have the option.
The is good, mainly because is will fill the world with civs ( as is really is ), without over-crowding it with diplomacy and AI algorithems.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mo
|
|
There should be more minor civs to start out. Probably around 16. The further you get in the game they will slowly be reduced and then there will be a group a major powers. The minor civs should be able to grow into major civs if they rise in power. This should also go reversly that a major civ can be reduced to a minor civ.
The major factor limiting the number of civs in single and multiplayer mode is the processer and network speed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Isle
|
|
Copenhagen,-,Denmark
Jan 1970
time: 05:14
|
|
Although I am fundamentally against special abilities, it seems that there are some for whom its vital. Therefore I am going to suggest a model, that I at least could live with, but still would vote against if it came down to that or totally equal civs.
The main problem with special abilities is that it would be hard to balance with too many. Therefore there must be fewer,
some has suggested basing them on starting location, but that could be difficult for the computer to figure out, and people might end up with something they didnt want, even if it was ideal for their starting location. I suggest instead making a short list with 8 or so profiles with different advantages and disadvanges, like the factions of SMAC, and then letting the player choose which one he wants. The computer players could have a standard choice or three choices to be chosen among randomly.
The profiles for your civilization could f.x. be: Great Seafarers, Great Warriors, Great Diplomats, Great Farmers, Great Inventors, etc.
And when not controlled by a player the Viking f.x. would either be Great Seafarers, Great Warriors or Great Diplomats(modern scandinavia).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
NotLikeTea
|
|
HRM, NS, Canada
Apr 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
I like the idea of "Great ..." but not something to be given out randomly.
Would a civilization arising in the Andes be "Great Seafarers"?
Necessity is the mother of invention. I like the idea of having these grow. As you build a lot of boats, you would be better at seafaring.
If they would be given, they should not be random. A civ by the sea might be great seafarers, a civ by the plains might be great farmers, etc. I'm not sure if I like this idea, yet.... though it is not assuming that civs are somehow genetically superior at something (a bad route to take) but is encompassing the history that occured BEFORE the game starts.. hrm...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
First post in topic.
Modification of Isle's idea:
I like the idea that a player would be able to pick special advantages/disadvantages if they wanted to. However, to make it balanced, how about this:
About 1000 years in (about 3000BC), once you've had a chance to explore around a bit, a screen will pop up and allow you to customize your civ. This would be realistic as the first goal was survival and development of the home city and distinctiveness came over time.
However, there would be a limit of two or three items that you could change and every advantage would have to be offset by a disadvantage or you could decide to do nothing. The offsetting disadvantages would avoid the computer having to make decisions on adv/disadvantages.
Maybe this could be used as part of a larger social engineering/governments area that was not dependant on obtaining certain technologies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CormacMacArt
|
|
What about having these qualities (Great Warriors, etc.) depend on what you build and what you do as well as geography. (On a random map, having the Vikings as Great Seafarers, would be kind of strange) Of course, this would make the strong, stronger and there is already too much of that. What about making what technologies a civ can research depend on what resources are available (I know, but this addreses this thread) to each civ. This would give each civ a unique quality.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
NotLikeTea
|
|
HRM, NS, Canada
Apr 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
I don't like this since it seems too artificial.
I think that the best bet is just to learn by doing.
In other words, if you use a lot of boats, you get better at boating. Lots of farms: good at farming.
Some should be exclusive, though. It would be dull to artificially train to be good at everything. Being exceptionally good at one thing should take up enough resources (time, energy, gold, etc) to preclude experts in everything.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Possible Cultural/Civizational Emphasis(es):
Increased/Decreased:
- amount of food
- amount of shields required for units
- amount of shields required for city improvements
- amount of shields required for wonders
- movement rate
- attack factors
- defense factors
- happiness
- viewing range
- amount of science rate
- amount of money
- amount of luxuries (to deal with unhappiness, not the same as the unhappiness level)
- attitude towards your civilization by other civs
- terraforming
- random events (good and bad)
This system (in addition to the social engineering/government) would allow each player to customize their civ to either their preferred style of play or a variable style of play each time.
For instance, a builder player could emphasize the defensive and city improvement factors at a cost of offensive and movement factors and be able to withstand attacks from war-like civs easier while maintaining their desired profile.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecce Homo
|
|
Stockholm, Sweden
Apr 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
Please, no civ-specific properties! In the stone age, all civs were alike. What made them different were their environment and their leaders. Civ is not like Colonization or SMAC, where the civs come from different cultures, which have already developed different skills!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
delcuze2
|
|
Fairfax,VA USA
May 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
Perhaps it would be better if Civ Specific properties where developed over time and not inherant in the civilization itself.
IMHO, we are all created equal. Then we spend 70+ years getting more and more specialized.
Most civilizations did not start out with an innate ability to fish or farm. Over time they became fishermen or farmers because of of the terrain they where in.
However, if you are a good fisherman, you probably are not a good farmer. It would be interesting if that kind of specialization occured as the game progressed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LordStone1
|
 |
Rochester, NY
Jan 1970
time: 00:14
|
|
So, what I see is the majority moving toward a "All is created equal" beginning but the geography would determine some form of specialization for that civilization...
Like, the computer would go, "Oh, that settler is in a piece of land, very small, surrounded by a big ocean. Let's give him Navigation" or something like that?
But doesn't Civ2 already give us that ability? There's a lot of seafaring technologies and such...it's easy to turn your civilization into like the British Empire and just as equally easy to change it into the Mongol Empire. (Sea, land, if you don't get it)
Others propose putting it in Social Engineering, like +1 for sea units..?
Plus, I think everyone agrees that each civ should have a personality much like Civ2, but do we make them randomized or would the Mongols always be hated?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Travathian
|
|
Chandler, AZ, USA
May 1999
time: 21:14
|
|
As far as personality, like I said before, if playing on a map of Earth, use the actual personality of that civ, but on a random map use random personalities.
Never know, you might just meet a tree hugging, peace loving Ganghis Kahn. =)
Or just do what SMAC did and make it an option in the rules before the game starts.
[This message has been edited by Travathian (edited May 26, 1999).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
E
|
 |
July 24,2005 Ctp2 Tiles in sig!
May 1999
time: 21:14
|
|
I like the multiple CIVs idea. But instead of having the minor civs reduced, every time a city revolts it becomes a monior civ again (to model the current break up of the nation-state and the end of colonial empires, since every country has been somewhat a colony since history began)
I would also like to see an option where the leader graqphics are a .GIF file so when you make scenarios you can put scanned pictures or download pictures for leaders and see them when you do diplomacy.
As far as the whole attributes, talents, debate goes. The "great" traits developed because of the policy of the nations, instead of giving attributes i like the experience idea but the easier route would probably be making more than one technology tree. An economic, naval, military, etc, that is fairly distinct and practical to travel down one course by combining experience and science and realistic route to be competive (you can be have a land vs sea power; although most will try to master all branches, the difficulty will be that experience will lead down one path moret han another or easier to acquire etc.) And while were at it, future tech should just increase effectiveness, i.e. fututre agriculture ups farms 10% so it never really ends, civ wasto easy to max on science peak out at future tech then go on a rampage, the real world you never know when you peak in science. Of course there should be an end tech option for scenarios.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shining1
|
|
Christchurch, New Zealand
Apr 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
Another plug for the minor techs idea - since the debate seems to be heading this way.
The idea of having minor advances that are always discovered by each civilisation seems to fit the current ideas - civs shouldn't start with inital abilities, because this seems an inherently racist idea, but people feel there should be something more concrete than just focus to differentiate the zulus from the vikings.
The advantage to minor techs is that they occur during the game, and only if that civilisation finds the stimulus to pursue them. (Amoungst the ideas in the tech forum is the notion that technology be linked to environmental and social factors - so you CAN'T discover seafaring when stuck in the middle of a desert). Secondly, the idea takes it's bonuses from a truly historical basis - the english aren't necessarily better archers than anyone else, but they did discover the longbow.
(LordStone1: Every aspect of Civ is linked to every other one. So while this idea has, IMHO, some major potential for differenting civilisations, it also belongs in the tech thread, and I have posted it there.)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Shining1
|
|
Christchurch, New Zealand
Apr 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
Minor techs:
A second list of technologies, distinct from the main tech tree in two ways: the player cannot research them directly; and each tech is a deadend addition to a tech on the main tree.
I quoted the longbow example before - I'll use it to illustrate the example below.
Minor discoveries are kind of the aftershocks of a discovery, representing the fact that some cultures took ideas to a higher level than others. When a major tech is researched, there is a small chance that the player will receive a minor tech addition to that tech in the time between the inital discovery and the next major discovery. For instance, you discover 'archery'. You get bows, and you can build an archery range addition to your barracks. These are the benefits of the major tech. Every culture can research them and build the resulting units/components/structures/addons/etc.
The player then starts researching the next tech - call it currency, say. The player then has a chance to discover the longbow minor tech at anytime between the discovery of archery and the discovery of currency. It's a random event, more than anything else.
The advantages of minor techs are:
1) Interest -- you don't get them every game.
2) Tradibility -- since you can't actively research all of them, you'll nearly always have something to trade, even with a superior culture.
3) Historical immersion -- they add an even greater depth to the historical aspects of Civ, by including important discoveries that don't make the main tech tree.
4) Less stagnation -- if it takes you 20 turns to research a tech, you have a very good chance of picking up the previous discovery's minor tech too.
5) Civ differentiation -- an option to automatically give minor techs to the civilisation that discovered them in real life - for instance, the english ALWAYS get the longbow minor tech when they discover archery, while other civs have only a small chance of discovering it.
By this means, you can create a unique aspect to each civilisation that doesn't influence game balance to any great extent, and doesn't imply that one race is superior to another in any area. You also avoid the problems with having a naval civ (viking) being unable to use their advantage because when landlocked. But the potential advantage is still there.
How this helps. It's an interesting idea, it covers a lot of bases, and it makes for a good way to make unique, historically accurate civs without creating massive balancing issues.
Shining1
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shining1
|
|
Christchurch, New Zealand
Apr 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
LordStone1: YES. In fact it all depends on the number of minor techs that firaxis and the civ community can come up with. I'd like to see 2 per civilisation, and at least one minor tech for 80% of the techs on the main tree.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-05-1999 05:54
|