03-07-2001 03:54									#1
	Randomizing Various Aspects Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

In order to increase gameplay and replayability, many of the announced Civ aspects should have options to randomize them. Here are two that come to mind:

1) Randomize assignment of Civ-specific units

Instead of Civ-specific units being pre-destined for a certain Civ, it could be randomly assigned. Thus instead of the Romans being pre-destined to build Legions, it would not be known until that Civ develops Iron Working whether they also develop this expertise. For example, you are the Persians and you have just discovered Iron Working. During that same turn, a message could come up saying :
"With the discovery of Iron Working, our military experts have developed the ability to produce the unique, fearsome Legion units!"

Yes, I realize that perhaps a better solution might be using minor techs or wonders so that a Civ can consciously strive for that ability (just like for the Wonders now).

However, this "randomize Civ-specific units" is still better than the "pre-destined" implementation and if it exists I would definitely use Civ-specific units. (I would not now use them in the current "pre-destined" form.) Besides sometimes such expertise historically has been randomnly arrived at rather than consciously strived for! Easy to implement and vastly improves on the current pre-destined Civ-specific model.


2) Randomize assignment of AI personalities (at the beginning of the game and during the game)

Instead of the AI personalities being fixed and predictable for a particular leader throughout time, let's have a template of various personalities and let's have the option of randomly assigning these personalities to the various AI leaders. Its kind of stupid that I know that I need to go after the Russians early because I know ahead of time that Stalin is militaristic and expansionist. But if there were no way of knowing except in the course of monitoring their behaviour, then that is much better!

Furthermore, everytime an AI Civ changes govt types, it should randomly assign a new personality from the available templates. (which doesn't have to exclude the old personality).

This adds to gameplay because of added unpredictability!

The inclusion of these options would definitely improve gameplay and replayability and I hope that Firaxis has implemented them as they should be easy to include!

	03-07-2001 04:54									#2
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: 1) Randomize assignment of Civ-specific units

I like this idea very much. This might be the only way that I'd actually play with them outside of the first game (Firaxis has stated that there will be an option to turn them off).

quote: 2) Randomize assignment of AI personalities (at the beginning of the game and during the game)

This will not only add great diversity to the game but it will also add a new challenge each game. I can't even play with the Mongols in Civ2 because every time I do they take over all the weak Civs early so by the end of the game there are only about 3 civs that are good including myself.

Overall those are two very good ideas.

	04-07-2001 04:25									#3
	Got spare money?

Hmmm...

Looks like other than TechWins, no one else seems to care for these options, one way or the other.

The key though is that these should be options. Those who do not want randomly assigned Civ-specific units or randomly assigned AI personalities can have these turned off.

Personally I like these random options and would probably enable them almost all the time, if these were available. It somewhat takes away from gameplay to have such aspects be known beforehand and therefore be completely predictable. (which is why I completely oppose the current method of pre-destined Civ-specific units.)

	04-07-2001 04:48									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Looks like other than TechWins, no one else seems to care for these options, one way or the other.

I know how you feel I do threads all the time, such as Alliances, A Special Something, Importance To Borders, etc..., that hardly get any replies at all but they do have some good ideas in them.

I really think that those two options will help out the gameplay greatly. I would imagine Civ3 would at least have a randomize civ-specific units option.

	04-07-2001 22:18									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I don't know...If we're going to change civ-specific units, then I'd rather change them in the direction of making it possible for any civ to choose to get any civ-specific unit in-game (perhaps with a technology which can be acquired only once).

	04-07-2001 22:26									#6
	Suffering from ads?

as i prefr MP over SP . civ specific units and AI personalities is a waste of time,,

	05-07-2001 08:43									#7
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: 1) Randomize assignment of Civ-specific units

Hey Mikey! He likes it!

And so do I. I think this is a great idea. Although I dont even like the idea of civ-specific units, if they are going to stick this to us, then at least make an option to make it random. Civ3 is about Alternate History.

	05-07-2001 09:42									#8
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I'm holding out for an altogether more intelligent implementation of unique advantages but randomisation would be better than nothing. On the whole I'd probably just turn them off.

If the AI comes with differing 'flavours' to make countries behave differently then I would certainly be in favour of randomisation. I'd rather that they produce one AI that plays extremely capably in whatever situation it finds itself than mess around trying to get them to be different and reduce their effectiveness.

	05-07-2001 11:13									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Hey Mikey! He likes it!

What are you talking about?

	06-07-2001 00:53									#10
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Randomizing the AI Personalities is a good idea- because no civ is predisposed to anything in civ when a human player can make them do what (s)he wants it to do.

Random civ-specific units- I suppose this is a good idea, but I would rather do without civ-specific units.

	06-07-2001 04:18									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by TechWins What are you talking about?

Mikey is a ficticious character that does not like anything. There are many commercials on television about this 'Mikey'. The most recent was on a commercial for Rice Chex breakfast cereal. It had two people wondering about this new cereal. Neither of the people wanted to actually try it. So they give it to a third person (who you cant see at first)... the third person trys it, and really likes it. The third person in Mikey. Then the other two say, "He likes it! Hey Mikey!" "Mikey Doesnt like anything"... the commercial switches the catch phrase around... but its still the same. I guess Arizonians don't have a Mikey?

	06-07-2001 04:20									#12
	Full PM-box? Change here!

The Mikey from Life cereal. I see.

	06-07-2001 04:26									#13
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

It was Life cereal? well whatever, you get it now...

	06-07-2001 04:46									#14
	Increase Your PM Length

Yeah, I do get it now.

With the randomizing of AI personalities, I think would give you more games with that "one more turn" feeling.

quote: I'd rather that they produce one AI that plays extremely capably in whatever situation it finds itself than mess around trying to get them to be different and reduce their effectiveness.

Another thing you should be able to do with AI personalities is choose which ones you want to include. Meaning that if you really like the English's personality and you hate the Zulus personality you should be able to have the English personality for the Zulus and the English. This would still be able to work under randomizing AI personalities. All you would do is select how many personalities you want, that would cover all the civs that will be in the game (even if you select a personality twice). Then those personalities would be randomized over all the civs.

	06-07-2001 11:43									#15
	Remove this text

I don't like your suggestions. What should really be done is to balance the races. Your solution is simply a short-cut to avoid balancing them. If everything is random, why even have races? Why not just have one civilization that has tons of options?

The real problem with online games is when everyone starts doing the same thing. I guess this is why you want randomized things. This way at least everyone won't pick the same race. Even then, this doesn't solve anything IMO. If one strategy or tactic is dominating then everyone would go for that anyway. So the only real solution is to balance things properly. Balancing strategy games is tough (just like RPG games) but if online success is to be achieved balance is paramount. Believe it or not, having unique civs will actually improve game replayability as long as it is balanced.



KoalaBear33

	06-07-2001 13:47									#16
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: I don't like your suggestions. What should really be done is to balance the races. Your solution is simply a short-cut to avoid balancing them. If everything is random, why even have races? Why not just have one civilization that has tons of options?

Ok what people don't want is to play against the same type of style from the same civ each game. This is being hypothetical: when people pick the English each game as an opponent they don't want them to play the same way each time. Meaning they don't want to see the English playing as a war hungry civ each game they would like to see them play as a war hungry civ one game then just as a peaceful expanionist the next game and so on. It's just to create some variety into each game.

quote: Believe it or not, having unique civs will actually improve game replayability as long as it is balanced.

I disagree. Civ's motto is kind of to re-create history not to re-play out history the same way. Having civ-units can't be balanced out right if you don't have a civ-specific unti for each age. Which isn't possible with some of the civs that are included. I'm diffently glad Civ3 will have an option to not include civ-specific units.

	06-07-2001 14:33									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

NOTE: Everything I say here is for multiplayer only.

quote: Originally posted by TechWins Ok what people don't want is to play against the same type of style from the same civ each game. This is being hypothetical: when people pick the English each game as an opponent they don't want them to play the same way each time.

See this accomplishes nothing. What that will do is to make all the races the same and it will just be like as if there was only one race. I don't want that. If races were balanced then what people would do is to pick another race if they wanted something different.

What I am suggesting is something that is new to turn-based strategy games so I'm sure some of you won't like it. I think the best system is one that is used it RTS games (in particular Starcraft). In these games you have different races that are completely different. Each race is different and has its strengths and weaknesses. People pick a race based on what they like and what they are good at. There is a greater replayability and variety because you are guaranteed to meet all the races and the various strengths and weaknesses. Under your proposal, it won't matter what race you pick. It would be as if everyone was playing the same race.

I want the differences to be something more than cosmetic (ie. graphical). The only thing that needs to be done (under my scenario) is that balance must be ensured. The Zulu, for example, can be a formidable military (not sure what their real bonuses are) but as long as the Chinese can keep up (say in trade or something) then people will pick both. So basically the players will end up picking a race that suits their style of play and hence diversity will be ensured. You might think that military is the best for you and pick the Zulus but I might like building an empire through trade and will pick Chinese. On top of this, once you master a particular playing style (say military oriented), you will want to try out another style (say economic orientation). This basically means that you will choose another race this time around. Under your system, one won't see too much of a difference when they switch strategies and no one will have any incentive to play another race.

quote: I disagree. Civ's motto is kind of to re-create history not to re-play out history the same way. Having civ-units can't be balanced out right if you don't have a civ-specific unti for each age. Which isn't possible with some of the civs that are included. I'm diffently glad Civ3 will have an option to not include civ-specific units.

I am not concerned about short periods of the game. As long as something is useful in the whole context of teh game, it will be balanced. For instance, the musketeers (haven't read up on which units are special; assume these are special for one race) might seem like they might not match the later units like the civ-specific tanks. But this doesn't matter. As long as the musketeers provide a huge bonus in mid-game, the person that uses them will be ahead by the time late-game rolls around (if you know what I mean).

After all, you are playing the WHOLE and not portions of it! So as long as the bonuses are reasonable and balanced it is all right. I think the system that you are proposing will be detrimental to online play. If strategy games are to move forward into online games, the systems must change. Longevity and replayability are key for online games. People will play a game 1 to 2 years and will want to have different experiences. If there was only "one race" as you are proposing, the game will dissapear after an year.

KoalaBear33

	06-07-2001 15:16									#18
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: I want the differences to be something more than cosmetic (ie. graphical). The only thing that needs to be done (under my scenario) is that balance must be ensured. The Zulu, for example, can be a formidable military (not sure what their real bonuses are) but as long as the Chinese can keep up (say in trade or something) then people will pick both. So basically the players will end up picking a race that suits their style of play and hence diversity will be ensured. You might think that military is the best for you and pick the Zulus but I might like building an empire through trade and will pick Chinese. On top of this, once you master a particular playing style (say military oriented), you will want to try out another style (say economic orientation). This basically means that you will choose another race this time around. Under your system, one won't see too much of a difference when they switch strategies and no one will have any incentive to play another race.

The personality of each Civ will be different. If the Mongols were to be in the game, they would have a militariastic point of view every game. With randomizing the personalities, the Mongols one game could be militariastic then the next an econonmistic point of view. This would leave players with not knowing what type of AI personalities there will be for each civ. Giving the game some sort of variety for each game.

quote: I am not concerned about short periods of the game. As long as something is useful in the whole context of teh game, it will be balanced. For instance, the musketeers (haven't read up on which units are special; assume these are special for one race) might seem like they might not match the later units like the civ-specific tanks. But this doesn't matter. As long as the musketeers provide a huge bonus in mid-game, the person that uses them will be ahead by the time late-game rolls around (if you know what I mean).

It's not balanced to have a Civ get a bonus in a certain part of the game. Each civ should be at equal terms for capabilities throughout the whole game. There can be no balanced system put in place for Civ3.

	06-07-2001 15:49									#19
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by TechWins The personality of each Civ will be different. If the Mongols were to be in the game, they would have a militariastic point of view every game. With randomizing the personalities, the Mongols one game could be militariastic then the next an econonmistic point of view. This would leave players with not knowing what type of AI personalities there will be for each civ. Giving the game some sort of variety for each game.

You will only have the same variety if you keep picking the same race over and over again. Besides I still don't see how you can improve variety except in any meaningful manner. That is, if there are 4 races in a game then you will have 4 types of personalities. What you are asking for is kind of like trying to have multiples of the same races. This diminishes the uniqueness of the game IMO. The other thing is that certain combinations can useless (eg. say a military oriented race gets a trade oriented personality)--but this is a minor thing IMO.

quote: It's not balanced to have a Civ get a bonus in a certain part of the game. Each civ should be at equal terms for capabilities throughout the whole game.

Balance does not mean that things have to be identical! If races get bonuses that apply to certain time periods it doesn't necessarily mean it is imbalanced. As long as the aggregate impact is the same for all the races over the whole game then it is balanced.

There is no reason why something has to apply throughout the whole game. In fact, having time specific bonuses can significantly improve gameply. For example, if there is a race that is good at mid-game then you would have to try outwitting that race in early game or try to prolong the game to late stages. So basically you don't wnat to mess around with that race in mid-game. If you were the one playing that race then you would try to leverage your strength during the mid-game. Doesn't this increase more strategy than a system where everyone gets their civ-specific units in late game or something like that?

KoalaBear33

	06-07-2001 20:40									#20
	Put an end to popups!

The suggestion to randomize the assignment of Civ-specific units and AI personalities is primarily geared towards single player games. It would adds much to replayability to have many aspects unknown at the beginning of the game and revealed later in the game.

At least for me, I don't want to know at the very beginning of the game what kind of specific units or personalities a Civ possesses but instead I prefer to find out as the game progresses. Randomizing their assignments should take little work to implement and is a very good way to increase gameplay and replayability in the single player game.

Admittedly this may not work as well in multi-player games for some. But in that case, those randomizing options could be turned off for those who feel don't prefer it.

Last edited by polypheus on 07-07-2001 at 01:33

	07-07-2001 01:17									#21
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by KoalaBear33 I don't like your suggestions. What should really be done is to balance the races. Your solution is simply a short-cut to avoid balancing them. If everything is random, why even have races? Why not just have one civilization that has tons of options? The real problem with online games is when everyone starts doing the same thing. I guess this is why you want randomized things. This way at least everyone won't pick the same race. Even then, this doesn't solve anything IMO. If one strategy or tactic is dominating then everyone would go for that anyway. So the only real solution is to balance things properly. Balancing strategy games is tough (just like RPG games) but if online success is to be achieved balance is paramount. Believe it or not, having unique civs will actually improve game replayability as long as it is balanced. KoalaBear33

Ah hah - just as i predicted - once we have civ specific units, people will start talking about "races" (like they do with all the RTS's) instead of civs.

Grumpy old guy policing the language.
LOTM

	07-07-2001 01:22									#22
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by KoalaBear33 NOTE: Everything I say here is for multiplayer only. See this accomplishes nothing. What that will do is to make all the races the same and it will just be like as if there was only one race. I don't want that.

In the SP games i play there is only one race - the human race. people settle in different places, their rulers make different strategic decisions, and through the course of history they develop into different civilizations.


Go ahead - call me politically correct - I dont care.
LOTM

	07-07-2001 03:32									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark In the SP games i play there is only one race - the human race. people settle in different places, their rulers make different strategic decisions, and through the course of history they develop into different civilizations.

Yeah I'm used to using RTS terminology. Anyway, there ARE races in Civilization. The Iroquois, Indians, Zulu, etc are all different races. But you are right in saying that we should call them civilizations (all the Europen civilizations are the same race)...

KoalaBear33

	07-07-2001 03:36									#24
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

My main concern is multiplayer. I have never played a strategy game online so I don't know how good/fun it will be. If your concern is single player then I don't have a problem with randomization. Having an option in single player is all right with me...

KoalaBear33

	07-07-2001 04:12									#25
	Support Apolyton

The whole beauty of Civ is that you all have the same potential, it is what you do in the game that crafts your civilisation. What's fundamentally different about the Indians and the Iroqois in 4,000 BC that will dictate their potential in the future? Nothing. Just because Civ 3 are giving the nations a historical leader each should not rigidly fix those nations into always behaving like they did under that one particular leader historically. I really don't understand where you are coming from, Koala.

	07-07-2001 04:33									#26
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: The suggestion to randomize the assignment of Civ-specific units and AI personalities is primarily geared towards single player games. It would adds much to replayability to have many aspects unknown at the beginning of the game and revealed later in the game.

This is what I'm trying to get Koalabear to understand. I guess he doesn't quite understand what we mean.

	08-07-2001 20:45									#27
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by KoalaBear33 Yeah I'm used to using RTS terminology. Anyway, there ARE races in Civilization. The Iroquois, Indians, Zulu, etc are all different races. But you are right in saying that we should call them civilizations (all the Europen civilizations are the same race)... KoalaBear33

No the indians are not a race - they include dark skinned native peoples in the south, lighter peoples from the northern mountains, (pardon me for privileging skin color as a marker for race, despite anthropoligists preference for blood type, etc) and various invaders, afgans, mongols, persians, etc in historic times.
They are a CIV, not a race.

Zulus are one cultural/linguistic group that developed a state in the 18th c, among black africans. While of bantu language, they may have absorbed khoisan elements.

Iroquis were a confederation of tribes, all american indians. ultimate "racial" origins of amerindians a matter of dispute.

"race" is a very questionable category in social science today. I prefer civ.


and no, the fault is not yours. It is the inevitablle reult of civ speicifc units


LOTM