11-01-2002 00:50									#1
	We are doomed. We want a more complicated game, but the casual gamer doesn't Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

This is the part that still bothers me

Apparrantly they believed people wanted the game to be simpler. At first this seemed like a good idea. But I think we know how that turned out.

I'm guessing many of you hard core guys wanted more depth. Myself included. I wanted a lot more depth in combat. I've seen some great ideas, but I doubt they will be implemented. I like the idea of private land mentioned in the other thread. And there are many other ideas along these lines that can be done. But will they? Unlikely. The more complicated they make it the worse the ai does. CTP might be an indication of this.

I believe the genre has peaked with civ2. I suggest moving on to other types of games.

	11-01-2002 01:15									#2
	Re: We are doomed. We want a more complicated game, but the casual gamer doesn't Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Dissident This is the part that still bothers me Apparrantly they believed people wanted the game to be simpler. At first this seemed like a good idea. But I think we know how that turned out. I'm guessing many of you hard core guys wanted more depth. Myself included. I wanted a lot more depth in combat. I've seen some great ideas, but I doubt they will be implemented. I like the idea of private land mentioned in the other thread. And there are many other ideas along these lines that can be done. But will they? Unlikely. The more complicated they make it the worse the ai does. CTP might be an indication of this. I believe the genre has peaked with civ2. I suggest moving on to other types of games.

Speak for yourself. If you want more complexity, spend some time with the Editor, create a few improvements, change some of the rules. I'm looking at the "as is" game like a template, from which I can customize it the way I want it to be. It was far more possibilities in this way than any of the previous games released, which could be one reason why they haven't released an MP option. Civ II didn't start out with one either if I recall, but eventually appeared.

Granted that it doesn't have much in the way of event triggers yet, but I'm guessing that's because they want to see first what will actually work, and what will cause the game to crash. Judging by the number of times my game has crashed due to some minor change, introducing triggers at this point would be a major headache, and would no doubt leave the critiics fuming even more.

	11-01-2002 01:19									#3
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

the editor cannot add complexity. Trust me, I looked at it. There are some cool things you can do with the editor, but nothing complex.

	11-01-2002 01:31									#4
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Sure, Willem, with the crappy editor we will be able to transform the ugly duck into a Swan. Dream on!

Dissident, welcome to the Light Side!

	11-01-2002 01:35									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Dissident the editor cannot add complexity. Trust me, I looked at it. There are some cool things you can do with the editor, but nothing complex.

I guess we have different definitions of complexity. And they are still working on it, I've read a post from the designer as such, Dan something I believe, so not doubt more options will become available in time. It's a new approach after all, and the game has only been out for a very short time. And like I said, my experiences with the Editor has resulted in numerous crashes in order to find out what my limitations are. And that's not the fault of poor programming, it only means that this a complex game with a lot of unknown variables and repurcussions. It's to no one's advantage to release an Editor that just causes problems for the game.

	11-01-2002 02:09									#6
	Got spare money?

see Vel's disenchanted thread. He's got some good ideas about complexity. And I also liked the private land and manpower ideas in the radical ideas thread.

But my question is. Does the casual gamer want more complexity? If not, then we will probably never get the game we want. Unfortunately the people here in these boards only make up a small % of the total people buying civ3.

	11-01-2002 02:14									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I agree somewhat with your analysis, but not with your conclusion. You are never going to get AI that a human can't beat, but you can create one that presents a challenge to the typical player (especially to one who refrains from using exploits - which I define as a strategy that would not have worked in real life but works in the game because of a "loophole" in the "rules", the AI or both). In particular, I think AI could be created that would be "by the book", but have a pretty good book.

As to complexity, the enemy here is actually MP, which the game was intended for even though it was cut from the initial release (probably for schedule reasons). For MP, people want a game which can be completed in a few hours at most. I think most SP fans would be fine with a game that took a month to finish, as long as the reason it took so long was lots of turns with exiting things to do every turn rather than fewer turns with lots of tedious micromanagement in every turn.

I would like to see a lot of things "fleshed out". I think what people need to keep in mind is that Civ was originally (even if not officially acknowledged as such) based on Empire. Empire was not much above Risk. The biggest leap in features was actually from Empire to Civ1. In Civ3 we finally see the demise of Empire's bizarre air combat system (airplanes can't fly over enemy units, bombers stay in the air two turns so enemy fighters can get a shot at them in between, planes can attack beyond the range to get home and fall out of the sky, and you can exploit that last by using ground/sea units to block bombers from getting back to base). So, progress is made, but slowly and kind of "two steps forward, one step back" (assuming they patch the game decently).

I suspect that MOO3 will be the wave of the future - competent AI that runs the details on autopilot according to broad direction you provide, with a tightly budgeted ability to micromanage the things you consider most critical. Best I can tell, MOO3 is not evolutionary in any way from MOO1 & MOO2. So, we'll see if that flies with Mooniacs. If it does, I'd expect to see a reapplication of the same ideas to a Civ-like game.

Another possible wave of the future is the EU series. Although realtime, they are not clickfest realtime. They offer a lot of richness on a different level than Civ (more about diplomacy and grand strategy than micromanaging what goes on inside cities), but details could be added and the game scope extended to cover "all of history". Or, a more Civ-like TBS game could borrow a bunch of ideas from EU2 to create a richer game.

There are numerous shareware-type projects in the TBS genre which deliver all sorts of detail, if not much animated 3D graphics pizazz (which us hard-core types tend not to care much about anyway). If there is not enough money in it for the big guys, little guys will make the games we want to play.

So, I'm not ready to give up on it yet.

	11-01-2002 02:43									#8
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

One of the biggest gripes about Civ3 is how long it take to play (and the onsetting tedium factor). Generally, by adding more complexity, whether to combat or other areas, the game and its turns will take even longer. I don't think that's the direction that even hardcore gamers would like to see, let alone the 90% of those playing Civ3 that are not hardcore civers.

Going towards the EU model would make the game even less playable, imo. In EU, they purposely made the game where information is hard to see and actions are hard to gauge, esp. in its cause and effects. This is the trade-off of being more of a historical simulator instead of a global-scale TBS game like Civ. Hardcore civers want more definite answers (like in combat and culture) not less defined, therefore EU is not a good comparison either.

I think hardcore civers want a game that makes sense more than anything else. They want to see if a wide-range of strategies or tactics can be the right or wrong choice. This assumes that all information is clearly presented so that choices can be made and that the combination of results make sense, as oppose to random luck. But they also want a game that can take as long or as short as needed and not being forced into having to make decisions too quickly or having to wait a long time before you see the effects of the decision. It requires a design that is tight, focusing on those things that directly helps the gamer to make decisions and reducing impediments (i.e., game mechanics, presented results, etc.) that would hamper them.

I believe Civ2 MGE achieved that balance but Civ3 suffers from trying to do too many things, esp. in combining disparate elements from SMAC and CtP with Civ1 and Civ2. They forgot the adage of keeping it simple, which even hardcore civers would like just as much as the casual gamer. By keeping it simple (thus, not complex), it provides much more depth to the variety of ways to play (not only in regular games, but for scenarios as well). In other words, I believe that a more complex game would force you into more finite strategies and tactics. Civ3 is a good example with the addition of a more complex resource and cultural model, not to mention the more complex tech research model, all which limits what a civer wants to do.

In summary, I believe Civ3 needs to be made more simpiler and not more complex, but all information and game decisions need to be presented and affected ina clear and precise manner, unlike EU.

	11-01-2002 02:48									#9
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Interesting point....

A move to something more along the lines of EU, an interesting concept, but let's face it the AI in EU is a complete joke, much worse than even the AI in Civ I or II. However, I would not be adverse to seeing some of the elements of EU incorporated into Civ.

	11-01-2002 03:21									#10
	What is complexity? Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

As the author of many thread calling for what many would call 'complex' ideas, i have to challenge the notion.
Even if one is given more factors to consider and use, if they all fit tightly into one tighly wound web that creates a good narrative or gaming experience then they will not slow down the game or lessen enjoyment. How much more complex are TBS than lets say sports games like a football simulator? In football simulators you have as many factors as in TBS, and they are not even as clear cut and absolute. What about a games like the Grand theft auto series, where you can do anything you want, period? That's pretty complex in my book. And yet no one complains, why? Because even with all their complaxity one is immersed into a gaming experience. Folks, the human mind is a powerfull things, and it can handle huge complex things without that much trouble.
The issue is one of tastes and marketing. Sports games and strategy games can both be very complex but there is still a different field. Everyday players who sample from a wide field and are not particularly interested may not like being immersed in a strategy gaming world whereas they might like another set of games. Thats personal choice. Unfortunitelly for those who are hardcore strategy gamers, the companies are rightfully out to make a profit, and the bigger they are, the bigger thier sales must be, so the larger (and more diffuse) audience they must reach. Civ and Civ2 were very rare in that they struct a cord among most sectors of gaming, from the tepid to the hardcore. I think though, that as gaming becomes more diverse and more and more choices become available, a choice must be made about where civ is going. As in TV, the networks are dying slowly, particularistic cable channels doing better. Will Civ saty network or be made the flagship of some cable line?

	11-01-2002 05:11									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Steve Clark In EU, they purposely made the game where information is hard to see and actions are hard to gauge, esp. in its cause and effects. ... In summary, I believe Civ3 needs to be made more simpiler and not more complex, but all information and game decisions need to be presented and affected ina clear and precise manner, unlike EU.

I am totally at a loss what you mean here.

I can not think of a single cause-and-effect relation in EU that is not explained in the manual. As to information you usually either get a precise description of what will happen with each decision (example: events), or you get the probabilities of each outcome listed down to one percent. And as to precision, if you hover over a slider, it will tell you things such as 'one notch to the right and land combat morale of your units will increase by 0.5%'. Can it get any more precise?

Could it be you didn´t read the manual?

	11-01-2002 05:16									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Steve Clark One of the biggest gripes about Civ3 is how long it take to play (and the onsetting tedium factor). Generally, by adding more complexity, whether to combat or other areas, the game and its turns will take even longer. I don't think that's the direction that even hardcore gamers would like to see, let alone the 90% of those playing Civ3 that are not hardcore civers.

Hi Steve. I've got to disagree. More complexity if done the Civ way would make the game mostly unplayable. By "the Civ way" I mean through the use of fairly simple mechanistic rules that require large levels of hand-holding to have a chance of achieving a desired result. These simple models have as a direct consequence Very different results given relatively minor changes in player action. This, combined with the abyssmal quality of the AI required Huge amounts of micromanagement. I certainly do support your implied point that making Civ more complex as it is, would largely be a big mistake.

But if you make an economic system that doesn't require continuous hand-holding to function you can have More complexity with Better gameplay. At least I firmly believe it's so. Enough to stake several hundred hours of work a year on it! If individual military units don't need to be moved by hand there's a lot more time for the creative stuff, like having a more realistic government model. It can be done!

The tricky point with 'smart' people in your civ game, is still keeping the vital connection between the player and the civ that all that micromanagement ensures. You feel the civ is yours in the Civilization games because you raised it by hand, and without you, it would have died. If you're interested you can see my thoughts about this in an Apolyton column called CIVILIZATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS I wrote a couple years ago.

I think that with a richer world (and some better AI) there will be a much richer array of chalenges to meet and overcome in a complex civ game.

	11-01-2002 05:54									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Not so sure about what the casual gamer wants...

You can have more depth by adding some simple things sometimes. Making a MACRO model of history with more depth doesn't necessarily mean more complicated, BUT

- it means you have to add the right things
- it means you may add some things that casual gmers may just let it go while maniacs may be alot more subtle!

	11-01-2002 06:06									#14
	Optional depth? Remove this text

Surely the answer to this game and others as regards to casual vs in-depth is simply to have a number of options on the new game screen, each option giving more complexity in a certain area. With all the options switched off, it's a relatively easy game for the casual gamer, switch them all on for maximum complexity.

	11-01-2002 06:32									#15
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Mark, thank you for your thoughtful response. I am thinking about this some more and have two quick replies. First, I think alot of it has to do with how a particular strategy gamer approaches a game. Their experiences, biases and personality I think do color whether a game is too complex or not. Secondly, I'm really becoming a believer in the game concept of giving the players constant feedback in successes while playing. This can really overcome any shortfalls in micromanagement (or complexity, if you will) and keep the player playing. I do think it is a fine line between work that is fun and work that is tedious.

I'll use my second favorite strategy game (after Civ2) as an example, Imperialism II. I think most would agree that Imp2 is a much more simpler game than Civ3 and EU. Yet that, imo, is a good thing because it works beautifully and is a lot of fun to play. In my mind, Civ2 and Imp2 are quite simple games and do not need more complexity to make it more fun. Civ2 is the ultimate, imo, because of the ability to create wonderful scenarios that keep that title fresh, even after 5 years. Give the hardcore gamer a simple game and watch what can be done with it. Give any gamer an over-complex game and watch the frustration grows.

Comrade: I and several here wrote at length about the nebulous feedback EU gives the player over in the EU forum. If they have kept threads from about a year ago, I'll see if I can dig some of those up. I have respect for EU but it is not a game for me. I prefer a strategy game that is more definitive in its functions like the cause and effects of researching a tech, combat parameters and adding an improvement. EU was purposely vague about those things and for many, that was great but with my love for Civ2, I cannot play that way. Hopefully I can find those thoughts...

	11-01-2002 06:51									#16
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

If real life was clear-cut cause and effect, there would be no politics. If it was obvious what the effect would be of every policy, the politicians would have nothing to debate. Tax cuts, deficit, bail outs, all would be easily evaluated with no room for debate. So, why should a game that people play to live vicariously the lives of rulers be clear-cut in ways that real life rulers never experience. Frankly, I think EU/EU2 is great as far as it goes. I'd just like it expanded to cover the same gound as Civ.

	11-01-2002 07:24									#17
	my take on this... Increase Your PM Length

i've been thinking about something that relates to this(at least i think it does). i'm a quakeworld player(based on quake1, which is multiplayer first person shooter), and my main reasons for playing are the community and playing it as a sport(think competition, matches, etc). quakeworld(referred to as qw from now on) was released over 5 yrs ago. yet i still play it.

many things were done right in qw, and have yet to be surpassed by future games, so what is the reason to change to the latest and greatest(except for a bit better gfx)? qw is also opensource now, and we can modify EVERYTHING. there is a small community in north america, but in europe there is a community almost as big as that of quake3(which is the latest game in the series, and not opensource yet). qw players are an underground group of people and while we will never enjoy the mainstream benefits we will also never endure their problems.

i'll explain quake3(q3) a bit, and why it's not as popular with the very hardcore players. it was designed to appeal to newbies, from the level design to the game mechanics, there have been long debates that prove without a doubt(in my mind anyways) that was the sole purpose of the game design. it doesn't help when john carmack(the main programmer) makes comments that support him not understanding or not wanting to understand hardcore gamers. there was also an attempt at an unofficial fix(called promode, that's a whole new topic though), but i think you get the idea.

qw was made during a different time, as was civ2. years ago computer gaming wasn't mainstream yet, and now it is becoming such(if it isn't already). once you go mainstream things change.

the gaming industry is becoming more like hollywood, instead of the sub-culture it once was. you can actually make money by releasing old game designs with new gfx(graphics), and sound. there is not much more to it than that. all the old classics are just being released with updated gfx, and maybe a handful of new features(think doom, quake, wolfenstien, unreal, civ, warcraft, red alert, simcity, ad infinitum). gaming today is more about fanboy magazines, and marketing than innovativation and new gameplay. just repackage it and sell it again(hey, it almost always works, and probably has much better chance of success than new ideas)!

i know i'm ranting, but the crux of the problem is it's not economically feasible to release a game that we want. it's better to release conservative title after title. it doesn't matter if we complain as long as someone keeps buying it. which will happen since the younger people have never even heard of civ1 + civ2 and will love civ3 since they don't know any better(heh).

basically the kind of game really hardcore players want is not going to be made for them unless a developer does it by accident(a fluke!), gets lucky or is trying make a name for themselves. we want a game that is going to be a sport for us. simple rules yet endless innovativation from personal insight and strategy in the gameplay.

the developers know what we want, but why should they give it to us? paying $50 once for a game you can play for 5yrs is not a good deal for them. if you had a civ game that was opensource could be upgraded year after year, you would never need to buy an 'official' civ game again. why put up with corporate vampires when you don't need to. you have a choice, people like mark everson represent the future. i am sure he will even talk back to you if you message him(can't say the same for sid, he's probably got an entourage following him around)! why put up with firaxis and other game companies debacles when you could take part in projects like clash, and freeciv and liberate yourself.

i'm not the best writer, but i hope my point came across. if you liked my diatribe you might find this http://www.theunderdogs.org/scratch.php link interesting(it sorta inspired me). i'm not here to advertise the site(but i recommend you check it out, i think most of you will like it ).

	11-01-2002 10:08									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Steve Clark One of the biggest gripes about Civ3 is how long it take to play (and the onsetting tedium factor). Generally, by adding more complexity, whether to combat or other areas, the game and its turns will take even longer.

The problem isn't with time, it's whether it's time well spent. Right now, it's not, most of your time is tedium. Make the time spent enjoyable, and you get the "just one more turn" syndrome that kept us all up till way too late playing Civ 1 and 2. That's no longer there for me in Civ3, I feel like my time is not well spent, just spent...

Venger

	11-01-2002 10:13									#19
	Re: my take on this... Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by pg i've been thinking about something that relates to this(at least i think it does). i'm a quakeworld player(based on quake1, which is multiplayer first person shooter), and my main reasons for playing are the community and playing it as a sport(think competition, matches, etc). quakeworld(referred to as qw from now on) was released over 5 yrs ago. yet i still play it.

QuakeWorld is still the purest, best FPS ever made. Where do you play it? I haven't played in a while, but did throw down overpowering ownership at it. Threewave CTF QuakeWorld is freaking pure GREATNESS.

quote: many things were done right in qw, and have yet to be surpassed by future games, so what is the reason to change to the latest and greatest(except for a bit better gfx)?

I enjoy UT (demo only, don't like full) alot, but never have liked Q2 or Q3 much. The greatest weapon ever conceived is the Q1 rocket launcher.

Relating to Civ3, Civ2 took the best of Civ1 and improved it. I'm not sure what Civ3 took, it did take a different direction, directly ignored improvements from interim titles (CTP2 and SMAC), and created a product that is far less than the sum of it's parts.

quote: qw is also opensource now, and we can modify EVERYTHING.

I heard it's made cheating a REAL problem.

Venger

	11-01-2002 10:36									#20
	Re: Re: my take on this... Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Venger QuakeWorld is still the purest, best FPS ever made. Where do you play it? I haven't played in a while, but did throw down overpowering ownership at it. Threewave CTF QuakeWorld is freaking pure GREATNESS. I enjoy UT (demo only, don't like full) alot, but never have liked Q2 or Q3 much. The greatest weapon ever conceived is the Q1 rocket launcher. I heard it's made cheating a REAL problem. Venger

i dislike q3 too, while i find q2 ok, rail is what ruins those games for me. i enjoy the first person shooter(or fps for short) medium, and communities with competition so much that i can even play sub-par games. doom is still ok but qw is the best combo of gameplay and technology while doom obviously lacks technology(2d sucks). doom gameplay still rocks in co-op though, especially considering i have like 300 custom wads on my hard drive(and played some co-op yesterday).

since you asked... irc.enterthegame.com #qwplayers, and #genocide(qwdm 4v4 tourney with cash prizes heh). probably a couple hundred active players(but very dedicated to qw) in north america and usually 50-150 on irc. btw, cheating is not a problem. it was a lot worse back when qw was popular. qw now has updated clients, servers, and new mods. the people that cheat most migrated to the newer games(counter-strike mostly). if you do stop by, message me(nick pg).

qw has changed a lot in it's 5 yr life span and it is still changing(the gameplay is way different now). qwctf is pretty dead(but it lives in au/eu). but we still manage to get a ctf games going once in a while. qwca/qwdm/qwtf are still very active and you can usually find pickup games or scrims any time of day.

anyways, i could talk about fps games forever(they are my true passion, but i enjoy civ too). the reason i brought it up is because the same thing that is happening in civ is happening in quake. we really got annoyed by the game makers and went out on a tangent. unless things change that might be the future of civ too.

	11-01-2002 22:25									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Venger The problem isn't with time, it's whether it's time well spent. Right now, it's not, most of your time is tedium. Make the time spent enjoyable, and you get the "just one more turn" syndrome that kept us all up till way too late playing Civ 1 and 2. That's no longer there for me in Civ3, I feel like my time is not well spent, just spent...

Excellent point Venger! Although if a truly immersive game would take a full month to play, the rest of my life would be in Big trouble. I have a friend who uses the expression "Computer Crack" to describe truly addictive games she wants to avoid so as to not lose big chunks of her life.

pg: Thanks for the plug. I really do think that if we fans really want something deep, and yet Smart in terms of AI, we're going to have to do it ourselves!

Steve: I agree utterly with the "constant feedback" point you raised. But the feedback needs to be on meaningful things!

	11-01-2002 23:10									#22
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I didn't read the whole thread so forgive any ignorance in this post.

They should release a new edition. Say Civ III Professional or something to that effect. This Civ III professional will be a complex nation building game that only the hardcore gamer will love. And it should come with a warning stating that this is not for the casual gamer. That way you'll have two versions of the same game. Keeping in the same core elements. And let the consumer choose which version they will purchase.

	12-01-2002 00:55									#23
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: They should release a new edition. Say Civ III Professional or something to that effect.

That is an interesting solution, but it simply is not feasible. Not only the game would take ages to be released due to all playtesting and whatnot, but the increased production cost would make it so expensive that you would think twice about buying it.

But I agree with Dissident: Civ3 is intended for the casual players. The designers wanted to update Civ with new concepts and new graphics, but they wanted the game to be accessible to anyone who never played a civ game before. Considering that Civ2 was released in 1996, there is a whole generation that never played Civ because they were too young to be interested in strategy games at that time.
Firaxis (and Infogrames) were not willing to release a game that could appeal only to veterans. Solution? Enter "Civ-lite", a perfect game for all the family!
I cannot blame them, though... Mind you, this is not THE main reason why Civ3 turned out to be what it is now. There are other things involved, but that "casual player" thing is most certainly a important one.

	20-01-2002 20:36									#24
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by kmill25 I didn't read the whole thread so forgive any ignorance in this post. They should release a new edition. Say Civ III Professional or something to that effect. This Civ III professional will be a complex nation building game that only the hardcore gamer will love. And it should come with a warning stating that this is not for the casual gamer. That way you'll have two versions of the same game. Keeping in the same core elements. And let the consumer choose which version they will purchase.

I've been reading through all the posts in this forum and definately noted all of the ideas. However, instead of using one or a few of the ideas in any future applications and risking the disapointment of the people who didn't get what they wanted in the expansion, why doesn't Firaxis just make an expansion that opens the "editor" portal to customize EVERYTHING. If everything could be edited and customized the way you could with Civ2, then there wouldn't be complaints, because everyone can customize the game to suit thier personal preference. That's what they should've done in the first place. But because they are in the "make more money" frame of mind, the very things that made Civ2 great will never be seen again. I know what some of you will say to this, that it can't be done or there is too much work involved that it might take another 6 months to come up with such depth and complexity but my opinion is that this game wasn't designed for "mindless" fun such as what you would find in a game like "Doom" or "Pac Man". Civilization was a concept that attracted adults and maturity because it had depth. People play strategy games because they want a challange, not mindless interactive childlike amusement. My vote is that Civilization could and should be a difficult (but easy to learn) TBS genre strategy game, with great great depth and realism.

And as for the micromanagement, instead of "movement" of each and every item on the game map, you could also "toggle" that off or on, by turning the units off, you could be taken to a battle window like "Shogun: Total War" and conduct a real-time battle with realistic movements and each of those windows consists of multiple units fighting to represent armies. Or another option that should be "toggle-able" is to turn the battle's completely off, have a "win or lose" random determination. There are so many things that could have made Civilization by far the "deity" of all strategy games, with graphics that could have blown away what they used in Civ3. I beleive that realism and depth, accompanied by complexity would draw the youth and the casual players closer, because with splendid visuals and detailed interactivity they have a chance to "learn" and "evolve" so to speak with the game. But the main problem is that everyone wants different things, and obviously a game product can be designed to offer something to everyone, as game products have in the past.

However, my personal opinion is that without "complete customization" over every detail of the game (including the graphics & animations/sounds) the Civilization concept is nullified and will eventually die off or gradually lose it's audiences that once gathered before it. But in response to your post(s) in this forum, I beleive our next arrival will be that of an expansion pack for a price. And that will be the end of Civilization. I've already given up on them completely, I'm writing to various other game companies now, and depositing my ideas where I feel they will bare some weight and hopefully a company will rival "civilization" and teach them a few things.

PS. Unless the patch/expansion is everything I wanted and more (sheeaaaww... right.... like thats going to happen!)

Charles.

	20-01-2002 21:15									#25
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Yes, Civilization needs to be made less complex and intricate so stupid people can play it too. Sheesh.

I want a game that forces me to use my brain, and rewards me for being smart. I particularly want specialized units in the earlier time periods; planning a nice invasion strategy is possible in the modern era, with all the components of a fleet. Destroyers to guard the transports, cruisers to spot subs, battleships to wreak havoc on cities before the ground troops are unloaded. That is very nice.

How about an offensive rifleman unit, 5/2/1? Weaker than cavalry, but better than sending defending riflemens. Or cannons drawn by horses (Dark Sheer's idea). Or 'highlander' units produced by cities with lots of mountains and hills in the area -- they get a 25% attack bonus if attacking from hills or mountains. Ideas along those lines make the game both more fun and more intricate. But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

	20-01-2002 21:27									#26
	I totally agree with CharlesUFarley :-) Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Especially about the editor.

The tech tree, civilopedia, units and civilizations should be completely open. By that I mean that I can add a whole new time period (future & distant future) with as many techs in them that I want. I can also split industrial into renaissance and industrial if I so desired, and reorganize the tech tree as necessary.

I should also be able to add as many units as I wanted, and define icon graphics for them etc.

Civilizations could be added as I chose to add them, which means specifying city square images, new palace styles to fit their culture, their own leader heads, their own diplomacy responses etc.

These new features would be the most important ones in a new patch or add-on, and ensure that Civilization III continues to thrive in the hands of the modding community -- and sell copies.

A good comparison can be made with The Sims, which has thousands of components that can be downloaded and keep the game fresh. That game has been in the top ten sellers list for *years*... or so it seems to me.

	20-01-2002 21:28									#27
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by MonsterMan Or 'highlander' units produced by cities with lots of mountains and hills in the area -- they get a 25% attack bonus if attacking from hills or mountains.

And Archers/Longbowmen should get a bonus for attacking from Forests. Unfortunatley I haven't seen anything yet that allows for that sort of thing.

	20-01-2002 21:42									#28
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Willem And Archers/Longbowmen should get a bonus for attacking from Forests. Unfortunatley I haven't seen anything yet that allows for that sort of thing.

That would be great, because archers would become very dangerous in forests -- 50% better defense, 25% better attack. In large forest areas, longbowmen would be the most dangerous unit until Cavalry comes along.

	20-01-2002 22:01									#29
	Put an end to popups!

I always thought that one of the weaknesses of Civ2 and Civ3 (never played Civ1) was that where the units attacked *from* was irrelevant, especially for the longer-range offensive units (archers, cannons, etc). If you are attacking with a cannon from a mountain, it's not like the cannon suddenly rumbles down the mountain and out onto the grassland to fight.

Considering that the combat is just formulas with values and probabilities, it shouldn't be all that hard to take into account. It would add a lot to the decision-making complexity of combat without making the game actually harder to *understand*.

	20-01-2002 22:07									#30
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by MonsterMan That would be great, because archers would become very dangerous in forests -- 50% better defense, 25% better attack. In large forest areas, longbowmen would be the most dangerous unit until Cavalry comes along.

As they stand now, they're almost useless IMO, especially Archers. I stick mine up in the Mountains and use them mainly for lookouts. I rarely use them offensively since the first enemy unit that comes along they're gone. Only the fact that Mountains have such a high defence value gives them a chance of surviving an attack.