 |
| |
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:12
|
|
Civ2 was a fabulous game, but one thing struck me: all the civs were the same! There was usually nothing to distinguish civs excepts on their technology level. This was strange, especially after reading about Britain's mastery of the seas in the 1900s, and at the same time, the Prussian's great armies.
So, I though, how can we make differences, without throwing the whole system out of wack. I thought that civ specific techs were wrong. Because why would the Brits need great seamanship if they were a landlocked civ? It wouldn't make much sence, would it?
So, I began to think of ways to make civs different, where the player would have the choice on what path to follow. What did I come up with? "Traits".
Now what are traits? Well, first of all, we must divide the tech tree into 4 (or 5) eras, like the Wonders of the World were in Civ2. Then insert these "traits" into the tree. "Traits" are a dead end on the Civ tree, but they are specializations. For example, a trait during modern times might be -Advanced Armor-, which would increase movement and power of armored units. Now, the main part of this arguement, is that Civs can ONLY CHOOSE ONE TRAIT PER ERA! So they must make a choice between that -Advanced Seamanship- or -Advanced Infantry- depending on what the player sees as the better choice for his civ, based on where he is and where he wants to go.
This idea of "traits", dead end specializations that a civ can only chose one of per era, would add this differentiation between civs. You could have your great naval powers and great army powers by specialized picks. While an island nations choses -Advanced Seamanship-, a landlocked nation can pick -Advanced Infantry-.
However, it isn't just relegated to military. Traits can also be under political or cultural. You could have -Improved Fascism- or -True Socialism-, which could improve the benefits of a particular government. Or You could pick -Greater Playwrights- to improve happiness inside your empire. But remember only ONE Trait per era. You'd have to pick between military or political or cultural traits, and of course you could only get traits when you get the neccessary techs that the prereqs for the traits. This adds another element. A civ could pick a trait early in the era to get a boost through the era, or wait until the end of the era to get a more powerful trait, but be rendered weaker in the era as the result.
This addition of "Traits" adds more strategy and creates interesting differentiations. You could have civs that spend all 4 traits (one per each era) on naval upgrades, while others spread their traits in different area (like creating the Perfect Fascism, while having the best Infantry).
I'm open to suggestions on how to improve this concept, but I believe that this is, at its base, a good concept.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
I thought that civ specific techs were wrong. Because why would the Brits need great seamanship if they were a landlocked civ? It wouldn't make much sense, would it?
|
I think, this is just the point about it. I wouldn't make "unique" units like "feather warriors" for aztecs or Elephants for Phoenicians etc.
I've also thought a bit about "alternate tech-trees", but I have to admit that Icouldn't think of any senseful. Maybe you could specify more precisely what "Traits" you have in mind, it would be easier to discuss them.
They'd have to be really balanced if you want to implement them.
I always thought it was stupid that every civ builds cathedrals and wants to build "Michelangelo's chapel", but whenever I made thoughts about different effects of religions I noticed the game would become unbalanced. The same thing happened not only in religion but other aspects as well (either discover Samurai OR knights etc.)
Or just take the AI: Even if it gets much better, the AI wouldn't be smart enough to choose effectively between different "Traits".
Yes, that's about the fears I have on this.
If you can take them from me, I surely support your idea.
------------------
GAK-Sturm Graz 2:0 (0:0)
just the result of the recent football-derby in Graz.
We are the GAK, Grazer Athletik Klub, Austria's football club No.1
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rashid
|
|
New York, NY
Aug 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
Imran Siddiqui has a great suggestion that there be differences to civilizations. I also agree with him that these should be developed in the course of play and not imposed on civilizations at the beginning, or even made easier for one civilization than others. I like the sense of almost-infinite possibilities that you get at the beginning of the game, and I am partial to the idea that all human beings are equally capable of anything given the right historical circumstances.
Another thing I like about Civ is the way that it makes you plan ahead, and the way that earlier decisions affect later ones (or is that two things?). IMHO, it would be interesting if the differences between civilizations were somehow the cumulative consequences of a lot of earlier decisions. For example, if the proportion of trade arrows that you devote to taxes is higher than average (the average of all the other civs perhaps), then eventually you will have more efficient tax collection. Or if you spend more than the average number of shields on ships, or on cavalry, or on libraries, then these start to get cheaper or more effective for you. There could be cross-effects too, like if you keep building ships then eventually it gets easier to research naval technology.
By the same token, if you are spending much less than the average on land units, then your land units will become less effective, or if you are devoting much less trade than average to science, then your people will be less efficient researchers. If you happen to be near the average in that particular category, nothing happens.
After all, the reason the English had great navies was ultimately because they had a long tradition of seafaring. Allowing civilizations to pick a trait every once in a while would still allow sudden changes (the Prussians suddenly decide to become a naval power and so pick advanced seafaring), which seems odd.
Also, there should be some possibility for civilizations to be weaker in some areas, not just stronger, and finally, it might be easier on the AI if it doesn't have to make an explicit choice about what to be good (or bad) at.
To satisfy those (including me!) who want to see specialized units, how about adding some dead-end technologies to the tree that would be mutually exclusive? Once you have knights, for example, you could research crusaders, and once you have archers you could research longbows, but if you have crusaders you couldn’t get longbows, and vice versa. Have each of them make the other one obsolete, for example, or better yet, prevent a civilization that has one from ever getting the other (through research or trade or conquest).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UltraSonix
|
|
Melbourne, Australia
May 2000
time: 15:12
|
|
This topic has been especially well debated here. In here, I used to think that civ should be wonder-specific, but now I think that the AI simply won't be up to the job. Having exclusive techs would be even worst. So just having very distintive art of each of the civs is probably enough.
------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...
[This message has been edited by UltraSonix (edited August 23, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Beör
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
'Civilizations' (aka fractions) that differ slightly in their abilities have been implemented in SMAC, greatly enhancing the replayability of the game. After having played one fraction for some time, switching to another fraction will give you a totally new experience.
But of course there is the difficulty with the AI.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-08-2000 00:10
).
|