21-12-2000 18:10									#1
	please DONīT change too much!! - PETITION Inflate your Upload Space

i think civ2 is the best game ever thatīs why iīm still playing it after years. and itīs one of the most balanced games i know. i canīt even tell which tactic is the best for multiplaying - military, economic or hybrid playing styles have all about the same chance to lead to victory - which is a masterpiece....

of course the game can still be improved. the AI is not strong especially on 2x2x and it cheats too much. diplomacy is a joke and graphics are of course not up to date anymore. i also think new minor playing elements like borders or channels would increase tactical abilities but PLEASE donīt add too much new playing elemets. they could too easily unbalance the game - and if a special tactic wins most of the time, civ3 will not be that good and addictiv as civ2 was.

this is a petition, if you think the same please vote for it

weird god,
chief of EUROPA

	21-12-2000 18:52									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I'll sign up.
Civ III must be an improvement of the existing series, not a new game. (Although not a remake)

	21-12-2000 19:50									#3
	Increase Your PM Length

I absolutely agree. Civ II is a remarkably well-balanced game, and any new addition could throw off that balance. A graphical facelift and better AI would be enough to make me happy. An AI that could be improved by the end users would make me think I'd died and gone to heaven.

	22-12-2000 10:41									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I agree that any change that threw it out of whack should not be implemented. Having said that, I think alot of the suggestons here would be great if they were implemented and I guess we would have to trust the game manufacturers to test any modifcation to see that they are appropriate.

	22-12-2000 10:46									#5
	Got spare money?

Again; heres a quote that i copied from a guy named Daniel Ban/ Deja.com:

"What I remember is that Sid wrote that the hardest part of designing Civ was not in adding features but in keeping them out. Sid made the point that each and every feature added to a game has a cost, not just in developer time/effort but a GAMEPLAY cost.
Each feature will require the player to think about that feature. It may require clicking or micromanagement. It may require screen space or game time. Every time a designer adds a feature, the game gets larger, more crowded and more complicated.
So Sid refused to add features that, although they sounded neato, would be overburden the game with details. I have always thought of the idea that adding features must be balanced against overloading game detail as "Sid Meier's Rule"."

What im trying to say with above, is that even if you dont get as many to sign up on this petition - you, at least have the man himself on your side.
What do i think personally? Well, i want as big of a difference between Civ-2 and Civ-3, as the difference was between Civ-1 and Civ-2.

Or - to put it in other terms:

1/ Any ideas that really ADD to the fun- and suspense-value, we already had in Civ-2, should be a candidate for implementation. Try hard to find those ideas!

2/ Any ideas that just take an existing Civ-2/SMAC solution, and tries to come up with as "realistic" (read: unrealisticly complicated for the AI) replacement-solution as possible, should be rejected.

3/ Any idea that "levels the road" for the AI, so it can work more efficiently on fewer selected tasks, is also; absolutely necessary.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 22, 2000).]

	22-12-2000 00:24									#6
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

you guys, I have to say that I agree with you 50%, civ2 is a great game, still is (I still play it today), but its out-of-date, we need an improvement, if you guys want it to be a 'slightly improved' game, then just E-Mail Firaxis and tell them to call it CIV2.5.:rolleyes And if you need a stategy for civ2, then, well I wont say anything except that with civ2, you dont need a strategy, its so easy. I HAVE TO be easy on my opponents, cause if Im not, Ill win before I can build cannons. I agree that if they change too much, it will unbalance the game with the other civ games, BUT, I do want them to change more then just a couple things, in my mind, everything could be better, but of course that is being unrealistic. HEres the list of the top-ten things I want changed in civ3:

1. AI
2. historical realism
3. Customizability
4. Diplomacy
5. more units, for every age
6. larger maps, more civs
7. graphics (units, maps, etc)
8. inhanced riots, civil war, etc.
9. borders, cities, nation stuff, etc.
10. battles, combat (ranged combat, battlemaps, etc)

the stuff is in order of most importance.

	22-12-2000 00:35									#7
	Support Apolyton

The only thing I agree with others not to change is the 2d units, but the new 3d units throw that out of wack

So... no... I will not sign this petition, the game needs change.

	22-12-2000 05:32									#8
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I agree with DarkCloud. I've been waiting 2 years for this, and I still have another 2 years to wait. If it's not different from Civ 2 I will be utterly disappointed.

I spit on your petition

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

	22-12-2000 06:13									#9
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

If you love civ2 so much that you don't want it changed, well keep playing civ2. There will be things changed in the game no matter how many people sign this board. I for one think that firaxis won't make civ2.5. I want things changed, as long as they enhance the playing experience.

------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

	22-12-2000 07:34									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Orange,

if Firaxis is close to releasing Civ3 when they say they will (by the release date), then you wont be waiting 2 more years, the release date is in August.

	22-12-2000 08:01									#11
	Inflate your Upload Space

Thanks for that info. I haven't been keeping up with it, but last I heard we wouldn't be seeing Civ until 2002

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

	22-12-2000 09:54									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I think what you are saying is that you want, at its core, the same Civ "essence" in Civ3 that you have in Civ2. But for some reason, you think that changing the game "too much" will ruin the experience. However:

** Even if you are right, what you are really saying is that Civ is dead.

Now don't get me wrong. Civ is great. I've played it for hundreds of hours. But because I've played it for hundreds of hours, there's absolutely nothing challenging about it to me anymore. Changes in graphics and AI alone won't change that. So if that's all Civ3 offers, the series is dead IMO.

** But I prefer to think that the Firaxis team -- especially with Sid at the controls -- CAN and WILL take Civ3 in a direction that not only builds on the essence of Civ but adds entirely new challenges that even the most veteran player will enjoy trying to master. That is the kind of Civ3 I want to buy and is most certainly the Civ3 Firaxis wants to release.

So, since I've already played Civ2 to death and don't want to pay for a Civ2.5, I won't sign this petition (though I certainly understand your concern).

	22-12-2000 10:07									#13
	Support Apolyton

That's the essence of my feelings Yin. Good post

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

	22-12-2000 20:56									#15
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

ok,ok,ok...i see i havenīt exactly hit what i wanted to say, let me point it out. my concern is that civ3 could loose the "magic" civ2 has. i enjoy playing AC and CTP too, but civ2 is definetly the best of all esp. in multiplaying. it isnīt as overloaded as AC is and has better gameplay then CTP(2). plus it has easy understandable clear rules, is extremly balanced and doesnīt take days to finish though itīs very complex. - i use to speek about civ2 as the better chess with the luck factor as itīs spice.
iīm usually not that conservative but i fear that adding TOO MUCH new playing elements could either unbalance the game or makes it take too long for multiplaying. both would take away the flair civ2 has.
of course i trust sid and the fireaxis team, i just want to show up that this is what makes civ2 that addictive and therefore should be VERY CAREFULLY HANDELD.

	23-12-2000 10:19									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I am sorry to say but your last post makes me dissagree with you even more!
Civ2 WAS a good game. But it is terribly outdated now. I am not just talking graphics. There are many features that SMAC introduced (and even a few that ctp2 brought in) that greatly improved and fixed some elements of civ2. Civ2 is "primitive" now:
-no borders
-no build queue ! (Come on !)
-all units in a stack destroyed when one unit loses (this was terrible unfair and wrong!)
-units are moved one by one !
-awful micromanagement

Are you saying that you don't want these changes? Do you actually think that SMAC did not improve gameplay?

If you are worried that Firaxis will change civ3 into something unrecognizable, you don't have to worry. Firaxis has made it perfectly clear that civ3 will be faithful to the civ formula. Furthermore, you really do not have to worry that Firaxis will add a bunch of new features that will "mess up" balance and gameplay. Firaxis knows what they are doing. Remember that most of them were there when civ2 was born. They know the civ formula better than anyone and they know what makes it work!

But I for one DO NOT want just civ2 with better graphics. I want civ3 to be a real step forward from civ2. SMAC is light-years ahead in gameplay compared to civ2. Civ3 needs to follow where SMAC left off in terms of gameplay.

Respectfully, the diplomat.

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

	22-12-2000 23:59									#17
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Add one signature to the petition.

	23-12-2000 23:32									#19
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Civ III better be new and original. SMAC improved gameplay, but certain ideas needed to be taken farther.

By the way I enjoyed the original more than Civ II.

	27-12-2000 19:44									#20
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

thx for your votes.

	27-12-2000 21:24									#21
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I don't want to see radical changes, and NO KEY CHANGES!!!! That's the only reason (and slowness) that I've never played SMAC. So I'll be MAD if the keys change!!!!!

I would like to see improvments in all Civ 2's current fields as well as the ideas of rivers, borders, revolutions, better editors, etc.... all added. But not 3D graphics!! 3D bad. You know how hard it would be to make a MOD!!! And I live for MODs

So I'll sign my first name only.

------------------
"I'm too out of shape for a long fight so I'll have to kill you fast"
"If LESS is MORE, just think of how much MORE, MORE would be!"
I AM CANADIAN!
Civfanatics.com Civ 2 Multiplayer Ladder!
My Civ 2 Scenario Page.

	28-12-2000 07:47									#22
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I agree that Civ 3 shouldn't be changed too much from Civ 2. Actually, I think it shouldn't be changed too much from its roots in Civ 1.

Civ 2 wasn't exactly perfect upon "completion." Several aspects seemed incomplete. Riflemen, fanatics, paratroopers, alpine troops and partisans are all essentially the same unit available at the same time, they just have a few different abilities but serve the same cheap defensive role. The two scenarios seemed fishy for those who bought the game in 1996; where were all the others?!? The earth world maps were much sloppier and less accurate than Civ 1's. The Greek map wasn't finished in the premade directory. Where were the Arabian and Turkish civilizations? What, no multiplayer?

Civ 2 actually focused more on the military than it should have. All the new units and special abilites (2x v. horsemen, ships in port defense, etc.) perpetualte a feel for making Civ 2 a military game. The peaceful side form Civ 1 was underplayed. While yes, the spacerace was still there, and you had new tile improvements for your countryside, you never felt like the programmers wanted you to take the peaceful path through the game.

Please Firaxis, look at the original Civilization. Don't unbalance the peaceful and war sides of the game by focusing on battle so much that Civ 3 becomes a wargame. Stick to the roots and make it a quality, finished product.

	28-12-2000 13:37									#23
	Remove this text

Sparky that is non sence, civ2 isn't war oriented? You go the war path in multiplayer by the time your units arrive at the other guys land they will be out dated..


I would like to see the game history brought back from civ1.. you know where it shows what land you captured throught the ages.

And sim turns made a official part of civ3. My guess is the trade model, armies and "settlers" will be modified in civ3. The only problem with the changes they will make to armies, is the same problem that came up in master of orion, or CTP. That is a super army that goes around killing everything...

	29-12-2000 18:31									#24
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Well, then you have to make a super army yourself and engage into a one-super-army-to-one-super-army battle. That's how it went in most of history. Two large armies battled and the loser was forced to sign a bad treaty for his side, even if none of his cities were conquered.

Just want to note it's quite unrealistic what happens in all civgames: cities stacked full with units. Usually there was just a city garrison and the war was fought outside. I kind of miss that in the game.

	29-12-2000 20:44									#25
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Well, I dosen't sound like this will be a popular opinion in this folder, but I'm all for large changes.

I'd really like to see something brand new in Civ3. Now I know Firaxis is going to do no such thing, and I'm sure folks here would have a heart attack if they did, but I'd love it if they dropped most of the basic Civ1/2 mechanisims and started again from scratch with the idea of building a turn based `Civilization' style game.

My main inspiration for this is what is being done with Master of Orion 3. Much of the `board game/micromanagement' feeling is being dropped in favor of a `SimGalaxy' approach, where all your people have opinions and goals of their own. Instead of being a supreme dictator with total control over every aspect of your society you're a `guiding force' who has to spend your time and resources carefully in order to move your empire in the direction you want. For more information on this (SHAMELESS AD), check out moo3.quicksilver.com.

I would really love to see a Civilization game designed along the same lines as MOO3 is being designed. But the MOO3 folks -are- taking a really big risk. I'm sure, however, that CIV3 as it will be, even without HUGE gameplay changes will still be a great game. Firaxis seems to have making those down quite well.

In the end though, I'd much rather have a revolution than an evolution.

Joe

	30-12-2000 02:17									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I'm not quite sure of which are the new features that civ3 should have, but what i know is that "Civilization is NOT a wargame", it is much more than that, civilization is a "human evolution game" and that's exactly what i want.

	03-01-2001 12:36									#27
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Ok...

First off, SMAC is Civ 3. Go look for yourself. It has 2 things truly wrong with it. 1) The massive amounts of bugs in it. This ruined the game play for many people. Took away the fun. Some bugs are going to get through, but early adopters had found a few hundred within 48 hours of game play. That was just piss poor Quality, and really brought down most people. 2) The AI was Civ 2's AI. It hadn't been grown enough to handle all the new BASIC possibilities.

Now, despite THAT, I STILL find SMAC/SMACAX to be about as fun as Civ2. I like SF. Some people don't, so they get turned off. No biggie.

And before you fan boys go nuts, keep in mind that various Firaxis people have admitted that SMAC is Civ2, with a new graphics engine, and slightly expanded. Civ3 was, last we heard, SMAC with a new graphics engine. Gee. How surprising.

Now, that said, if we LOOK at the history of Civ, we will see that it suffers greatly from feature creepism. Civ2 is just Civ with MORE. More units and more techs. Someone thought to plug the hole of the chariot rush. That's it. And that chariot rush came back in SMAC. So maybe they'll stuff it up again in Civ3. Chances favor it, since the community has banged on it so much.

But anyone that thinks that Civ3 won't be a pure war game is fooling themselves. That's what the game is. If it was actually something ELSE, then you wouldn't be able to conquer the world. You think that President Clinton or future President Bush could just say, "Crank out the regiments, we are invading Africa next year." And just a few years later, add in Europe for good measure? That's now how things work.

I'm looking forward to a Historical "SMAC 2". Hopefully with less bugs (but I'm not betting on that) and an AI that actually at least understands 50% of the available tactics. But I'm not betting on that either. And neither should you.

If Firaxis hits an August release date, that means that they've put in somewhere between 6 months to 12 months on the game. Pay attention to when they put together the teams, and those teams got moved (people transfered, giving more duties on other projects, etc), fell apart, and did little to nothing. I HOPE I'm wrong. But I doubt it. Firaxis has ZERO credibility with a lot of their former customers, including me.

The fact that Civ3 is using the latest Civ engine... SMAC... further points to a general feature creepism. I don't know if it's true, but I've heard from those that have seen the code say that the best thing Firaxis could do is toss the whole thing and start again. But they won't do that. There is a comfort to developers and the people that fund them with reusing proven code. Even when it's buggy. (There is hope... seeing as 150+ bugs had been chased out in the UNIX port, those could be chased out of the PC source, if their is ANY communication between the different teams. Yeah, I'm an optimist. Don't burst my bubble.)

So, experience SAYS... Civ3 with be SMAC, refitted and expanded. This is their way. SMAC was Civ2, refitted and expanded. Civ2 was Civ, refitted and expanded. Take a good look at the actual workings of SMAC. They can swap out the User Interface. But the base engine, that's what you should expect.

Oh, tip from the experienced Civ series. You Civ2 fan boys will get Civ3, and go "Ew! Oh! Wow! Pretty! Weird!". Play it for a while, and get bored. Why? Cause it will be Civ2 to you, with a few changes. It's what the Civ Rat Pack (us Civ1 die hard fan boys and gals) did with Civ2. There really isn't much MORE you can do with that game type and stay within it's bounds. It's a basic war game. And if Sid is really in charge of it, it's going to STAY that way. Sid LIKES a good basic war game in which he can easily conquer the world. And that's what he and his acolytes keep delivering to us. They ADMIT that they could add in other elements... but adding in things like realism, economics, logistics, civil affairs, people's will, etc, STOP them from delivering a war game that is FUN.

You want a SimWorld or SimNation, go look elsewhere. You want a world conquest game where you start with rocks and clubs as weapons and work your way to tanks, bombers, and nukes, play Civ. That's what it is.

Keep Civ like Civ? That's guaranteed. They don't dare deliver anything else. Or Sid will fire them.

-Darkstarr

	03-01-2001 19:39									#28
	Increase the size of your Attachments

why change a winning game?...thatīs it!
i only hope civ3 will be more like civ2 and not as overloaded (not only the AI has probs with allocating all the new unit-improvements) and unsuited for multiplaying like SMAC...a game that needs 5 sessions to finish isnīt of any interest.

------------------
god made weed.....you donīt really think he fails sometimes?

weed god, chief of EUROPA
www.multispieler.de

	03-01-2001 20:31									#29
	Increase Your PM Length

I don't agree with everything that Darkstarr said, but I certainly agree with this assessment:

quote: Oh, tip from the experienced Civ series. You Civ2 fan boys will get Civ3, and go "Ew! Oh! Wow! Pretty! Weird!". Play it for a while, and get bored. Why? Cause it will be Civ2 to you, with a few changes. It's what the Civ Rat Pack (us Civ1 die hard fan boys and gals) did with Civ2.