 |
|
|
i understand how this could be in smac, and fits excellently, with each faction representing an ideology, but how will this fit into civ3?
why should a tribe called mongols (especially on a random map where they could start in isolated jungle island) be better at something that another tribe called english?
final results on page 4
[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited February 14, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
well it seems like they are going with a set of specific civs to choose from, each with each own advantages and disadvantages instead......
|
|
| |
|
|
- Groucho -
|
|
Hopefully, the preset civilizations they give us to choose from will be just that - presets. Like RPGs that give you pre-rolled characters if you just want to start the game without doing a bunch of tweaking.
Hopefully #2, they will give you an option to play against a randomn map with plain vanilla opponents. No benefits, no burdens. That is one of the best things about CivII - except for maybe the luck of your starting city placement - you can't really blame failure on the machine or the gods. You just have to start over and hone your skills.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
i think special benefits for civilizations are generally a good idea. but there are some things they need to think of.
i don't want a civ3 where mongols are always "despotic police-state warmongers" whereas indians are always "peaceloving diplomat-builders" and i soon know how they react. (like in SMAC)
there could be presets for the "personality" and boni of special civilizations but there must be an option to make personalities and boni random for each civilization.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:12
|
|
wernazuma, aren't they doing something w/ leaders this time out? Certain leaders emerging that give certain abilities... Wouldn't the personallities of these leaders determine the personality of the civ?
I'm w/ DarkCloud on his "10 points" idea. Or, perhaps a combination of points, natural atributes, and environmental factors could be used to determine strengths. To use the example of the Mongols, certainly as Mark was getting at, if the Mongols were temperate forest dwellers they would be less likely to be great nomadic horsemen. Their advantages would be somewhat framed by their environment. Add to that their historical ability (don't want to make the Mongols unrecognisable) and Darkclouds "10 points" of player preferences, and you have a situation that might be fun, w/ player control, while rooted in the environment and history, for realism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
I've changed my mind and now I think a civ should be shaped only by the human playing it. Unless maybe it is a ficticious civ. I'm thinking the Civ games should go farther in a different direction from SMAC and any sequels as if it could have any. I also think that it makes a lot of sense for civs to have individual features in some, most, or all scenarios.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
If it isn't broken don't fix it.
(the only english saying I know that can describe what I think).
Keep Civs Generic. No plus no minus. I prefer to have the exact same propability of greatness or disaster with every civ.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:12
|
|
Certainly environmental factors are the main contributors to a civs early abilities. The hunting method carries over to the manner in which wars were fought, and the hunting method is determined by the environment. So the foundation upon which the earliest warriors faced other men is built upon the way they fought the beasts which made up their diet. This also formed men.
The hunters of the African steppe could run in pursuit of prey for great distances. The Chinese are social people, who lived in vast family units, dependant upon hierarchical (sp?) organization for literally everything, creating a civilization where each family is like an ant colony, and each member has a duty,or duties, set within a strict regimen of tradition, created for the strength and survival of FAMILIES, over many generations.
The tribes of Northern Europeans depended upon wit and imagination to survive the hardships of the great ice age. Though they overcame the cold and the dark, they had become suspicious, and made war, one tribe upon the next, not unlike the American indians, but perhaps with more vehemence. The Europeans, and their cousins, the Americans, do so to this day, with the most destructive weaopons ever created. These weapons have been universally adopted among civs, because they are the most destructive, and the dealiest. The interesting thing is that Europeans have become good at it, which only makes sense.
The decendants of the early Europeans spread their version of civilization throughout the world, so good had they become at killing each other, that no civ could stand against them, and they, we, have shaped the world, but with the old, indeed ancient bugaboo, they, we, just can't get along. So we have great wars, and a great weakness. This has been shaped by the tens of thousands of years of our history, both written and unwritten. We, with our high notions of equality, are but the most recent, and it seems a rewrite of history is in the works to make this new history real.
The creators of Civ 3 are dealing with this rewrite, done among the decendants of the Europeans, that all men are created equal. We are not. Each has strenghts. So it is with the Chinese, the Africans, the Indians, the Europeans. You may not like it, but we are not all the same, of course. Not as some would like you to believe, which is the way of things in this current generation in these european decended civs in which most of us (Apolytoners) live. However, there have been alot of generations, and this game should not be bound by the prejudices of political correctness, such a recent thing.
This game spans thousands of years, and gets right down to the times of the shaping of men, and mankind. All men are not created equal, and no tribe is better than another. We all have strengths, and weaknesses, and they are not the same. In this world, and this game, to the victor goes the spoils, and let him write the history, as we now do.
However, don't let the notions of these men who write a pleasant history today describe the game which we all hold dear, because they are very recent, and history is very old.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yin26
|
 |
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:12
|
|
First, it's obviously FAR easier to program generic civs, so far less risky from both a financial and public relations standpoint. My guess is we'll get (essentially) generic civs, nothing to panic about.
However, unless you've taken the time to learn the challenging intricacies of playing a game that DOES limit certain choices but opens others, then you'll never appreciate that having, say, 12 distinct civs would truly make each game that much more different. And, hey, if you love to win by war, chose a civ that's good at such things. Otherwise, go for total random seeding and see how good you are on-the-fly!
Afterall, why would I want to master every so-called "civ" in about a week?
[This message has been edited by yin26 (edited January 11, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
Hi all
I disagree with Yin here. Making Civs have different abilities is not only unrealistic, it also is lazy. Firaxis is basically conceeding that they can not make more strategies viable for the players, so instead theyy are goiing to give the Civs unique abilities to force people who play them in to strategies which would normally not be viable. That is what they did in SMAC (I am most espicially thinking of Yang and Miriam). Having non-generic Civs also limits multiplayer since some playing styles I and the people I played with obviously prefered (also the Miriam was especially weaker on a larger map) and we could not use them because some factions did not allow them.
And sure you could always choose to play different but then that leaves a weaker computer player. It is just gilt put on the game to impress the easily impressible. I am saddened that Firaxis is sinking to the unimaginative lows of MOO, MOM, AoE, and all the rest (I like those games they are just not civ (also uniques fit better into MOM and MOO)).
Note I have judged based upon pass implimentations of this and I cannot but think that Firaxis dropped the ball on this one (sure it will sell but it won't be as good). While making some of it based upon where you start might sound fun but the one thing about civilizations is that they change. Being locked into one strategy path just limits options, does ot expand them (and it is especially frustrating when it is artificial).
I do see one good aspect in that if it is customisable it will be a boon to scenario designers.
All I hope is that they make it optional so that I can at least turn it off. Anybody feel like asking a question and/or making an petition.
edit once more: I am sure the game withh be fun and plan on buying it. I just think that the best option was not chosen in this case.
Jon Miller
[This message has been edited by Jon Miller (edited January 12, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yin26
|
|
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:12
|
|
quote:
I disagree with Yin here. Making Civs have different abilities is not only unrealistic, it also is lazy.
|
In a bizarre kind of way, I see your point. But surely properly balancing the various civs takes an enormous amount of work. Of course, there's quite a danger involved in that...potentially leading to some civs being played too much (or even banned in MP) while others never get played. This is a real concern, of course, and is why I agree this should be in check-box option, like "Civs inherit historical attributes."
In AoK, they had the catch-all: "All Techs Available." But the funny thing is, almost NOBODY uses it! The plain fact of the matter is that the game is FAR more interesting and complex when having to deal with the weaknesses and strengths given to various civs.
And I find it odd that people who scream for more historical accuracy prefer to play with cardboard cut-out civs!
Good job on this one, Firaxis, if you manage to balance it as well as ES did (...of course, that took a few patches...).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wazell
|
 |
Fine Land
May 2000
time: 07:12
|
|
Isn't there an option in Alpha Centauri startup screens where you can randomize those factions' advantages, or even turn them off? I'm not sure though. But it seems unique benefits will be there because people who buy games like to have different alternatives to choose from. Maybe it'd be better to do it like in first civ. At least it says in the manual that Indians can be tough in space race, or Mongols are aggressive warmongers and so on, but this had no effect on human player, who had no bonuses or minuses like those. And in civ2 some civs are always aggressive when some others are perfectionist. They're only expanding this system.
Some AI civs could also simply be better than others. It's better to have major civs like Chinese, English or Germans as your opponents in the endgame, rather than having some minors like Vikings or Hungarians, so the major civs should have bigger probability to survive and go beat the human player(s). If this is done by 'unfair' benefits, I see nothing wrong in it. Of course there must always be an option to turn all bonuses off.
Also the experience idea is good. If you build ships very early and use them a lot, your civ's naval skills will get better than others. Learn by doing, that's it!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
I agree with Bagdar, and I think Lancer's post should serve as a warning.
Notice how in AOK and other RTS forums people are always talking about "races" - when talking about the English, celts, etc - which are actually cultural groups not races? the confusion of language and culture with race is one of the fundamental confusions of the century just past, and one which resulted in tragedy in that century.
Civ, thankfully has avoided that confusion. Everyone starts out the same in 4000 BC, and what your CIV (NOT RACE) evolves into depends on HISTORY not BIOLOGY - what the terrain is, what govt types you choose, the prximity of other civs, the nature of interactions with them, the techs you research, the wonders you build etc. Depending on your strategy and the enviroment in which you pursue it you will result in a very different civ, such that the looking back one might deduce that the difference came from some profound racial origin - BUT becuase you've actually been playing the game since that first settler in 4000BC you know that isnt true
you KNOW that the Americans have high tech weapons because theyve been following a demo-science-peaceful-naval path since they split off from the brits, and that the brits started on such a path to take dvantage of their island isolation, and had powerful midgame science wonders like Isaacs. It only LOOKS like the anglo-saxons have a gene for high tech weapons.
Thus Civ2 is, as a game, a powerful argument for the importance of HISTORY, and a powerful counter to biological/racial determinism.
Building in AOK style "race" advantages will transform the nature of this game, in a negative way. Making it possible to eliminate these with modifications is not enough - they will poison the Civ community. At most it should be possible to add them in modifications, but exclude them from the basic game. I'm not even sure if that is a good idea.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yin26 on 01-12-2001 02:01 AM
And I find it odd that people who scream for more historical accuracy prefer to play with cardboard cut-out civs!
...).
|
Is it historically accurate that the anglo-saxons in 4000 BC had the charecteristics of the 19thc English? Is it historically accurate that they would have inevitably developed those charecteristics regardless of location, govt type, history ?
So that the charecteristics of 19thc england were determined not by the Danish invasion, the Norman conquest, Magna Carta, Henry VIII and the church, the Spanish armada, the english civil war, the Glorious revolution, all things which could have come out DIFFERENTLY, but by genetic inheretance determined in 4000 BC?
That is not making civ more historical, it is making it profoundly ahistorical. It is precisely because I value Civ as a historical game that I dont want predetermined civ charecteristics.
And this is not AOK - in AOK you can ask what were the cultural charecteristics of each group at the start of the middle ages, and presume they more or less lasted to the end of the middle ages. In civ we are dealing with 4000 BC to present. The ONLY difference that could be HISTORICALLY justified would be ones that existed in 4000 BC - but given popular expectations thats not what we'll get - we'll get the cartoon view of each civ at the height of its power.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
In SMAC I tend to play "Peace-keeping forces" (i dont remember the exact name) alternative, over and over and over again, because that faction had the "best" benefits, and was the closest one to my playing-style.
Honestly, after about 10-12 games i felt gradually more and more limited. 
Sure, there was temperament- and empire-managing templates connected to the AI-civs in Civ-2. But those you could ignore. You could choose the AI-agressive Mongols for example, and play them as civil and peaceful, with emphasize on science, trade and well-developed city-areas instead.
To summarize it: DONT have "hardcoded" Civ benefits, like in SMAC factions. Its NOT a good idea. Civ-2 style AI temperament- and empire-managing templates is necessary, but nothing more then that.
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 12, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maniac
|
 |
Gent, Belgium
Jul 1999
time: 06:12
|
|
quote:
A "historical" England starting in the Mongolian plains is not going to be too impressed with its naval bonuses or ability to more easily administrate distant colonial outposts
|
Well ,there's a very simple solution to that. Just program that the English's starting position is always on an isolated island; that the Greek's starting position is always on hilly coastland; the Mongols and Sioux on plains and steppes; the Egyptians and Babylonians near a large river; the Celts in foresty land; and so on...
Assuming that, that the starting positions are similar in each game, it is perfectly logical (because of accumulation of experience) that civilizations will always and in each game(=alternative history) develop the same benefits and weak points. And that has nothing to do with genes or racism, as some people claim.
To further illustrate my examples: it's only logical then that the Greeks and English will each game turn to the sea, so there's nothing wrong with giving them beneits like "free Harbor facility in each city" or "+50% transport capacity" to simulate the unavoidable experience they will gather after decades of seafaring.
As a second example: it's logical the Mongols will turn to horses as means of transport and war, so there's nothing wrong with something like "+25% Attack bonus for mounted units".
You could further expand this by SE factors, such as +2 Research for the Greeks, +2 Support for the Mongols or Celts (their military society resulting out of their harsh starting conditions), -1 Police for the freedom-loving Dutch, etcetera.
If you per se want a 'generic' civ, despite the fact it's historically unrealistic, you can always create your own custom civ. That isn't difficult in SMAC, so neither will it be in Civ3.
MarkG, I tried to vote on the poll half an hour ago, but the first time I entered the wrong username (ACOL's SMAniaC instead of Apolyton's M@ni@c) so my vote wasn't accepted. Then I tried again, but I got some error message. The third time I got a message that I had already voted. But when I checked the results, it showed I hadn't! Is there some way I can still give my vote? Cause, looking at the reactions in this thread, I think my option "1) Yes, like in SMAC" will need all the support it can get.
M@ni@c
BTW, I hope you guys have all tried SMAC before voting against non-generic civs. It REALLY increases replayability, fun and strategy.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-01-2001 06:37
|