 |
| |
|
|
Sparky
|
 |
DC, Cleveland, Charlotte. Take your pick!
Jan 1970
time: 00:12
|
|
I have the feeling that I'm in the monority. I've been playing since the days of Civ1, and I don't take the all-out military approach. I often play on king level and try to maintain the most peaceful, internally wealthy, "Babylonian" style civilization that I can.
I'm worried that with all the attention given to Civ 3 military, there won't be an equal amount done for city and empire development. Civ 1 was pretty much 50/50, half the game was city development. Civ 2 changed that to 55/45 by up-playing the special combat rules in military, but leaving city improvements basically untouched, just adding more of them. SMAC did the same thing. SMAC slapped down peaceful civs by focusing 70/30 on military: tons of unit combinations, special abilities, and alternate "peaceful" ways to win that happened to go to the civ that actually was the most militaristic (case in point, the peacekeepers really couldn't win a diplomatic victory by playing nice -- Yang always conquered his neighbors, got a bigger population through more cities, and would win a diplomatic victory through what were really military methods.)
Is Civ 3 going to fall prey to this trend? I'm a loyal civer. I want to see a well-balanced game, one with equal attention to building and conquest. Leave in the new military options, but add new city options such as detailed city planning and architecture a la sim city, or transportational planning, or advanced agriculture, or a space program, or cultural evolution. Then we would really see Civilization 3 instead of Militarization 3.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sparky
|
|
DC, Cleveland, Charlotte. Take your pick!
Jan 1970
time: 00:12
|
|
That's a good idea: show more of the negative side of war. For instance, in civ as it now stands, the biggest lossses you can have are cities (your population), surrounding tile improvements (part of your infrastructure) and happiness (if you're a democracy), as well as gold and techs, but only if they capture cities.
It's not realistic that well-defended city can technically lose a hundred defensive units, and yet not take one point of population loss. Losing men at that rate should hugely inpact the total population (like WWI), as well as be very financially costly. You should lose city improvements in the bombarded city (I always thought it was odd a city's improvements could always survive a nuke) as modern bombs and shells rip up the landscape (like WWII). Also, what about morale and disease? Yes, your men are more experienced, but wars like Vietnam and WWI have shown that casualties cause huge morale problems in the soldiers and the population at home.
How about this: have all civs (the AI, too) realize the huge costs of war regardless if they're the "winner." Make them reluctant to go into battle and instead vent their disapproval through embargos or subversion or espionage, diplomatic actions that are less unit-intensive.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sparky
|
|
DC, Cleveland, Charlotte. Take your pick!
Jan 1970
time: 00:12
|
|
More ideas for a more civilized Civilization. What about class struggle? Civ has always taken a simple approach, using luxuries to define happy content, and unhappy citizens. Not much complexity there. Class struggle has always been a huge issue, from the time of plebians and patricians in Rome, to the Communist Manifesto, to the Polish Union that toppled the government in 1989. Civ3 should include social legislation, actually dealing with the issues of race relations and suffrage, both male and female.
Also, Civ3 could expand environmental issues beyond "smokestacks." Sanitation and deforestation have been problems since before the Greeks (By 400 BCE, they already had to sail to Thrace in search of more ship-quality timber for oars. The Romans so deforested northern Lybia that it has become the desert we know today -- the result was that silt clogged ports as far away as Ostia, Italy). Wouldn't you think that working a forest square would eventually leave it baren?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
i think, civilizations should become more introverted. put internal stability above simple conquest. if done well, you'll time by time have to make a war or conquer a city to restore inner stability (war as social stabilizer was often the case in history)
[This message has been edited by Temptihumbaninshushinak (edited March 25, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chronus
|
|
Count me in for peaceful civing as well. I don't want another game where I choose from 1,000,000 different units to attack with a possible 1,000,000 different formations utilizing 1 of 1,000,000 different tech strategies ... etc., etc.
I really feel that the Civ II model is just fine for combat with the exception of unit stacking. One unit defending for all is a bit absurd. They should all be able to attack as one group as well. Once this is fixed, I think simply adjusting the current numbers (attack/defense/hit points etc.) can resolve most of the peculiarities we have now. Please, no more new statistics and/or hundreds of new units. DOH! Okay, let's add the Range Attack value (from CTP) and bombardment ... but that's it! (Sheesh, and to think that I advocate simplicity!)
Adding new units only means a quicker obsolescence. A few new ones is fine ... just no overkill.
I enjoy focusing on economy/infrastructure/diplomacy. Unfortunately, the payoff for winning a war is high. Peaceful progress is tough because your rewards too easily become somebody else's rewards (either through combat or espionage). By the way, can we tone down the tech stealing ability? It sometimes make research a moot idea. Or perhaps a spy/diplomat unit can be eliminated when it fails instead of merely sitting there outside of the city or getting expelled.
I very rarely declare war and tend to seek peacful resolutions. But I also want an "evil empire" out there that's desperate to take me over. There's nothing more fun to me than to defend my hard work against an aggressor.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zanzin
|
 |
Sydney, Australia
Mar 2001
time: 15:12
|
|
I've mentioned in other threads, that Civ3 should be a game that encompasses all aspects of a civilization, rather than focusing on one or two (like war, or trade (as others sem obsessed with doing))
War is an important part of the game that can't be disregarded. I like Chronus' idea that there will be other civs out there hell bent on destroying me for the purpose of expanding borders.
The best way, i believe, for the game to reflect the problems inherently associated with war is that when you build a unit, you loose one population...this will reflect a strain on production (less production because your men have gone off to fight etc).
In CTP1/2, war was the only fun part of the game for me (I don't know how others felt - personally, I didn't feel inspired to finish the game any other way).
We must remember that war has it's merits - it's a good way to expand your borders, and in early times, Greece/Roman empires, this was how they expanded. It also has it's downsides. Lets pray Firaxis can find the right balance (And not forget about other aspects of the game as well)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Zeevico
|
|
Melbourne, Australia
Dec 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
Here, here! I played an expansionist-pacifist game once and do you know what happened? They signed treaties against me! I was forced to crush them after one of their units actually attacked (but lost) one of my cities. Every single last civ in the world was reduced to 1 or no cities. In 5 turns. And at that time they probably had more military units then i did. It ruined the game. As did when the 1 city Roman 'civilization' declared war on me after i defended myself from the small Zulu civ. Neither had a chance. The only loyal civ was the mongols, and thats because they had lost the nerve (I did sort of buy every single city they have, even when i was allied to them) to do anything. I pressed cheat to see myself on the powergraph. I was at the very top and thanks to their own stupidity, the other civs were as powerful as they were when they started the game. They had one, size 12 city each, all of them makinghuge losses both in science (-8 turn discoveries), money (broke) and military (one fanatic)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sparky
|
|
DC, Cleveland, Charlotte. Take your pick!
Jan 1970
time: 00:12
|
|
Zeevico, I do the same thing. My favorite style (perhaps not the most efficient on deity) to to be nice to everyone, spread my cities, build efficiet roads and infrastructure, and try to make a huge population. I rarely declare war. Woe to my enemies, though; anyone who sneak attacks shall taste my steel. If any civ ever attacks me, I will never sign peace until I have annihilated their empire.
My second favorite style is single-city. I liked this best in Civ 1 Real Earth, where there was the perfect city spot in Manchuria (lots of trees and grasslands, two sides protected by water). Once I won on king with 12 wonders.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Blaupanzer
|
 |
Fairfax, VA
Oct 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
Sparky,
Agree with thinking. More war should bring on disease, refugees fleeing the war area, loss of irrigation systems, decreases in the population of the nation losing units, and so on. The four horsemen ride together; war brings pestilence, famine, and death. Civ doesn't reflect this. Long-term oppression leads to many of the same problems: inefficiencies, waste, refugees, guerilla warfare, brain drain, and so forth. Civ doesn't reflect this either. However, Civ III is doing away with Fundamentalism as a government choice and adding cultural effects. Hope springs.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Gammaray fan
|
|
This is a bit long, but please bear with me...
I also have been a AC pursuer since the Civ1 days. In fact, civ1 had a really great idea which was dropped in Civ2 in which if one of your cities was ultra prosperous with great infrastructure etc. there was a small chance that city's in other poor but expansionist civs would 'admire the prosperity of Rome' for example, and defect to your civ!
Anyway, I think the main thing Firaxis should concentrate on is not to discourage war completely, but to discourage continuous war. It would be fun to send out say 3 great stacks and battle it out for 10 turns or so (retreating, counterattacking, fortifying to the military strategists content), but placing severe penalties for having longer wars. (unhappiness?) I believe the main reason why war was so boring in previous civ games was because you had 100 billion troops constantly roaming the map. And people are saying settlers are bad! Units should be encouraged to stay in cities. Perhaps assigning units to 'border patrol' will determine if you detect enemy incursions across your borders, eliminating the need to place troops all around your borders, and encouraging them to stay in fortresses or cities.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maccabee2
|
|
[quote]Originally posted by Sparky on 03-25-2001 04:44 PM
It's not realistic that well-defended city can technically lose a hundred defensive units, and yet not take one point of population loss. Losing men at that rate should hugely inpact the total population (like WWI), as well as be very financially costly.
Sparky, Zanzin, and MBloom are really onto a great idea here! I was thinking the same thing (subtract one population unit for each military unit built). This would require every empire to grow before it "goes forth and conquers." Also, I like the idea that one of the above made that when you disband a unit, it adds one back into your population. This also adds another dimension -- what to do with your soldiers when they come home! Sometimes its a double-edged sword, hence the need for improvements that prevent unhappiness caused by overcrowding (like hospitals, entertainment, etc.)
Remember that many empires that had the technological and industrial potential to conquer the world, were slowed or defeated by the inability to draw enough loyal troops from their own population. They simply didn't have enough people.
Several examples come to mind. (1)Rome's legions began to recruit its soldiers from the outlying provinces like Gaul, Spain, Illyricum, Dacia, and Syria, because there simply weren't enough able-bodied men in the Italian peninsula to meet the demand. This eventually led to less devoted and disciplined troops who violated the rights of Roman citizens, eroded the "cultural value" of being part of the Roman Empire, and contributed to its downfall. (2) Throughout the Early and Mid- Middle Ages, the infantry of any European army was composed almost soley of "levies", basically armed peasants. This especially argues for a population cost to build any unit. (If we wish to compromise with the "Hawks" among us, we could concede that those military units that were solely made up of nobility or aristocracy, like knights or any pre-19th century cavalry, would not cost one population unit. The nobility didn't really work anyways, so their traipsing off to war like merry school boys towards a holiday, wouldn't really affect the cities production .)
(3) Napoleon was often frustrated trying to raise armies and had to resort to supplementing his French troops with those from conquered nations like Italy. (4) The Nazis were desperate for more men on the eastern front and had several S.S. corps made up of Italians, Romanians, Bulgarians, and other nationalities. Towards the end, they drafted young boys to defend Berlin, and the lack of manpower contributed to their defeat. (I remember a teacher, a WW2 vet, whom I pressed to tell me about the war. He cried when he told me the hardest thing he ever had to do was kill a 12 year old German boy who was shooting at him.)
While this is primarily a game, for me it is also a teaching tool. My daughter plays Civ2, AOE, and CTP, and occasionally we discuss the events and problems she runs into and how it applies to the real world.
War costs, and I think this game should reflect that.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-03-2001 23:54
|