The problem with this place.

[Gramphos]

May I suggest that you read the post under this.
It is true, he knows what he speaks about.

The first time I have use for the time error.

[dainbramaged13]

The #1 problem with these civ3 forums is that there are so many people on here who believe that the civ series was and is supposed to b a simulation of history and the real world. SORRY TO SAY GUYS, BUT THIS ISN'T TRUE! Civ and its successors are supposed to be FUN above all else, while trying to incorporate realism into it, because as it happens, the fact of realism does add an element to fun. BUT - the number ONE aspect of civ is FUN, NOT REALISM, and that is what some of us ned to remind ourselves when we post here. ALSO the game cannot be too complicated. par example: korn469's M.A.D. idea. I agree with him that MAD should be included in the game, but the complexity with which he wanted it included could be another game on its own, or at least a modpack in civ, but not part of the game. the amount of time spent on each feature, i believe, is pretty large, and therefore, such complicated things cannot and shouldn't, for the sake of balance, be included in the game.
This is also a reason why firaxians do not post here often, because they are afraid.

that is all

[Rhuarc]

BRAVO!! BRAVO!!!
It's about time somebody threw that out into the open!! It is a GAME for Christ's sake people!! I enjoy the realism too, but if it isn't fun then what is the point? And the whole point in mod's and scenarios is so that those of you who want on age represented more, or any one of a thousand other little nitty grtty details in can have it, but it won't bug those who don't want it in!!

[rah]

Ditto Ditto,
I hope the boys have stopped checking in here. While a lot of this stuff is fun to read and argue in a hypothetical way, most of it would ruin a good game.

Then there all the garbage threads and those with the real ridiculous ideas. Which I guess are good because it just adds to the chaos and makes it harder to find any actual good ideas. And hopefully scares people away.

If more than 2 or 3% of the ideas here are incorporated to the game, it will be a huge failure.

And if they're this late in the development and still coming here to find additional ideas, we're really in trouble.

Don't get me wrong. There has been a wealth of great concepts discussed, but I don't want to see them incorporated into the game.

The only real things I hope they were paying attention to were the problems and the cheats. They need to be addressed.

All I want is a playable game with a Better AI.

RAH
(end rant mode)

[Grumbold]

I entirely agree, but it is a balance between fun and historical detail. Without any historical detail you might as well be playing Frogger or Super Mario. Without any fun you might as well just read history books and then write alternate history essays. What we will never all agree upon is what level of simplification makes it pointless or what level of detail makes it too turgid. We all want our own favourite "improvements" in the next game - we just have a hard time getting a solid majority in favour of many of them.

[dainbramaged13]

Thank you, Thank you


Grumbold is right - we do have to find a perfect balance, and that is hard, and i think the perfect balance is the exact point where the realism stops adding to the fun of the game. I know this is nearly impossible to find, but we must eliminate ideas like hexes - while it may make more sense in every way, its just not CIV-ish! Do you know what i mean?

Also, i started this as a new thread, how did gramphos post before me?

[rah]

He took advantage of the Time Warps that have been occuring to the server recently to have a little fun.

RAH

[Steve Clark]

This definitely reminds of some of the discussions we had when we were putting The List together. Some agreed that it was a good intellectual exercise but with the hope that they would never get implemented. Others, however, clung to their ludicrous ideas, not having any clues as to their viability or impact upon playing the game. I imagine Firaxis has had a great time at the expense of some the folks here.

[rah]

Yea, I can just see the Developers reading some of the stuff posted here and just laughing and laughing. "THEY WANT WHAT?" haaahhahahahhahahahahahahah. I personally liked some of the combat models that would have made each battle last about an hour.

Realism is one thing, playability is another. And it is a fine line to walk.

RAH

[Marquis de Sodaq]

I've been one to back an idea because it adds a touch of realism to the game, but never have I thought Civ was a simulation of history. Grumbold hits the nail on the head. The added bit that I find fun might annoy Rah. Anything that requires more attention or micromanagement will probably not be welcome by many players at all, even one like me. What is wanted are details that occur in the game, but do not add to the players' worries or tasks. Color, if you will.

Civ is a game, nothing more. What is fun changes with the player. Modpacks will surely fill in the gaps of interest. Too many ideas that come up are wasted breath, as modpacks will be able to add that element to the game, should one wish to have it. The legitimate ideas to address to the game makers (altho it's now clearly too late) would be the ones that can't be added with customization.

[Theben]

Hey, I still think my combat model was the best!!! And it incorporated gameplay AND realism! If Firaxis doesn't use it they're nuts!! It could ruin civ3! I REFURE TO BUY CIV3 UNLESS THEY USE MY COMBAT MODEL!!!!!!!!!

I do agree with the premise here, but I for one would like attention paid to historical details, while realizing that we're re-creating history, not paralleling it, and that gameplay comes 1st.

Maybe there's still time to make civ3 a 1st-person shooter...

[To_Serve_Man]

Originally posted by dainbramaged13
The #1 problem with these civ3 forums is that there are so many people on here who believe that the civ series was and is supposed to b a simulation of history and the real world. SORRY TO SAY GUYS, BUT THIS ISN'T TRUE! Civ and its successors are supposed to be FUN above all else, while trying to incorporate realism into it, because as it happens, the fact of realism does add an element to fun. BUT - the number ONE aspect of civ is FUN, NOT REALISM, and that is what some of us ned to remind ourselves when we post here. ALSO the game cannot be too complicated. par example: korn469's M.A.D. idea. I agree with him that MAD should be included in the game, but the complexity with which he wanted it included could be another game on its own, or at least a modpack in civ, but not part of the game. the amount of time spent on each feature, i believe, is pretty large, and therefore, such complicated things cannot and shouldn't, for the sake of balance, be included in the game.
This is also a reason why firaxians do not post here often, because they are afraid.

that is all

In total agreement...

[Inverse Icarus]

hey, Sid hasn't made a bad civ game yet.

have faith.

::kneels down::

:rays::

::a beta forms in his hands::

[Steve Clark]

You guys remember the Sid Meier's QuarterMaster 'idea'? It seemed that for a while, when anyone posted an 'idea' (esp. from those in the crappy SMAC, CtP camp), you always get a number of responses saying,

That's a great idea, I hope Firaxis (blah, blah)...

Since I have been saying hold on guy almost from the start, this Thread is going to be one of the best thread ever. This game is going to one of the best ever, if everyone would give it a chance.
And since a lot of people will not read every post here, let me mention that Computer Gaming World still has Aug 2001 listed as the release date. If the game was 50% a month ago and is 85% two weeks ago, how far along are they now?

[Marquis de Sodaq]

In programming, they might be 98% done, but the last bit is always the longest. It is the last chance to work out any problems and smooth out all the wrinkles - 100% done is elusive...

[Urban Ranger]

Fun. Hm, that's right, fun.

The problem is fun and realism are not mutually exclusive. Just because something is unrealistic doesn't mean it's fun For starters I don't consider pushing hordes of counters every turn my idea of fun. Firaxis should streamline management by using lots of different screens.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by dainbramaged13
we must eliminate ideas like hexes - while it may make more sense in every way, its just not CIV-ish! Do you know what i mean?

Hmm, now that is the sort of idea I like to challenge. Swapping between tiles and hexes does not impact on the "fun" of the game and keeping something "because it has always been done like that" breeds stagnation, not innovation. Accept or reject an idea on its merits without prejudging it.

Now about my "3D real time army based combat model with inbuilt air, artillery and naval support and time-lagged order resolution subgame" idea...

[rah]

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
The added bit that I find fun might annoy Rah. Anything that requires more attention or micromanagement will probably not be welcome by many players at all, even one like me.

Please don't get me wrong, I do like some of the micro stuff and the added realism. BUT I assume you've been reading through these threads, because I've seen quite a few of your posts. There is a lot of stuff that is way over the edge here. I don't want to take a year an a half to play a game. In fact I kinda liked that one Chapter Idea that would allow a snippet of the game to be used in MP so some type of conclusion could occur in one 5 to 6 hour session. (see, we all have some crazy ideas)

Even you have to admit that there are some real wacko ideas out here. I'm sure some people posted them as jokes.

RAH

[Ecthy]

what is mad?

[korn469]

M.A.D. is a cold war term that means mutually assured destruction, which basically means everyone dies in the event of a nuclear war

so yea i do think that we all kind of got carried away with how to implement nuclear weapons in the game but i think it boils down to this

Civ3 has to have ICBMs with infinate range, that can do massive damage to a city if not destroy it outright, and ICBMs have to have a target, once one ICBM gets launched they all hit their targets simultaneously (ie it's too late for diplomacy) and SDI has to be balanced accordingly so that it only increases the chance of surviving a nuclear war but doesnt make nuclear war obsolete

i admited that i got carried away, but i still think that MAD and nuclear war being a bad thing is good for Civ3

what it boils down to is that many of us would like to see one certain feature set in civ3 get a major improvement because that is our favorite part of the game, or when we come up with a good idea that we do not think how to seemlessly integrate that idea into the rest of the game...however we are not getting paid to do that, we are simply consumers voicing our opinions of how to improve our past time

and i always TRY to make my ideas simple and civish but things don't always work out that way and if you asked ten people from apolyton what makes civ great you'd probably get ten completely different answers

still i am truly hoping that civ3 has some form of MAD in it and that Civ2/SMAC nukes are dead and gone replaced with something better

(esp. from those in the crappy SMAC, CtP camp)

uh steve you do realize that SMAC is really just AlphaCiv don't you? i really don't see why so many civ2 players hate SMAC when basically it just a sci fi version of civ2...is it just the genre? i mean really what was it about the actual gameplay (no arguments that have anything to do with genre at all) that made it SO much worse than civ2??

i mean if you play civ2, SMAC, AOK, and Counter Strike i think you'll be able to figure out which two games are similar and which games aren't like them at all...i still feel that SMAC is superior to Civ2 gameplay wise but that SMAC could have have been better and that although it beats civ2 but not hands down

[KrazyHorse]

The real problem most people have with SMAC is the fact that the game loses its historical perspective. It's not as exciting to develop graviton drives as it is to discover flight, because we know intuitively how important flight is. SMAC tries to make up for this (and I think it succeeds) by providing an almost philosophical discussion about the social impacts of every discovery and improvement.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by rah

Even you have to admit that there are some real wacko ideas out here. I'm sure some people posted them as jokes.

RAH

Yes, I know what you mean! Altho I'm not sure they are all intended as jokes - some people sadly don't realize that their ideas simply are not possibly going to work in the game. O well, more fodder for civ banter...

[Steve Clark]

i really don't see why so many civ2 players hate SMAC when basically it just a sci fi version of civ2...is it just the genre? i mean really what was it about the actual gameplay (no arguments that have anything to do with genre at all) that made it SO much worse than civ2??

That's simple, korn. It's not just the genre (I personally hate anything sci-fi), but Factions. I did not and still do not like the idea of cultural factions to the degree that SMAC introduced.

[Darkknight]

Yeah!!! What I wanted to say but didn't know I wanted to say it for ages!!
For those of you who want to make a world simulator go and make your own game (it's simple! well... close to). Leave us fanatics to enjoy our daily (hourly...) dose of civ=)

Let me remind some of you, when Sid and company (Micro Prose)sat down to discussed the making of Civ 2, they talked about remaking Civ 1 or making SMAC. The final decision was of course to remake Civ 1 into Civ 2. I remember well, the magazine story about their decision. So SMAC is the Civs game that told the story of our Civilization after reaching AC.

[Kull]

Just so long as they keep "hard limits" to a minimum and give the scenario designers a powerful event language, I don't care what they do. If the game is easily "moddable", then whatever Sid forgets, one of us can add.

[dainbramaged13]

Originally posted by Grumbold


Hmm, now that is the sort of idea I like to challenge. Swapping between tiles and hexes does not impact on the "fun" of the game and keeping something "because it has always been done like that" breeds stagnation, not innovation. Accept or reject an idea on its merits without prejudging it.

Now about my "3D real time army based combat model with inbuilt air, artillery and naval support and time-lagged order resolution subgame" idea...

I knew this would bring some kind of protest... but i couldn't help starting the debate again, just because i am against hexes. I don't really know why, its true that they make more sense in every possible way. I just dont like the look of them on a civ graphics. Maybe i could live with them. i just dont know. I also think firaxis will never be bold enough to make hexes though, because although the majority of apolyton probably would support hexes, the civving public would probably be against them.

[Yog-Sothoth]

I think of the civ3 forum as a brainstorming session, where no idea is to stupid

It's just natural that for every good idea there is 20 not so good. And if just a couple of the good ideas gets into the game, this forum have been a success. I'm sure Sid don't implement something that detract from the fun, so I don't see any harm of "stupid" ideas, beside people getting irritated that is

I was at Software Etc. (Fairfield, CA) today (6/9/01) and ask them to look up Civ 3 for the hex of it. Their computer had it listed for Oct. 2001 release.