Column #119; By Ken Breggot

In his article entitled "Moderation Is A Virtue", Ken Breggot worries that trying to make Civ too complex will make gameplay too cumbersome.

Comments/questions about the article? Please post them to this thread.

----------------
Dan; Apolyton CS

[TCO]

Ken, good article. I agree with your basic point. I heard someboy summarize it like this: "I don't want a lot of radical changes, what I want is Civ2 on steroids."

I think the cheats (features ha ha) need to be plugged and the AI needs to be buffed up. This will not require Deep Blue. Just better algorithms for science pursuit and for terrain exploitation (settler priorities).

A replay would be nice too!

[Scouse Gits]

A good article! I agree with your hopes and fears.
----------
SG (2)

[Par4]

Can you repost this thread in the Civ3 general so all us insomniacs with the crazy horrible new ideas that probably won't make it in can post on this column too.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand

[Lord Maxwell]

I both agree and disagree with the basic ideas of the editorial.
In some cases I think Ken is dead wrong, using hexagons instead only improves gameplay, and will make the game even more appealing to wargamers around the world.
A round map isn't a big deal either. Not wanting one is aching to saying: "I want the graphics of civ I, after all, it isn't graphics that does the game." Sure it isn't, but graphics like Black and White wont hurt one bit. (I don't want that kind of graphics, but that level of graphics.)

Now, I am all against major changes, UNLESS they can easily be shown on the map. Everything needs to be visualizable. Want religion? Show em on the board. Want better wars? Show em on the board.

The main thing for me with the civ games is the fact that most things are tangible on the board.

[Ming]

I agree... I don't really want a new game, I want a better version of the game I'm currently addicted to. I want better game security in MP to stop some of the cheating... I want the bugs cleaned up... I want better documentation so we have a better idea of what the designers intended... I want to cheats fixed!

Actually, just a new patch would make me happy.

[The diplomat]

I agree that civ3 should not be a completely new radical game. It should be based on the proven gameplay structure of civ2/SMAC. However I believe that civ3 needs to advance the genre with some new features just like SMAC did. SMAC used the basic civ2 structure but it added some brilliant and badly needed new features such as borders, SOCIAL ENGINEERING, and new diplomacy options.
That is what I expect from civ3: the civ2/SMAC model but improved further with a few brand new features.

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

I wouldn't put it quite as radically as this guy, but essentially I think the game could do without enormous changes. One or two big additions, maybe a revised support model, maybe regions, maybe "factory buildings" (Something I always wanted in civ), but not a radically world-changing redesign. All three main points are (kind of) valid too. (Maybe the weakest link is the overt Conquest focus- I've seen quite a few ideas to suggest the reverse. I've never seen an idea to make the game simpler, however. )

Ming: Am I catching a hint of desperation here?

[Ken Bregott]

I'm sorry I haven't replied earlier, I just got back from a short holiday over pentacost.

GP, The diplomat- the things you are suggesting are still relatively minor changes, that I personally wouldn't mind at all. In fact, I rather assume borders (for example) will be in the game, as they worked wonderfully in SMAC.

Hugo Rune- Your comments ar on the border between yes and no for me. Would unit factories add too much micromanagement, for example?

Lord Maxwell- Let me try to explain to you what I see as the problem with Hexagons and Round Worlds. Let us begin with Hexes. How do you change the city radius code without ruining the game balance? How do you cope with the fact that many people associate hexes to boredom? How do you map a hexagonal pattern onto the numeric keypad? How do you make hexes with editable graphics? Finally, what is the point in any case? And the round map- How do you represent it without confusing the player? As the cylindrical map with "pop-overs"? Or as a proper round planet? How do you make editable graphics once again? How do you project the map onto the mini-map? Finally, yet again, what does it really add to gameplay?

The basic point I think I was trying to make is the following (somewhat colloquially put)- "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Things that work fine should not be removed. Civilization 2 as a whole works really well, except maybe the AI. To make a new game would require quite a few additions as well, otherwise we will get the usual Pseudo-Sequel comments. All I'm asking is that these not be made too big.

[War4ever]

Ken i agree with your article..... but a few big changes need to happen like they did in civ2.... the game needs to follow the basic plot but have the improved graphics , ai and such. God knows we don't want another fiasco like CTP on our hands, that game had lots of great ideas but really became too bogged down. Radical changes, no.... positive upgrades yes.....

In fact all sid needs to do is apply Leos Workshop and upgrade everything and all is good.... of course Leos is obsolete by Civ4

[Leonidas]

Ken:

I agree with your overall premise: improve the basics and keep what we like. For me, I would like to see better unit graphics, more units, better terrain graphics, improved AI, territorial boundaries, improved diplomacy (like SMAC), possibly an improved combat model (ie gradual damage to both sides vs only one winner), troop carriers (so we're not moving hundreds of individual units all day), etc.

But I do not want any "super units" or "super heroes" in the game to throw off play-balance (like in CTP and Seven Kingdoms).

Lastly, maybe spread the tech tree out a bit more to make moving from one epoch to another take a bit longer.

------------------
Go tell the Spartans, passerby:
That here, obedient to their laws, we lie.

[Adm.Naismith]

Sorry, I strongly disagree with the Ken Bregott Column.

I support some of his concept:

1) Don't forget new player, but do it making a learning curve sweet enough for early level of game and adding difficult for higher level and expert player, not keeping the game "basic"

2) Don't change the origninal game concept from a "strategical development of a Civilization" to a "tactical warfare - micromanagement hell".

That said, too much time "if ain't broken don't fix it" is a sure defeat approach.

Please look at some hints:
1) TBS game are suffering a lot of market loss against RTS and other kind of games

2) SMAC wasn't really a major change from CIV II (apart form Science Fiction background), in fact shared a lot of the same programming limits. I liked it, but it miss the target to refresh the Civ II success. Don't listen to the PR info, look to the chart: always far from the real succesful place in every poll and "sell hits".

3) Almost all the Civ III team left Firaxis to make New, Different, Big Huge, RTS Games, because they think they are the winning products.

Now, I'm not here to tell TBS genre is dead, but it really needs a major refresh.
Also the new Sid pet (Dinosaurs) looks like it will change a lot from a DinoCiv approach.

Lot of gamers hope Civ III will be the great resurrection of the TBS (some poll around tell so), but that definitely will NOT happens if Firaxis will chew again the same Civ model "with some minor enhancement".

Do you really like more Civ II stuff? Good, play Civ II!

I think that CTP (never played, only red lots about it, so take my opinions about it "as they are") listen to much to some weird suggestion (e.g. strange super units), without good enough play balancing and beta testing. Lot of Civ III suggestion here on Apolyton have same limits, IMHO, and I really hope Firaxis don't touch it with a stick!

BUT lot of suggestions are First Class ideas, potential seed of a new succesful BIG CIV, and I really hope someone on Firaxis (or any other clever development team) try to work out my next "game of choice".

I already saw that CTP II team catched some Apolytoners' suggestions to put some steroids in CTP sequel. Let's hope someone else will put things further.

Don't buy a full reworked Civ if you really don't want, but let us enjoy something different from another "Hollywood Remake"

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Steve Clark]

A posted a rather lengthy reply in Civ3, but think it would be good here too. Here's what I wrote...

I agree with Ken. As I have posted periodically in this forum [Civ3], too many ideas being discussed here are quite unrealistic. It's not that those ideas are ludicrous in themselves, but they don't belong in Civ3. Civilization 1 and 2 works in that it uniquely combines elements of the 4X genre in a simplistic, yet extremely replayable manner (along with creating scenarios). What folks here have been discussing is changing that unique model into something entirely different. Examples include adding a full wargame model (ala Talonsoft), adding a full diplomacy model (ala Imperialism), adding a full city-building model (ala Pharaoh), and so on. It is one thing to talk about such ideas for fun, but building such a impossibly, unrealistic expectation level is stupid, IMO. I have been in the software development industry for years, including game design, so I know how hard it is to take an abstract idea such social engineering (for example) and trying to program it.

My point is that Civ2 works (it has not been voted one of the top games of all time for nothing). It does need improvements, enhancements, fixes, tweaks in the tree, etc. but not a make-over as many folks here are led to believe. I, for one, would play Civ2.5 for years, but I would not play a Civ game that many here unrealistically believe that should be part of that game.

Besides, knowing software development cycles, I suspect that much of the design for Civ3 is complete (remember Sid's message?). It is now a matter of programming and getting the pieces to work together, and to do the artworks (which will take a while).

One more point and then I'll be done. Someone mentioned hexes and how that would radically change the game. I don't think so. We are still talking about a flat, 2D map that would be more realistic cartographically (as oppose to the diamonds). You would have to tweak the movement points on the units, but I believe that that is a minor change.

[Sorry, Mr. Naismith, but you were one of those folks that I had in mind when I wrote the above reply.]

[Adm.Naismith]

Clark, no need to sorry personally!

I'm here to share opinion as politely as my english knowledge let me do, so your reply are welcome.

Ok, I agree that lot of design decisions are probably already done (but with almost all of development team changed I'm not sure how many rework has been necessary), and already agree with you I'm not for a change of game that transform Civ into a tactical wargame or so on.

I know quite well how game industry (but also movies, books, etc.) LOVE the dotFIVE sequel concept.
- "Do you like this game? Good, now we will do some make-up, some bug-fix and you are served: almost-the-same-game 1.5 version, please give us another full-price-as-if-new amount of money".

I really can't understand how you, as a player, feel good forking out good money for so minor enhancement as you describe.

I mean, when a game change a genre (i.e. Civ 1, SimCity, etc.) I can understand an interim release can be acceptable to fix some game balancing, add "just too late on design desk" features and so on. But at the THIRD trial?

Ok, you probably will keep your idea, I'll keep mine: no problem, feel good

I also bet Firaxis will be very happy to follow your suggestion about a 2.5, so you'll win anyway

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Steve Clark]

quote: Originally posted by Adm.Naismith on 06-13-2000 06:57 AM I really can't understand how you, as a player, feel good forking out good money for so minor enhancement as you describe.

That's an easy one. As most here would agree, Civ2, despite some flaws, is a very well designed and replayable game. They tried to make it better with SMAC and even though it is a good game, it just doesn't have the appeal to some civers. They tried to make it better with CtP and failed horribly. They tried to make it better with ToT and failed. I was active in commenting on the Civ3-List and was a proponent of several fixes and new ideas, and some of those weren't minor. But, I believe Civ2 lays the foundation for Civ3, so there is no need to change the basic game model, imho. Remember they tried several times and failed. I think that is my point, we know that Civ2 works and for a game to be called Civ3, it would be wise to build upon that unparalled success.

Alot of ideas that you and others propose are not bad ideas, but I believe they should be built into a new game that would change the game genre, called (hypothetically) Humanity I or Society I or Culture I, but not Civilization III.

As far as spending good money. I've been buying games regularly since the late 1980s. I would hate to think about the many hundreds of dollars spent on bad games or games that were played once. If Civ3 offers the same level of replayability as Civ2, then $40 is nothing. It comes down to this, I have played alot of strategy and war games and nothing to this day have been better overall than Civ2.

Sorry for being long-winded.

Adm, I do enjoy reading your replies and the difference in opinions are not personal in nature. Take care, my friend.

[Leonidas]

Not every change has to be a radical change; and not all change, is change for the better.

Foe example, Microsoft hit upon a great formula with Age of Empires - so Age of Kings just improved upon it.

Warlords IV will just be an improvement on Warlords III.

Many fans feel PG2 (nice unit icons and hand-painted maps) was the best version of that series, yet PG3D (3D terrain, odd-looking units, fuzzy terrain graphics) completely changed the game, and hence never garnered the same acceptance.

So CivIII should be an improvement of CivII, but it must embody what has made CivII a winning formula. CivII and CivIII will be around a long time, while many 3D "eye-candy" games will be long forgotten. Just look at the 4 years and 30 million dollars that was spent on Daikatana. What a waste.

The only reason to make beloved turn-based games into real-time 3D games is to line the pockets of computer and video card makers (forcing us to up-grade all the time). After all, if we're not constantly up-grading our computers, how are these computer companies going to make their money? Of course they want to do away with turn-based games - you don't have to up-grade to continue to play those games



------------------
Go tell the Spartans, passerby:
That here, obedient to their laws, we lie.

[SnowFire]

Though this is a bit late, I both agree and disagree with Mr. Bregott. For the most part, I agree that super-radical suggestions are not going to go through. And then there are really conservative suggestions that act like it's an improvement to Civ II. But I think a lot of reasonable, middle of the road suggestions got through that were improvements, but didn't totally rework the game or induce excessive micromanagement.

Just curious, but did you look at the Technology section of the List? There are some radical ideas in there, but for the most part, they're decent, implementable suggestions that are different from CivII, but still pretty simple.

[Temudschin Dschingis Khan]

I disagree with your opinion. I think the complexer a game gets the more fun it´ll become, if you give the player the possibility to use automatic options. But you have to use the new ideas in a sensitive way because if you don´t do that the game will break down like CTP.

------------------
----Mongolia Rules------

[Kautilya]

Excellent essay. I am a relative newbie to Civ ( and in fact to computer gaming in general) but I had the same thoughts after playing about a dozen games.

The basic Civ formula is superb and makes for a really compelling game experiece. However there are two huge problems : weak AI and the awful micro-management once you get up to 25+ cities which, at least for me, reduced much of the fun in playing Civ after some time.

I would MUCH rather have Civ-3 fix these two problems rather than try to invent a whole new game with the same old weaknesses. This is especially so since the more complex the game the less likely it is that the AI will be even half decent. I , for one, would rather have a relatively simple game with a good AI rather than a really complex one with lousy AI.


There is nothing wrong with radical ideas incorporating deep game-play changes per se. But these can done in other games not the Civ series. Perhaps the CTP series? Also there is nothing wrong with incremental changes in the game-play where there is perhaps one or two new features in the game play, a better diplomacy model for instance.

So yes I would also like Civ 3 to be conservative, better graphics, better AI, better automation options and perhaps a couple of moderate,carefully implemented changes in gameplay. But I expect the opposite ie Civ3 will be full of new and apparently exciting new features only to discover that the AI offers virtually no challenge after a few games.

[KhanMan]

Well, I must say that I agree with the column, in general. I'm against doing things like using hexmaps to turn civ3 into a pure wargame, or changing the structure than has been around since civ1.

Personally, I think the biggest change should be in the ai, but not just in the "stupid ai, you attack with warriors!" area. I feel that the game would be more interesting if some of the differences in civilizations that were pioneered in civ2 and SMAC were built up further.

I mean, if you play SP, the game reaches a point where everyone just attacks you, and they all act alike. Maybe we can have one civ that favors heavy millitary, one that goes far into techs, one that is untrustworthy as an ally, one that will keep alliances and act honorably.

There has been advances in this area, with having the mongols more agressive, for instance, but as each game progresses, the civs slowly become carbon copies: all agressive, all untrustworthy. There's no real benefit in keeping peace treaties after 1750.

I would point to Age of Empires as an example of how ais can be programmed with different strategies, and I think that would really improve civ3, over civ2.

-KhanMan the LLSS