Disenchanted

[Velociryx]

A friend of mine mailed me and made the recommendation that I post some of the things I've been writing in other threads in a thread of their own, in hopes of fostering further discussion....perhaps even with some of the folk at Firaxis.

After considering that, I decided to give it a try, so here goes:

Personally, I like the game, and am having a good time fiddling with it....but that's just the thing.

I'm "fiddling with it."

When SMAC came out, I skipped work and played for DAYS at a time. With Civ, I play some, take a break, and get back to it later.

Good game. Very good game, actually, but not immersive, for many of the reasons mentioned here.

For me, it goes something like this:

1). Discovery Phase - Awesome!! Excitement and adrenaline...VERY immersive beginning. All that black menacing shroud....you don't have many cities or units, so the turns fly by....one wrong move and it sets you back centuries. THAT's where the magic is.

2). Spankin' the neighbors - Awesome!!!! Ancient Era warfare rocks, and the AI can usually make a good showing....several times they've forced me to change plans in mid-stream by massing galleys and hitting some flank position. Frequently they'll fortify areas AND staff them well! It's wonderful.

3) Onward to the Middle Ages! - Excellent/Very Good. Solid gameplay. Still not soooo many cities and units that it's just insane, and there's lots of building up to be done....a few more neighbors to whack and so forth....

4) Mid-game warfare: UGH! By now, you've grown your Empire to its critical mass given the current corruption model. You've built all the essential stuff in your empire and are churning out units at a prodigious rate. You'd THINK this would be the grand, epic, absolute BEST part of the game, but it's not. This is where game play really starts to slow down, and the larger the map, the bigger the slowdown.

By now, your rivals have developed a sufficient cultural base that reversion is an issue, and even if the cities don't revert, they're stuck producing 1-shield per turn and scant money. Essentially, they're border bumpers and resource traps. Nothing more. Even so, capturing tooooo many of these cities will begin to degrade your production back home.

Also, by now, between captured workers and the home boys, you've got a scad of them, whether you intended to or no, and since the ARE costing you upkeep, you'd better damn well do something with them, so your turns start taking....longer....and LONGER....and l...o...n...g...e...r....until it's time to take a break from it all. (that's usually when I stop for the night).

5) Mop-Up: Decent. After giving the game a couple days rest, I'm ready to come back and finish it out. Suddenly, the tedium factor isn't as bad with some time away from the game, and I can generally bring the current spate of wars to a satisfactory conclusion fairly quickly and coast to victory from there.

The trouble is though, as follows:

1) Someone mentioned before that Sid was somewhat disappointed that warfare was such a huge part of the earlier iterations of this game, and it's CLEAR when looking at the game's design that GREAT PAINS went into making world conquest a very tough thing. Still possible....still doable, but tedius and difficult (as it should be....after all, no one's managed to do it here!).

2) (related to the above) Item one would be all well and good if there was something.....ANYTHING to do besides conquer and shuffle workers around the map. As it stands, you can build a few wonders (no movies, making them not terribly different than building your 52nd University....'cept they're more expensive of course), make some trade deals every 20 turns (which is kinda fun, or maybe it's just me), and if you really work at it, you can play puppet master with the weaker civs (I have found some enjoyment in that, but it's largely a passive affair....building up some, destroying others....all indirectly of course, cos I don't DARE build another city....(corruption).

Thing is....it doesn't have to BE like that! It'd be soooo easy to make little objectives for the player:

1) Lib sugessted earlier: On switching from Despotism to Monarchy - Ten turns consecutive with no pop-rushing and X happens.

2) Build X number of this type building and you get Y game effect (as opposed to being able to build another Minor Wonder, for which there is no movie, no fanfare).

3) With the slightest tweaking, a VAST ARRAY of diplomatic options could be made available.....selling units to the AI to really HELP your allies in war, coordinating attacks, a UN Council that DOES something besides end the game (with no movie), all sorts of stuff! It'd be....cool!

4) Great Artists that spring up with the acquisition of a certain number of culture points, or the building of some combination of builds/wonders + X number of turns of peace (same as great leaders, but without the ability to create armies)

I can think of dozens off the top of my head....and they're not tough things to weave into the fabric that's already there.

Let me be quick to say that I love Civ3. I think it's a great game that has a HUGE amount of potential.

Like anything tho....there are things that could stand improvement, and sadly, the things that need tweaking are the very things that keep the game in the "fiddling" category for me, rather than the immersive category.

But I have hope, and faith....
******

Seond posting:

the crux of the matter is this:

It's not that I don't feel I got my money's worth out of Civ3, cos I DO! It's a good, solid game.

But the Civ-series has NEVER been about "not getting your money's worth." That was a foregone conclusion. The magic of the series lay in what was beyond simply "getting your money's worth," which is precisely why people are still rabbidly playing Civ2, FIVE YEARS after its release! Five years....when you consider that computer become obsolete every 18 months (taking most, if not all of the softwrare along with it), for a game to have a five year shelf life is.....amazing, and speaks volumes of the quality of the series.

Sadly, unless some major enhancements are forthcoming, Civ3 will not enjoy that kind of lifespan, I do not believe....and it could! My god but it could!

I don't know much about programming, but the ideas mentioned in my earlier post seem to me (an uninitiated newbie where programming is concerned) to be little more than a series of multi-variable if/then statements. The kinna stuff I used to do in the basic editor that came with dos 3.3. Granted, those piddly things I did were really simple, but it seems to me that the concept is the same (unless programming really has changed all that much from the days when I used to putz around with it).

IF your civ is at peace for 30 consecutive turns, IF you have built JS Bach's cathedral and have at least four cities producing 80+ culture per turn, then you get a 3% chance per turn (non cumulative) of generating a "Great Artist" for every turn of peace after the 30th.

Even a BASIC, really corn-ball scripting language to allow for in-game and user defined historical events (or conjectural historical events) to have a % chance of occuring if certain criterion were met....do you realize how AWESOME that would make the game?! Especially if many/most of those events revolved around cultural thresholds and peaceful activities! Since Sid himself bemoaned the fact that warfare was such a huge part of the game, why something like this was not included as a *viable alternative* to fighting is.....well....a mystery to me.

I'd be willing to bet an entire paycheck that if we started a thread asking for event ideas along those lines, within DAYS we'd have a hundred, if not more! With all the people who regularly read these forums, with all the outstanding ideas I've already seen here, there's not a doubt in my head!

Examples off the top of my head would be:

*If you prevent the destruction of an allied civ (one with whom you have a MPP in good standing) by forcing peace on his/her behalf (not currently possible with the diplomatic options as they are, but EASILY added...heck, the code is already out there from SMAC!) and gifting that civ at least 3 cities, you have X% chance per turn for the next 20 turns after peace is declared of being able to build a "peacekeeping forces" unit (colorless, to enable you to move into anyone's territory, but totally incapable of attacking cities).

* Most favored nation status (new diplo option) could be given to certain civs providing trade subsidies in exchange for....well, pretty much anything, including NOT building such things as Labor Camps (conjectural city improvement with a negative culture rating that enhances production).

* Or how 'bout creating Minor Wonders that perform some function individually, but when built in concert (in the same city), enable a new government type (rather than tying it to a tech, per se?)

All SORTS of possibilities that don't revolve around moving your 203rd tank batallion (one at a time, mind you) over to capture your 60th city, which you don't really want, cos it's only going to degrade your production --but of course, since you've already built every city improvement, what choice do you have? It's either attack anyway, or spend the last 300 years of the game clicking "end turn" So.....you attack anyway, or build the space ship at the start of the modern age to save yourself some clicking of the "end turn" button.

Okay.....all of that makes it sound like I don't like the game, so I should reiterate....I do! I really, truly do! The ancient era, middle ages, and parts of the industrial age are WONDERFUL! But because of the way the game is constructed, you wind up with a late game two-edged sword.

By the game's design, taking over the world is (while possible) a) Not much fun, and b) punishing, from a purist, empire-builder approach

BUT

Once you get to the Industrial age (all of two....TWO! city improvements there), there is NOTHING to do in the game except fight.....or, click on "end turn" until you get the techs to build the ship or the UN.

THAT's why the game breaks down.....and it could be fixed!

And I'm hopin' like crazy it will, cos I'd dearly love to call in sick for work and play for days on end like I used to do with SMAC!

So....my fingers and toes are firmly crossed.....hoping that when the dust settles, we'll have a Civ3 before us that's every bit as maddeningly addictive as the ones that came before it.

They've got a good base to proceed from.....a few nips, tucks, and nudges, and it'll be there....

******

Additional thoughts:

While I was sitting here, I had a brainstorm....something else that could be easily added to the existing framework that would solve at least some of the problems large numbers of people are having with the game.

What about giving players the ability to create Commonwealths and Protectorates?

What I mean by that is as follows:

1) At any point in the game, you can "give up full control" of one or more cities, creating a new nation (Commonwealth/Protectorate) nation out of your holdings. They would retain your Civ's color (though, for ease on the eyes, the borders would have to be slightly different, perhaps alternating your colors with some other, to make them distinctive).

2) Giving cities to the Protectorate state DOES NOT reset existing culture (ie - those cities KEEP their temples, libraries, etc).

3) Any cities given to the Protectorate MUST HAVE A CONTIGUOUS BORDER!

4) The Protectorate State comes complete with its own capitol (the first city you give to them)

5) You DO NOT have direct control over the cities or units produced by them.....you can stack your units with those of the Protectorate, and you may somewhat dictate what they do (via governors and setting Worker terraforming priorities), and you can "click into" Protectorate cities to view them, but you may not make direct changes (IE - can't tell them what to produce, can't shift city population points around, etc).

6) You, as the owning civ, may set a tax rate for the Protectorate state, collecting x% of their total income each turn.

7) The Protectorate state can run whatever form of government it chooses, but may not enter into binding diplomatic agreements (MPP) unless it is with the owning Civ.

8) There is a risk of rebellion. Set the tax rate for the protectorate too high, and there's a per turn % chance that the state will rebel against you, becoming a full-blown civ in its own right (still bearing your colors, but you lose all control over them) and any units you have in their territory are kicked out.

This would enable players to have truly globe spanning empires, and do so in a way that reflects history (13 colonies, anyone?)

Thoughts?

-=Vel=-

[yin26]

My first thought: If you were to head PR for Firaxis (not the back-room, deal-making PR ... honest-to-God in-the-trenches PR) then both the fans and the company would find themselves much happier overall.

My second thought: If you decide to apply for such a spot, don't do it with Firaxis. It's not their bag.

My third thought: I have a sneaky feeling that Firaxis is watching the financials closely before dedicating much into Civ3 beyond basic stuff. Therefore, I worry a bit about spinning my wheels any more than I already have for the past 2 years.

My fourth thought: I admire your patience and approach.

My final thought: Civ3 is most likely beyond repair. Firaxis has displayed neither the talent nor the commitment to make me feel otherwise. Thus, I say: Vel -- save your considerable talents for EU2 and MOO3!!!

Lord, if you had only hooked in with MOO3 a few months ago, I bet you'd be a well-respected member of their staff by now. Consider it still.

[yin26]

Ah, forgot my actual gut reaction: "Oh, crap. If Vel is disenchanted, the pessimists really ARE right."

[Dan Magaha FIRAXIS]

Vel,

I strongly urge you to apply for one of the slots in the new public beta program that Jeff is rolling out. Drop me an email if you're interested.


Dan

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by yin26
Ah, forgot my actual gut reaction: "Oh, crap. If Vel is disenchanted, the pessimists really ARE right."

As they say over here, a priest without any job to do ends up baptizing calfs.

[korn469]

Vel,

awsome post, because it certainly expresses how i feel about civ3

firaxis nailed the framework perfectly, but the house feels empty especially upstairs in the industrial and modern era

Very good game, actually, but not immersive

i feel the same way, it gets tedius, not because the game systems are outdated but because they don't have enough details

1). Discovery Phase - Awesome!! Excitement and adrenaline...VERY immersive beginning. All that black menacing shroud....you don't have many cities or units, so the turns fly by....one wrong move and it sets you back centuries. THAT's where the magic is.

2). Spankin' the neighbors - Awesome!!!! Ancient Era warfare rocks, and the AI can usually make a good showing....several times they've forced me to change plans in mid-stream by massing galleys and hitting some flank position. Frequently they'll fortify areas AND staff them well! It's wonderful.

agreed, the early game is very addictive

3) Onward to the Middle Ages! - Excellent/Very Good. Solid gameplay. Still not soooo many cities and units that it's just insane, and there's lots of building up to be done....a few more neighbors to whack and so forth....

i disagree, i think the game starts to slow down somewhat in the middle ages simply because of lack of things to build and also because if you are expanding like crazy the world fills up by about the midpoint of the middle ages (unless you have already hammered all of your foes)

4) Mid-game warfare: UGH! By now, you've grown your Empire to its critical mass given the current corruption model. You've built all the essential stuff in your empire and are churning out units at a prodigious rate. You'd THINK this would be the grand, epic, absolute BEST part of the game, but it's not. This is where game play really starts to slow down, and the larger the map, the bigger the slowdown.

By now, your rivals have developed a sufficient cultural base that reversion is an issue, and even if the cities don't revert, they're stuck producing 1-shield per turn and scant money. Essentially, they're border bumpers and resource traps. Nothing more. Even so, capturing tooooo many of these cities will begin to degrade your production back home.

i agree...you run out of things to build way too quickly! plus by this point because of rivals there isn't any natural expansions and corruption makes further expansion through military action pointless

Also, by now, between captured workers and the home boys, you've got a scad of them, whether you intended to or no, and since the ARE costing you upkeep, you'd better damn well do something with them, so your turns start taking....longer....and LONGER....and l...o...n...g...e...r....until it's time to take a break from it all. (that's usually when I stop for the night).

5) Mop-Up: Decent. After giving the game a couple days rest, I'm ready to come back and finish it out. Suddenly, the tedium factor isn't as bad with some time away from the game, and I can generally bring the current spate of wars to a satisfactory conclusion fairly quickly and coast to victory from there.

you nailed it!

2) Build X number of this type building and you get Y game effect (as opposed to being able to build another Minor Wonder, for which there is no movie, no fanfare).

3) With the slightest tweaking, a VAST ARRAY of diplomatic options could be made available.....selling units to the AI to really HELP your allies in war, coordinating attacks, a UN Council that DOES something besides end the game (with no movie), all sorts of stuff! It'd be....cool!

those extras would adds hours of gameplay to each game of civ3

my biggest gameplay gripes with civ3

1) units need more hitpoints and slight balance tweaks
2) civ3 needs more buildings, and i think that cultural only buildings would be a perfect place to start
3) more interesting combat abilities that would encourage combined arms
an example of this would be, all units with the foot soldier classification would recieve a +25% bonus when attacking cities (like in SMAC); however the difference would be that if you had an army with at least one foot soldier unit in it then the entire army would receive that bonus, so every special ability any unit in the army had would confer that bonus to all units in the army
4) cheaper armies, more ways to increase the size of armies

also here are a few of my addition throughts

1) a more developed espianage system built around the current system,

for example after you have a spy in a city you could then build other espiange structures in that enemy city such as a safe house, which would give you a wider range of espiange options you could perform in that city plus your chance of success would be greater when performing all spy missions
if for example you had a certain number of safe houses then you could build a consulate in their capital which would be like an espiange small wonder, beefing up the espiange side of the game could also increase overall enjoyment

2) special guerrilla warfare flags in the editor

3) this idea isn't my own, but it has captured my imagination since the SMAC forum over at owo when someone proposed a similar idea
the credit for this idea goes to a poster called "some other guy" over at the civ fanatics forum

First someone has to build the Olympic games wonder, the person who builds it gets to have the first Olympic game in his most cultural city with a Colliseum, for each Olympic game the city gets +500 culture.

There will then be another Olympic game every 20 turns. The 4 most cultural civs and the civ with the ''Olympic games'' wonder get together and vote for where the next Olympic games should be.
Civs in war cannot vote or be elected.
A Civ cannot be elected twice in a row.
A city can only have the Olympic games once.

So....my fingers and toes are firmly crossed.....hoping that when the dust settles, we'll have a Civ3 before us that's every bit as maddeningly addictive as the ones that came before it.

They've got a good base to proceed from.....a few nips, tucks, and nudges, and it'll be there

you sound like me

[Darth Sidious]

i usually stop and start a new game when i reached "step 4"

there should be a lot more game mechanics like you propose to keep mid-late game interesting.

Don't ask this guy to do beta testing, hire him for game designer firaxis.

[HulluKarhu]

When I first stuck my nose into this arena and found the hints and tips..I thought this .."Velociryx."...knows what he is talking about ...what an underestimation that was.

Sid go off and retire gracefully hand your office keys over to Vel now!
Then he can think how to make a very good game great.
It cannot be done by patching it has to be and expanson CDROM.
Vels ideas plus some of the great graphics packs on our files page.
Dont take too long about though...

[player1]

Velociryx

You are completly right.

Now what can be solution to those problems.

Stacking units for movment, worker jobs & bombarding would definetly help.

Better pollution-clen automated workers (very possibile in next patch).

Better autometed workers overall (barely possibile in next patch if ever).

Buil queues for workers.

Diplovictory to be modified or eliminated. For now it is just like
"one space part" victory (read: easy).

WEALTH should be much more powerfull (x2-x3). To make building it AN OPTION for peacebuilders, after all buildings are built.
So you could opt for incresed science (getting more wealth and raising scince sliders).
The way it is now just doesn't pay off. It is better to build a lot of units and be sure that no one would attack you.



AND LAST...

SCIRPTING LANGUAGE.

This thing is in fact more important for MODing instead for scenarios.

So many things have been done in CTP2 using scipting language.
Natural disasters, leaders, razing cities, etc...

Same scipting language could be use for forcing AI to change its working modes (if some trigger is triggered). That way "fanatic players" could try to modify it and make AI better then it was. Soren is just one guy. MODing community could help.

At the end Firaxis should look those well-made MODs and include same modifications in ORIGINAL game (by patch).


P.S.
One programming advice to Firaxis: thing about stacking.

It is much easier to do this for human players only. Let AI use old ways, because if we force AI to use stacks then A LOT of code needs to be changed.

So stacks should be programmed like some sort of batch procedures. Like players is binding several units toghter. And when player says: "move", then batch proc. is started and computer moves them one by one (with animations turned off for all exept first unit). Same for bombard & worker tasks.

At the end it could be included for some other orders: forify, activate, air superiority, etc...

This is really NOT DIFFICULT to programm.

P.P.S.
Dan, if you are actually reading this, and Firaxis intends to make stacking orders, then let Soren read this last advice (stacking).

P.P.P.S.
And if this is included. Old saves would not be compatibile since new save needs informations about existing stacks and their content.

Still old saves would be useful in new setting.

[Libertarian]

Interesting.

So, Longshanks has offered nobility and an estate in England. It is my fervent hope and faith that we are dealing here with William Wallace and not with Robert the Bruce.

[Patient English]

Dan as Eddie "The Hammer" Plantagenet?

Well, an ex-Civ III player I don't get a vote, but to continue the analogy, I say that Robert did more for the Scots than William did.

William: Wrong but Wromantic
Robert: Right but (perhaps) Repulsive

My point is that accommodation and cooperation might lead to a more productive outcome than leading a doomed charge. I wish good fortune on both their houses, even though nowadays I surf the Civ III forums more as a rubbernecker at a car crash - to steal Yin's memorable phrase.

[moomin]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Interesting.

So, Longshanks has offered nobility and an estate in England. It is my fervent hope and faith that we are dealing here with William Wallace and not with Robert the Bruce.

That Firaxis has realised that their current offering is flawed is only positive. That they seek to employ the best - among whom Vel must certainly be counted - in an effort to correct the shortcomings is fine with me. I could wish they'd done this before the initial release, but better late than never.

This is, in fact, the first really encouraging sign we've had from Firaxis for some time. Do be grateful.

[The diplomat]

I have to agree that the late game does "slow down". it is not as boring for me as some have complained about. I play on a small or standard map so I do not have as many cities or units as those who play on large maps.

I agree that managing a horde of workers and other units every turn is part of the late game problem.

I think the other part of the problem is that many turns can pass where nothing substantive really happens. At the start of the game, things happen. A barbarian horde suddenly threatens a city out of the blue, your scout unexpectedly bumps into the Aztecs, a city goes into riot etc... In the late game, I find myself just watching the AI workers scurry around, then I watch my workers scurry around, then my domestic advisors asks me a few things then the turn is over. 10 turns like this can go by where basically nothing is happening. Then suddenly, the Americans declare war on me for no reason. I perk up in my chair: finally something happened!

The truth of the matter is that at times I feel like it is the whole civ formula itself that is the problem. It feels like the whole game is only about managing lots of units every turn.

My ideas for a future civ game would be more radical.

1) eliminate all non-military units. switch to a PW-like system.
2) limit the number of things the player can do each turn. (MOO3 is trying this with IFP's)
3) expand the semi-random events engine. Have more Great leaders, Great Scientists, and other "hero" units that would either be good or bad for the player.

Vel, let me ask you since you are The Strategy Man. Would suggestion 2 increase or decrease strategy?

Specifically, if the player had tons and tons of possible actions that they could perform from raising taxes, raising armies, changing Social policies (think SMAC's SE), changing cities production, doing PW, attacking an enemy, spying, bribing enemy Great leaders to have them defect, changing research etc etc... Each action would cost 1 Point, and the player only had a fixed number of points to spend, so the player had to choose what action to do this turn and which actions have to wait for next turn to do. Wouldn't this system drastically improve strategy as well as make the game much more interesting? it seems to me that it would because it would be like chess. You have a huge number of good moves to make but you can't make them all. You can only choose 1.

Perhaps, the greatest problem with the civ formula is that the game does allow the player to essentially "play all the good chess moves at the same time." The player does not have choose 1 good move among them all. They can and are often required by micromanagement to do all the moves.

[Slax]

The simplest end-game improvement: Add a great picture or movie for each type of victory (besides conquest and space race).

The current popup windows are such a huge let-down, especially after the late-game tedium.

[Velociryx]

'morning all, and thanks to everyone for the replies! First, I think that the simple act of someone from Firaxis putting in an appearance here says a LOT about their willingness to work with the gaming public to address stuff that we view as weak points. That's an awesome start, and a terriffic sign of good things to come!

Just read the note about the Public Beta group Dan, and I'll be sending my e-mail in shortly! That's *outstanding* and I'm happy to hear that Jeff was able to wrangle that into the mix for the new year!

More thoughts on the "Protectorate-Idea" Above:
* You could use revolutionary leaders for each Civ as the leaders of the Protectorate nation (ie - Washington for the Americans). Each game tho, their personalities have a number of random attributes, including favored government forms. If you're running a different form of government than your Protectorate(s), there's a greater chance of rebellion (and obviously, the greater the difference, the greater the chance of rebellion) - Note that this would vastly complicate governmental switching.....those turns you're in anarchy make a RIPE time for Protectorates to rebel!

* Strategic Resources and Lux Items are "shared" between the Empire proper, and your Protectorate state, since the Protectorate is a part of your empire....thus, so long as they're not in a state of rebellion, if they have silk inside their borders, you get the benefits of it.

* A variant of "initiate propoganda" could be introduced, usable ONLY on Protectorates. If successful, it increases the % chance of rebellion for X number of turns.

* If the Protectorate is in a state of rebellion, at that point, they may seek independent MPP's.

* Protectorates cannot vote in UN council meetings

Other stuff?

Game Design:
Actually, though I know next to nothing about programming, I have designed a few board games in the past, so I DO know something about the mechanics involved.

In college, I came up with a game based on the game of "Life" called "Beer Run" (instead of the Life board, it was a stylized map of our college campus). You started with $1.85 and had to a) Acquire money b) Get a fake ID c) Get safely off-campus during rush week, and buy some beer, and d) dodge Public Safety, returning to your dorm with the beer. First player back, wins. It became a cult classic on our hall...lol

Unhappy with ADB's Starfleet Battles board game (Federation and Empire?), I invented my own variant of it that proved to be a hit among my rabid SFB friends.

When I stopped playing Magic:The Gathering, but couldn't bring myself to sell off my cards, I determined to find a use for them, so some friends and I sat down and devised a somewhat politically incorrect game called "Holy War" set on a ficticious Earth, where Pagans (Greek Tradition), Druids (Celtic Tradition), Christians, Muslims, and Hindus all fought over the souls of the folks inhabiting the planet. Essentially, it was a wargame, with a twist of magic thrown in (each territory on the game board gives you mana a la M:TG, and enables you to cast spells (we wound up NOT using magic cards after all, preferring to devise our own "magic-style cards" unique to each religion.....some stuff would be common across all religions, but each had certain specialities (Muslim cards were very combat oriented, Christian cards were especially strong at infiltration and information gathering (Inquisition), Pagan cards were akin to Blue cards in M:TG, sublt in the effect, but changing the mechanics of the game itself), Hindu had HUGE defensive cards, and Druids had lots of unique Avatar specials (more than the others) including the Master of the Hunt, and the Wicker Man....*devastating* cards) to bolster your armies. The game featured standard board-game (axis and allies style) combat, magic (similar to magic cards), alternate victory conditions (each territory also had an "Influence Rating" - Gain X number of influence points and build certain wonder combinations and win by default, Wonders that could be built (both unique wonders for each religion (Pagans got the Parthenon, which enabled them to crank out their special unit, and served as a "manna battery", Hindu got the "Great Temple of Kali" which enabled them to convert influence points to gold, and generalized ones like "Compass and Sextant" which allowed the builder faster ship movement, and the ability to end the turn away from the coast). There were even "instants" that you could play when it wasn't your turn (including instant summoning cards that brought additional military units into being in the target territory of your choice). Enchantments and plagues that lingered on territories for as long as you were able to pay maintenance (influence/manna) on them, and one shot direct damage "spells" (earthquakes, tsunami, volcanic eruptions, lightning strikes, etc) that you could hurl at the heathens (and, of course, if their religion had sufficient influence, they could "bounce" your spell back at you!). Good game....fond memories there....

So yes....I know a bit about game design, and the frustration that comes with trying to balance it all out (perfect example: in playtesting the game above (Holy War), we stayed awake all weekend munching tortilla chips and sucking down tea, got down to the last three players (me as Muslim, James as Druid, and Aaron as Christian)....Aaron attacked me, and I unloaded on him with a beautiful combo I'd been working on that essentially saw his army crumble without significant losses to my forces, HOWEVER,

While I was responding to that threat, James' Druidic forces (with their special unit, the "Elemental" attacked me en mass along my southern front. The movement rules we were using at the time allowed the Elementals to move an unlimited number of spaces through Druid-controlled territory....

Big mistake.

James was able to take my entire empire apart over the course of four turns....massed conventional troops for an attack to breech my line, and once the hole was made, one Elemental rode in and captured my (empty) inner territory....repeat....(and the hysterical part of it was that he was holding four cards that were the equivalent of M:TG's "Fog" spell, meaning that on my turn, I couldn't counter attack....:: sigh::

Needless to say, a painful lesson in balancing learned.

Whew....and what a ramble THAT was! Anyway, all that to say, yes! I'd be honored to put my name in the hat, and I think I have a sufficient background with that kinna thing to have something to offer to the group!

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

To answer the question 'bout limiting the amount of stuff you can do in a given turn....I think it'd increase strategy....you'd NEED to plan ahead more, in order to make sure that the goods you need to get the job done (production level at a certain point, the right force mix to take a rival's city, or whathaveyou), would be at the ready when you were ready to strike/proceed. Of the stuff I've been reading about in MOO3, that strikes me as among the most innovative and interesting!

-=Vel=-

[randomturn]

Vel, great post. I echo all your sentiments. Love Civ3's potential and hope that the (relatively) small steps necessary to get it over the hump will be taken.

Much of the complexity that was stripped from SMAC (gov't type, workshop, diplomatic) should be put back in. If it's too much for casual gamers make some of them them pre-grame options.

It can't be said enough times: the game will just die without scripting and mod-making.

End-game tedium must' be addressed, and aggressively. Stacked movement for units and workers. An option to sell all of one improvement type (for when you've just captured Pyramids or Hoover) was in ToT but lazily omitted from Civ3. Formalizing "vassals" perhaps a la SMAC would help immeasurably; perhaps that could also be the answer to fixing the diplomatic victory fiasco.

Trade is still amuck. I have commented on this elsewhere, but it is bizarre to the point of utter distraction when you solicit an offer for something, then add to your side and the AI becomes less likely to take it. The system is an arbitrageur's wet dream.

I continue to believe that coming in second in the Great Wonders race is too painful and punitive. There must be some kind of consolation commensurate with the number shields you have accumulated to build that Wonder. If this is driving hard-core gamers crazy, imagine what it's doing to Civ newbies. This won't make the game any easier, since it would help human and AI alike -- and it would still preserve the reasonable goal of preventing humans from grabbing all the important Great Wonders.

Civ3 is still slightly out-of-balance in a number of categories though the patch helped). Play balance more than maybe anything else had been a Sid/Firaxis hallmark. These fixes will probably continue to be patch-addressed.

Conquest: you hit it on the head -- difficult and tedious. Here's the thing: it should be difficult (I think it should be even more difficult). It should not be tedious!

As I said, I am committed to helping Civ3 realize its potential if I can be of help. The sad fact is, I hardly play it anymore. Last night I actually started a game of SMAC. But I am optimistic that Firaxis will do what it take to make this almost-reat game truly great.

[Velociryx]

Hiya Random!

URGH! Yes....I must agree with you about the anomolies in the trade deal diplo screens. Fixing that, and borrowing from a truly *outstanding* idea I've seen elsewhere on the board would be to have your "Trade Advisor Screen" have a hotsheet of who's clamoring for what goods, and what their basic offer for them would be. At a glance comparison shopping....that'd be sweet.

-=Vel=-

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by randomturn
I continue to believe that coming in second in the Great Wonders race is too painful and punitive. There must be some kind of consolation commensurate with the number shields you have accumulated to build that Wonder. If this is driving hard-core gamers crazy, imagine what it's doing to Civ newbies. This won't make the game any easier, since it would help human and AI alike -- and it would still preserve the reasonable goal of preventing humans from grabbing all the important Great Wonders.

Would it be possible to allow a civ to still complete a wonder even after another civ finished but at a drastically lesser effect. The civ to finish the Wonder first would get the full benefits of the Great Wonder, the other civ that completes it second would get lesser benefits as if it were a Minor Wonder. I know this kind of defeats the concept of Great Wonders being unique, but it does adress the problem. In real life, if both the Egyptians and the Greeks were building Pyramids and the Egyptians finished first, would the Greeks tear theirs down and make hoplites instead? If the Greeks spent 100 years building a massive pyramid and built almost the enite structure except for 10 stones on the very tip, would they tear everything down to build hoplites? Wouldn't they place the last 10 stones and maybe use the Pyramid for something else?

Of course if we wanted to keep Wonders unique and say fairly realistic, a better approach would probably be to make each Wonder civ specific. This would of course require a complete overhaul of the entire civ special abilities system. Instead of making civ abilities predetermined, they would be gained through Wonder constructions.
The advantage is that it would not impose special abilities on the civs. This is something that many civ players protested about. The player could choose whether or not to spend the time and ressources building a Wonder to gain a certain ability or whether to devote the ressources on something else.

[Heliodorus]

Vel, your optimism is inspiring to me, and your creativity impressive. Your analysis of the game is also spot-on. So thanks for rushing to the forefront of the community on our behalf.

That Firaxis weighed in here, to me, is really encouraging. I have always wanted to believe that Firaxis cared, and hoped for more evidence to point to such concern. Yesterday's beta announcement, and this post by Jeff, qualifies.

I do wonder about the practical issues regarding what is possible to implement, given existing code, difficulty of modifyications, and the all-too-real considerations of time and money. But I continue to wait and try to be optimistic.

One of the things that for me would go a long way to alleviating late game disenchantment that hasn't (as far as I've seen) been mentioned is to figure out why the AI is fun to compete with in the ancient era, and why it's not in the modern era, and to fix that, specifically in regard to warfare. The AI's ancient military mind seems to far surpass it's modern military mind, especially with the AI as an offensive threat.

Otherwise, all that has been said regarding ideas for improvements look interesting.

[Arrian]

Wow, Vel, now I know where you've been spending your time lately. I must say that I largely agree with you, particularly about the late game.

For me, the middle ages are fine - I tend to do lots of fighting there. It's the industrial and modern ages that need help. Some of it has to do with the tech tree - forcing you to research more of the modern age techs, for instance. Part of it is DEFINITELY the UN. I really enjoy the trading system, but it can be a little wacky at times... like when you ask them what they'll give you, change it, and then put back exactly what they offered and get "they would never accept such a deal!" Huh?

A personal gripe is the pollution thing. I want to be able to create stacks of 8 (or 4, if I'm industrial) workers, and task them to pollution cleanup. No "2 workers to each polluted tile" here. I want that pollution gone - NOW, and without me have to move workers manually, across a continent.

Minor upgrading thing - last night I upgraded 61 Tanks to Modern Armor. Next turn, I had to press "f" 61 times. If they were fortified, THAT's the way I wanted them! If they were not fortified, fine, I'll deal with them.

I have already discussed pushing the AI to build barracks and upgrade units in the "unit strength by era" thread, so I'll leave that alone.

I think I like the "protectorate" idea. I think I like it a lot. One of the major problems with late-game conquest is that it hurts your empire, overall. You gain worthless cities. You lose whatever money you were getting by selling things to the civ you conquered. For them, the cities were productive, and so they could pay you. For you, they give you 1gold/1science/1shield. I like the idea that you could go off and conquer Japan (for example) and then, instead of keeping the Japanese cities, setting up a "new" friendly-to-you Japan... and then sell things to your nice vassal/protectorate/commonweath/whatever (sound somewhat familiar?). Of course, there would have to be negative possibilities there, like rebellion...or even just a demand for independence... if you refuse, you fight, and it's a diplomatic faux pas - your rep takes a hit if you don't give them independence. "Conquest should be hard, not tedious" - well said. I avoid late game wars generally, because they aren't fun. They tend to be easy, militarily, but annoying and unrewarding. And the "You have acheived a domination victory" pop-up doesn't seem to justify the effort.

As for "wealth," perhaps having a factory in a city should lower the ratio of shields to gold. You know, like you're producing consumer goods for sale.

The editor definitely needs improvement, but my understanding is that Firaxis knows that and is working on it. Scenarios with all the options you had in Civ II (plus more, hopefully) would increase the self life of the game considerably.

I agree that some in-game info needs to be displayed more easily... like when you're trading - I want to know exactly what I'm trading, to whom, for how long, and for how much, all on one page. I wish the endgame replay showed more than city founding, capture/destruction, and wonderbuilding. How about "So-and-so declares war on so-and-so" and "Peace between so-and-so and so-and-so?" Minor, but I would like it.

You should be able to trade units to a civ - so long as they have the tech to use them... or maybe are at least in the right era. I don't want to be able to give an ally Modern Armor if they're in the middle of the industrial age.

I love this game - for me, it is immersive... but I've been playing Sid Meier games since the 1987 release of Pirates. I support attempts at improving what is, for me, already a great game. If any of my ideas or comments help in that process, great.

-Arrian

p.s. Firaxis as Edward I "Longshanks" of England? How silly. What is with the personalization of this thing?? What I mean is, why are people taking this game so damn seriously... and if they don't like it, why is a personal affront?? J.H.Christ! Vel isn't going to mount his warhorse and go take on the marauding Firaxian army, and by vanquishing that army, create a perfect Civ III!

EDIT: To clarify about late-game warfare & the protectorate idea. I don't want to change the fundamental idea that bigger is not always better. The reason that I, personally, like the protectorate concept is that late in the game, when I'm dominating, the AI starts to get jealous. Often, they pick a fight I don't want, and I am forced to slaughter them. Having done it, I'd like to be able to set up a friendly vassal state, which, if treated properly, will be preferable to my other options (razing their entire civ and allowing the others to resettle or capturing their cities and dealing with the corruption hit).

[Velociryx]

Heliodorus! Thanks for the compliment and kind words, bud! It's been said many times that Firaxis is a small company, and lets face it, Civ is a HUGE, wampum big game....there's no way that a small group of guys, programming and meeting in isolation can come up with as many possibilities and ideas as a large group (fan base). Just isn't gonna happen, and that's why, IMO, these kinds of forums are so vital to the health and vitality of the industry.

With the formation of a public beta group, it appears that they've reached the same conclusion, and that's a good thing!

Steve Jobs (Apple Computers), brilliant as he is, made a HUGE mistake in the early days of computing. He was HELL BENT on holing up in the confines of his company and making computers his way. It was his way or no way....nevermind what the customers wanted or clamored for, cos he had all the answers.

Yep...and that's why Apple's market share is hovering at....8....9%? Me....I love Apple's....consider myself to be a closet Apple fan, actually, but even as recently as the iMac, it's clear that Jobs' priorities have not changed....the iMac was rigidly built, few options (this may have changed later....I refer to the opening weeks of iMac's availability), and, IIRC, no portable media (3.5" disk drive....which the customer base had been BEGGING for!). How easy would it have been to add? Easy.

Was it?

Nope....cos Steve had all the answers. His way or no way, you know.

::sigh::

Too many good games suffer that same fate, and it doesn't have to be that way.....which is one of the reasons it took me all of about two minutes after reading here this morning to get my application mailed off to Firaxis....

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Hey Arri! Yep....been playtesting various elements of my proposed Mod-with-no-name, and as I've been testing different things, it became increasingly clearer exactly what it was that bogged the game down....the lack of builds and choices, the lack of anything to do besides fight....the ease of building absolutely everything.

One cool thing that I'm hoping to do with the mod is introduce something I really liked in smac....the punishment sphere. Fact was, there were times when it was useful, but times when you'd be NUTS to build it....it really packed a major whallop of a downside! As it stands now, there's little strategy to when to build what, but what if you had a city build that doubled or tripled your city production but whacked you for -10 or 12 culture per turn AND hurt your city's defensibility? OUCH! Now all of a sudden, you gotta think about that and weigh the benefits....

Those are the kind of tradeoffs that are largely missing from the game, and it's stuff like that (among other things), that would really add depth to the experience.

Glad you like the Protectorate idea! I actually jumped up out of bed last night to post it....it just....floated gently into my head, and once it landed there, I knew I had to share it right then!

-=Vel=-

[DickK]

Vel,

Don't have the time for a proper reply to your thoughtful post but I agree with your assessment. The more I play Civ3, the more I get a "so close but no cigar" reaction.

After playing Civ3 almost exclusively since it was released, a couple days ago I went back and started a game of SMACX. The comparison is stark -- Civ3 may have the more advanced AI but SMAC is clearly the better, more polished game. I don't think SMAC will ever be properly recognized, sadly, the SF setting seems to put many folks off. None-the-less, the richness of the game really shows in SMAC with the incredible job that was done tying things together into a "real" world that had history and characters with personalities that mattered within the game. The voice actors, SP movies, the "book quotes", etc, etc, make it hang together and really make the experience fun. Civ3 has so much potential and yet it falls short of the standard Firaxis set with SMAC. They moved the bar way up with that one so maybe it was unrealistic to expect they could meet/exceed that high standard. We all know SMAC's flaws as well, so many of us expected Civ3 to incorporate the improvements of SMAC, carry them forward into the Civ series and be even better.

Like you said, Civ3 is a very good game as it stands, but I'm disappointed that it doesn't currently reach the level Firaxis set with SMAC. Let's hope that can and will be changed. Only time will tell.

[Arrian]

I just had an idea.

What if, instead of giving the AI crazy production bonuses, you gave it:

Free, automatic upgrading of its units upon receipt of the proper technology (clearly an upper-level-only thing, perhaps optional at startup).

Also, part of me rejects the idea that I can spend 40 turns building pyramids, only to switch to the Great Library at the last moment. Now, I do it all the time, but I really should take a production hit, and so should the AI. Building the palace for a while and then switching to a wonder is bs too. HOWEVER, if the AI gets big production bonuses, then this has to stay. What I want is a AI that gets more subtle (elegant?) bonuses, instead of the brute force cheats it gets now.

Perhaps, if you get beaten to a wonder, but wish to complete it, you get either:

A greatly weakened version (either much weaker effects or early expiration) or
A wonder that provides nothing but culture.

I'm still unsure about the 4 and 40-turn tech caps...whether it helps or hurts the AI. I think it might be hurting it, as only the humans seem to understand how to manipulate the tech/tax slider to maximum effect. By the modern age, I've usually got thousands of gold in my treasury, and the AI is nearly broke.

Also, to improve gameplay on chieftain and warlord, I suggest that the human should be given bonuses (like the AI gets on Monarch and up) instead of the AI getting handicaps. The result of the current handicap system is a bunch of totally useless AI civs... tech development slows to a crawl, they can't really trade with you because they have no money... it's kinda boring, and you struggle to get into the Modern Age, whereas on Monarch level (highest I've gone yet), I tend to hit modern times in the 18th or 19th century.

-Arrian

[Morganstern]

I agree that Vel has analyzed the issue at hand "spot on." The game is good, but . . . it lacks the immersion I experienced when first playing MOO2, SMAC, and particularly CIV2. My take on the gap here is that the game lacks what writers refer to as "suspension of disbelief," where the story is sufficiently immersive to make the reader forget someone is writing it.

I'm not sure what the computer game equivalent of that is, but it's missing in CIV3. When I can't develop cities on an island apart from my original continent due to the lousy corruption model, I instantly lose my total focus on the game, and am now distracted by thoughts about the game designers imposing an arbitrary rule concerning production capabilities a certain distance from the capitol city. Rules like these, and there are several in CIV 3, distract from the flow of the game. My immersion is gone, and soon enough the game is turned off. My experience is that I can rarely play CIV3 for more than an hour and a half at a time, and sometimes can barely manage 45 minutes. Now perhaps that's healthy in many ways, but it wasn't the case with the other games mentioned above, and doesn't speak well for the game design.

Like Vel, I still enjoy this game and always return to it, but I regret the loss in the judgment calls that were made by the design team that nearly eliminate the addictive and immersive qualities otherwise found in the CIV series.

[BanastreTa]

Vel,

Great idea, and great post-I think it hit the nail right on the head for what some of us who are somewhat in-between the "whiner" and "fanboy" position--just to use the two common pejorative terms for the love it and hate it groups, let's not start a flame war--are thinking about the game.

It's a good game, I think. A fun game even. I'm definitely still playing it (well, not now: law school exams are upon me!). But there is a maddening, hard to place disappointment. A feeling that several details could have been implemented better, or implemented at all, and those details begin to add up. I still enjoy it (less so than those first few wonderful games, I seem to have settled into the same "fun but not quite immersive" category). I find no need to rant or to niggle about little things that don't really matter. I also think that most people who claim it is perfect or as revolutionary in this day as Civ 2 was in its day are either being disingenuous or deluding themselves (I'm reminded of a post I read on another message board yesterday. One of the most prolific "fanboys" admitted that she had gotten bored with the game soon, but that it was her own fault, not Firaxis'. Really, I think this poster would be apologetic if Firaxis shot her dog.)

I applaud any efforts to try to overcome the poorly implemented details in the instant game and make Civ 3 what it should be. I don't have a huge amount of experience with the technical implementation of mods, but I'm an idea man, and I hope I can contribut some stuff myself. I agree, it can be fixed--and maybe with not as much work as some people think! This idea, and others, I think can make for a game that will, at the very least, keep us satisfied until Civ 4!

Regards,

BT

[Alex]

Vel, beautiful words! Now that you are applying to the public beta program, I think we can finally dream about a truly great Civ3... as it should be in the first place.

I agree with you about Civ3... I like the game a lot, but its potential is greater than the game itself. Maybe, as was pointed out by another poster, the whole civ formula became a little tiresome. The old concept of moving units and building things has to be revamped.

One thing that strikes me as puzzling is why many of those great concepts found in SMAC were not incorporated into Civ3... One of the possible reasons is that the designers wanted to create a "Civ - light", aimed at more casual players. If that was their intent, I would have to say that they were successful, but at what cost?

Something has definitely to be done about the late game boredom... And a lot of things could be tweaked. Espionage, diplomacy, more things to build, different concepts for the tech tree, new concepts to warfare... An expansion pack or Civ4?

I like your idea about "Protectorates". It could bring a whole new array of strategies to the game. And I think that random events could be implemented.

Civ has always been about decision making, and there simply is no decision making in Civ3 once you reach a certain point in the game. I do not have a problem with micromanagement, but micromanagement without a goal is just hard work.

All in all, I expect Civ3 to be greatly improved... it surely has a great potential to realize.

[Velociryx]

More thoughts:

First, again, thank you to everyone who has been reading and responding. One thing I've noticed is that this thread, which speaks directly to the weak spots in the game, still has a four star rating.....will that hold? I have no idea, but most threads of this type have been slammed with 1-2 star ratings pretty early on, so that tells me we're off to a shining start!

About the lack of decision making:
This is very true, and it starts in the ancient era. Recently, over in the strat. thread bearing my name, we were discussing this very thing. As the tech tree stands now, there really are only three viable beelines on standard maps (and one on 'pelago maps).

If you're playing 'pelago, you rush for map making. That's it. Sadly, that's not strategy!@ Where's the choice in that?! There IS none.

If you're playing standard maps, you get a bit more choice....three, to be specific.

You can either rush for Iron Working (preferable if you're a scientific civ, since you're one tech out) and do a quick Ancient Era swordsman strike.

OR

You can make for horseback riding (esp. useful for the Japanese) and do the same as above, with a "Mongol Horde" type of attack

OR

You rush for the Great Library if you're a peace-lover.

That's it. There ARE no other viable tech beelines in the ancient era. Trust me. Better still....DON'T trust me and try some beeline besides those on Emperor level and report back here with your findings. I tried *repeatedly* to make any other beeline pay, but it doesn't.....it just doesn't work. (edit: one POSSIBLE exception would be a beeline for Monarchy, on the thinking that it's an often neglected AI research path....this should give you tradable techs when you meet the AI....trouble is, that it leaves you with few truly valuable early game techs if you don't find someone to trade with straightaway, which makes it best suited for Pangea maps....easier to simply sword/horse the opposition to death andn TAKE their techs on those settings).

Again, three choices does not make for much in the way of replayability!

Fortunately, this is one of the things that can be addressed via modding, and in fact, that's what we're seeking to do with the mod I'm proposing. We've not gotten all the new techs hammered out just yet, but here's the general bent of things in the ancient and middle ages eras....

1) Re-balance terrain-type starts (this means bananas are back in jungles, forests are more productive (should help Tundra starts, among others), Deserts get Salt Flats (more shield production)....all of this in an effor to make the game PLAYABLE if you get stuck in a crap-starting position. Hand in hand with this, is the weakening of early game plains (see below).

2) Wheat stalks do NOT start off appearing on the map! In fact, they do not appear until the middle ages (Crop Rotation....Jethro Tull...LOL). Cows do not appear on the map at game start. You want 'em....gotta research Animal Husbandry (Ancient tech). Hills can be irrigated, mountains produce one more shield when mined, plains cannot be mined (but so far, grassland still can).

3) Diplomacy has been added as an ancient era tech (one of the last you can research, actually), and THIS is where embassies have been placed, and comms. traded. Explorers have been made available with Map Making so people can actually USE them!

4) Sick to DEATH of the AI violating your borders? Kill them without starting a general war! How? We're adding new "no color" units that you can build. They're cheap in shields, but cost 1 point of pop., creating....you guessed it, more strategic tradeoffs!

5) A new naval unit has been made available (Coracle) with pottery (meaning it's immediately available to Expansionist Civs). Coastal, 2 moves, carries one unit.

6) Barbarians are MEAN! Default units have been changed (tentatively) to: Swordsmen, Knight, Privateer (beefed up!)

There's more, but that's just off the top of my head. Anyway, the net result of all this is: MORE STRATEGIC CHOICE!

Get trapped on a small island? No problem, the answer is one tech away!

Want to grow faster than your rivals...beeline for animal husbandry!

Warmonger? Hey....you've still got ironworking and hoseback riding available (along with a possible new addition "Cavalry Tactics" which will make a 2/2/2 horse unit available to you!

Peacenik? You can now either gun for the GL straight off, or go for those colorless units and defend your borders without incurring the wrath of everybody near you!

In-game, there are now TONS more strategic decisions to make! How bad do you wanna find out what's in that goody hut? Is it worth possibly unleashing a hellish lotta swordsmen?

OTOH....if you DO unleash swordsmen, can you lure them into chasing you till you get near a rival civ's cities? (never was a viable strat before, but it is now, as my own playtesting can attest to, and a GREAT opening shot in a war!)

How many times have you laughed off a "barbarian uprising" consisting of 4-6 horsemen? :: evil grin:: I can promise you that in 3000 BC if you see such an uprising with my mod, you'll have a reaction, to be sure....but it prolly won't be laughing.... Barbarians inspired FEAR and TERROR historically. They don't in the game as it stands right now, but they will....believe me....they will....

A bit later in the game, you get more of everything. More wonders, more governments, more CHOICE! You WON'T be able to easily build everything under the sun, and in some cases, you won't want to....you'll have to weigh your options carefully and proceed based on the best information available to you at the time. Isn't that, in the end, where the magic starts? I think so.....I hope so....If our mod is to meet with success anyway....

Oh! Another thing being kicked around: Making a whole new class of amphib. units and making them available with other units of each era ('cept Ancient). These guys would be worse at attack than the best attackers, and worse at defending than the best defenders of a given era (very well rounded units), so it'd take more of them than a straight on land assault, BUT, given the strength of an amphib assault, isn't that as it should be? Again, more options....more choice.

The age of sail has been moved to early in the middle ages, extending the life of wooden ships and making sea worthy ships available earlier. Again, more strategy for the player.

My policy with the mod is a totally open door one. The things I've mentioned above are either in, or being kicked around. If you approve, or if you hate it, c'mon over to my website where it's under development and chime in.

All I can say is that we're doing the best we can with the tools currently available, and that work will continue whether I get on the beta team or no.....as the editor improves, so will our options (at present, we are unable to add in government-specific units or wonders....hopefully, that will change soon...our fingers are crossed, cos we've already got some ideas tabled!)

-=Vel=-
The Renaissance Portal

[Capt Dizle]

I have to throw a bucket of cold water on all of this. A beta tester is nothing but a software tester. There is little or no chance that anyone at Firaxis will be interested in doing any serious recoding of this game.

Vel, no one at any game developement company has ever abandoned their game concepts because a beta tester had a better idea. LMAO!

They might steal an idea or two for the next game though.

Any idiot can see the gross flaws of Civ3. No plot, no story, no conflict. Tedium. The whole culture/mega coruption thing was and is unforgivably horrid.

If the developers were honest they would admit that this game was not fully developed. They would just come on here, Sid himself, and say "We never got the job done."

There are only three possiblilities. 1. Someone was jerking off when they were supposed to be working, 2. The publisher's deadline was too soon or 3. The head developer left.

Of course we all know the 3 is correct. Brian left, Sid is sick of Civ (and frankly has no clue as were to take it) and so they cobbled together a team of "might be good game developers someday" types and did a rush job.

Which I can never forgive because this was CIV3 not some B movie.

Now, any number of us can come up with better ideas in twenty minutes than those found in this game.

I wish Sid and the Firaxis folks had the charactor to fix this but they don't. Sid could probably afford it. He could pay for it out of his pocket in all likelyhood.

But he won't.

jt