When will Civ3 end?

Caesar · October 17, 2000, 08:49

Still the year 2000, or later, or open-ended?

Caesar.

Caesar · October 17, 2000, 17:12

What're the arguments for a game that doesn't end? Like SimCity?

C.

October 18, 2000, 00:19

Heard of the Sweep of Time? Some people say it's just a marketing hype (god I can't remember the word!). But I have a feeling it's not.

It goes: Dinosaurs, Civ3, SMAC2.

So...Civ3 will probably end where we are able to travel to Alpha Centauri, either because the world is being destroyed or just because we want to.

Empress · October 18, 2000, 00:34

I'm all for a neverending game of civ. It is kinda annoying when you have a good civ going to be forced into retirement...

October 18, 2000, 02:16

Yeah I agree.

It would be great if the game could continue forever, but that isn't exactly possible without starting to get bored. I mean in Civ2, you can keep playing forever, but the game begins to become very boring. The computer even gives up! (I hated that)!

The Sweep of Time Trilogy makes this good, because you have the length of 3 games. So this trilogy SHOULD last a VERY long long time anyway! Infact, I see this trilogy lasting at least 5 years because of how long it will be. So I wouldn't be too worried about there being an ending.

October 18, 2000, 04:29

The main problem with a neverending game is that there would be no new technology and wonders. So that the longer you go on, the more time seems to stand still.

Deathwalker · October 18, 2000, 06:48

I think the whole technology thing should be drawn out so that you can not go to Aplha Cent till at least 2500AD. So rather that just set the end further, beef up the earlear years and add more tech their so it is unlikley to end in 1500AD also add a lot more tech between Apollo and going to AC?

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

UltraSonix · October 18, 2000, 18:43

In the other thread recently I think the general consensous is that 2200 is a good ending date. 2020 is definitely too soon.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

Caesar the Great · October 18, 2000, 22:16

Ahh no, not caesar!

October 19, 2000, 04:13

CtG: haha....

Ultra: But doesn't the gap between the present and 2200 have to be filled by techs that are presently non-existent. I think most people don't like the idea of sci-fi type techs in the later years (like what they did in CTP)

Builder · October 19, 2000, 14:36

my idea :

in 2020 the player will be asked if he wants to finish the game, if he chooses yes he will get some addon to his score(20%?) because if he would have countinued the game he wuold've get more score, probably.

if he chooses to continue he will be able to use all those new techs&wonders.

the points addon is important in order to balance the score a player gets in both options.

Adm.Naismith · October 20, 2000, 04:15

IMHO, date limit is important only if and when related to game aim.

When a game is already on the route to inevitable victory, I find boring to drag it until the formal winning conditions are met. I liked open end games like Sim City, but to a point.

If "Raise and Fall of civilization" will be somewhat implemented the game will be kept interesting until late turns. A stronger A.I. can do the same, but I suppose that is an hopeless aim with current affordable game tech

Score mean something, but to me not so much to add some % if someone keep playing endless the same game: we are buying a software that can start a new game, why keep to use that button only once?

OTOH, if one of the available end game will be to survive as long as possible to an Armageddon magnitude disaster (total nuke exchange, unstoppable pollution and climate change, earth hit by asteroid, invasion by an alien force - using same race of SMACX, etc. ) a later end of game will have the taste of an hopeless fight to survive.

It can be (optional, for players who hate SF ending) what happens after the launch of Starship Unity to Alpha Centauri. While the starship is your seed of hope for the future (mankind will come back, at the end of SMAC 2

), you boldly face the flood to the game over. Move your cities, raise up your defence, mutate and adapt... your dead will be sure, but how greatness to the end!

Then, collect your ego bit by bit and start a new Civ game...

How do you feel that suggestion?

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

red_jon · October 20, 2000, 15:36

Perhaps another ending could be the creation of a Utopia- the people should be incredibly happy, no-one unhappy, little to no pollution and different factors depending on the government. For example, Communism would be a truly equal society.
I mean , isn't a perfect world what man has been stiving for since the beggining of humanity?

(Plus, you could sabotage people "Utopia" attempts, if a nation is almost there, with many happy people, you could create civil unrest using spies!)

Va-Toran · October 20, 2000, 17:02

You shouldn't be forced into ever retiring, but should be able to choose when to retire. Although the tech tree should not add futuristic technologies.

Adm.Naismith · October 20, 2000, 17:36

Stuff2, I respect your opinion, still your:

quote:

I don't think that AC should be the next game in a sequel. Instead the following game will scale out their focus so that it will include the whole solar system and maybe a few nearby solar systems. And the third game should be about the colonization of the whole galaxy.

but Sweep of Time has already been announced as Dino+Civ3+SMAC2, AFAIK!
If it will be only by "marketing glue" or by a real game link, I think it's another story.

Red Jon, Utopia can be another path to the victory, but I fear it will be too easy for any other AI or human civ to stop you (you already suggested to use spies).

Va Toran, I probably miss something of your idea, sorry in advance:
- Civ 2 already left you free to retire when you like; it simply put a time limit to game score
- If you can keep to play forever but the tech tree must stop, your research will hit a wall very quickly: not realistic nor funny IMHO. Or do you mean you like "Future tech #36" instead of proper named one?

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

Caesar · October 20, 2000, 17:51

I like the Utopia idea (kind of like Transcendence in SMAC) but I don't think any one nation can achieve Utopia, because if there are conflicts outside the borders then Utopia is threatened... plus IMHO in never really exists without global unity.

So there is an idea for an endgame, and could lead to Utopia - uniting the world, maybe even into one civ.

C.

Stuff2 · October 21, 2000, 00:53

I think that civ3 will end with the beginning of colonisation of Mars. So no longer than to 2100 AD.

I don't think that AC should be the next game in a sequel. Instead the following game will scale out their focus so that it will include the whole solar system and maybe a few nearby solar systems. And the third game should be about the colonization of the whole galaxy. That's my opinion.

red_jon · October 21, 2000, 05:45

I was thinking about the replies to my utopia idea, perhaps building a wonder-ish project to confirm your utopia (declaration of utopia?).

Spies should be able to be countered by spies already in the city, stopping unhappiness attempts.

To prevent it happening too early in the game, you should have discovered every government form first (to explore all the possibilites).

I don't think uniting the world first would work, as that would lead to a conquest victory.

zyxpsilon · October 21, 2000, 17:00

The key, i agree with you, is the ability to ADAPT an increasingly developping CIV. Even after sending an interstellar settling ship, a "futuristic" approach to the unknown (2020+) has an appeal not only to the conquering/players but also to the economic/modelers and alikes.
It'd be a shame not to let them enjoy the aftermath of their long walk into the historic-years of a planet struggles towards -power- over adversaries.
I think the challenge must remain within reach of the "rational" even if it means enforcing peace.
But, without any kind of a reference of years to come, it almost becomes an all-out mystery.
It is much easier to adapt WITH the unknown then it is to escape the challenge.

Dr.Oogkloot · October 21, 2000, 18:39

I think Civ 3 should also include a lot of futuristic sciences etc, and it should end maybe something like 2500.

Tim White · October 23, 2000, 00:33

I think that when you reach the point of getting to AC, you dont go there, but you land on mars. IT then asks you if you wish to end the game, and retire. IF you do not, then your score is NOT computed, and new space techs are introduced. after at least 2 other civs land on mars also, then it tells you that Earth has been destroyed by total nuclear warfare. And then you must fight for mars, and settle the RED planet.

DarkCloud · October 23, 2000, 21:47

Civ III ends: anywhere from 2025-2060 to allow for Alpha Centauri.

Space ship screen needs and upgrade.
Note to self: start thread.

Stuff2 · October 28, 2000, 08:57

Actually the most likely ending , at least in the real world. Is a major war. Why?
Well, beacouse of the enviromental distruction will sooner or later get economic consequences, very bad economic consequences, when the flooding and desert expansion and weather changes forces poeple to move, to
find new suitable land. When the ocean rising forces people to move, all this will make every country very eager of it's own survival menaing that if suitable land isn't found, it will try to grab some from it's neighbour. This will cause military conflicts. The rich world (wich so far has been doing alright since they have both money and tech for it, gets dragged in to the war when they realize that the war will make them not being able to buy valuable food and goods from the poor world. When the rich countries enter the war (helping their poor trade-partners) they will also realize their own conflicts. Since every country is looking for themselves. The conflicts will spread. And boom, a maniac has fired a nuke (and beleive me 50 years from now every country with more than 20 million inhabitants will have nukes, and 100% secured defense for nukes just don't exist). It's sad but i think it's very possible. It will be a time full of destruction, ultra-nationalism and suffering. Even if nukes are not used, there will be zillions of manufactured deceases, chemical warfare and other creepy stuff. And if nukes are used we will experience a new Ice age.

chrispie · October 28, 2000, 11:24

LOL thanks for that Stuff2...really made my day! :P

But, since what we all (well most of us

) want is realism, shouldn't Civ3 follow that? Like what is the ultimate goal for the future of Civilization...Peace and unity and visions of one sweet union, errr apparently.

I think at least 3 endings are a must:

1. A player 'wins' when he conquers the whole world (a -very- big task).

2. The whole world is allied. I believe it should be possible in game for players to do deals, to try and bring the world together. In a much more detailed way than the likes of Civ2.

3. Failing that, it's the first to build a humongous rocket and send it to um Mars I suppose. The easiest of the 3 goals, but still needing a big industry, and lots of science.

"after at least 2 other civs land on mars also, then it tells you that Earth has been destroyed by total nuclear warfare. And then you must fight for mars, and settle the RED planet."

Hmm, how -do- you do those nifty quote things?

Hmm, tells you Earth has been destroyed? Anyway, I disagree with any subject which has the game being split into different styles or places. Like the idea's I've read about at the start, having to build a tribe of some sort...I want a smooth flowing game, which no sudden changes. Call me dull.

[This message has been edited by chrispie (edited October 28, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by chrispie (edited October 28, 2000).]

October 28, 2000, 11:38

I think Civ3 should end at around 3000 A.D. and include lots and lots of futuristic techs.

------------------
JRH

Simpson II · October 29, 2000, 18:57

Most likely in 2050, when the Unity is launched in SMAC. It's a nice time frame, too; it gives some scope for intersting new techs but not enough to become totally silly, like CtP.

red_jon · October 30, 2000, 16:36

I liked the "silly" future advances and governments- perhaps they should be included in Civ3 with the option to turn them off.

Ralf · October 30, 2000, 16:55

I think Civ-3 should end no later then 2040 - just like Civ-2. I want *only* recognizable techs, units and improvements.

I dont want 75% CIV + 25% SMAC.
I just want 100% absolut CIV.

There are so *many* space-empire strategy-games out there with made-up sci-fi techs and units. Even CTP-2 has a little to much of it.

Dr Strangelove · October 31, 2000, 01:35

These games typically end by a certain time, by world conquest, or by building a final super achievement, like an interstellar spaceship. Is Civ 3 going to have a new end game super wonder? Is this feature already set by Firaxis, or is it still up in the air? How about some suggestions?

How about this: Instead of us going to the Aliens, the Aliens come to us. The end game super-wonder would be an interstellar communicator, which triggers the arrival of the Aliens. Randomly determined, the Aliens may be peaceful (Vulcans, ala Star Trek First Contact), domineering (Talons ala Earth Final Conflict), or warlike (Martians ala Invaders from Mars). Well, whaddaya think?