The lack of "strategic depth" in Civ3

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Calvin Vu


I generally don't want to mock at people's choice of words but since you sound like Merriam Webster in what "strategic depth" is supposed to mean,

Thank you. If we don't have some agreement about what the terms mean, then we will _never_ get anywhere by debate.

So "more care"="more strategic depth"; but a "simplistic one-way formula to a sure win" doesn't = "The game has poor strategic depth". Aren't they corrolary ?

Yes. So the issue becomes - _is_ there a "simplistic one-way formula to a sure win."

I think the answer is "No." If you've found a formula its because either your not playing on a high enough difficulty level, or the game doesn't have a high enough difficulty level for you.

I should mention, btw, that I do end at least half my games very early because my starting position was too favorable, one where I wouldn't have to think much to win. That certainly seems to indicate a flaw in the game, but Civ2 had it too.

And what do you really mean by "taking more care" ? I just bring whatever horse units I have and stack them all up next to an enemy city before taking it with no fear of being counter-attacked ever .

I agree the basic combat system is, well, just that "basic." Very simple, little "depth." How about the rest of the game?

Can one strategy, even for hundreds of turns, be called deep ?

If the strategy requires a lot of "maintinence" - if you have to make interesting/difficult decisions to continue to carry out the strategy - then "Yes." Though prehaps it should be said to have "tactical" depth.

Why ? So you can call him a quitter ?

No... It's just that all the "late game tedium" people seem to be winning when they call the game "tedious."

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Libertarian


And that is called "condescension".

And I could discuss your use of the good ol' ad hominem... but instead I'll just say: "Sorry if I appeared more condescending to you than you appeared to be condescending to me."

Now, do you want to talk about us, or the game? If "us" just move the discussion to e-mail - send it to gothrup@benuvu.firm.net. Maybe someday that'll be my e-mail address.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by belchingjester
Calvin, I agree - if the poprushing horsemen strategy always leads to victory (and you can still poprush under despotism with 1.17f, it will just make your cities unhappier), you should try playing a different way . Try playing a builder strategy. I agree, it's tough...

-belchingjester

Try an archipelligo map. That's what I've been doing lately. The "pop rush" military strategy isn't nearly as usefull.

(And I'd already made editors to the bic to make pop-rush less beneficial.)

I'm sorry, but I do keep assuming that if someone has a problem in the game that can be fixed via the editor they've already done so. I agree this isn't an assumption I should make so much. Just because I like tinkering with the settings doesn't mean people should have to to get a good game.

[belchingjester]

Try an archipelligo map. That's what I've been doing lately. The "pop rush" military strategy isn't nearly as usefull.

(And I'd already made editors to the bic to make pop-rush less beneficial.)

I'm sorry, but I do keep assuming that if someone has a problem in the game that can be fixed via the editor they've already done so. I agree this isn't an assumption I should make so much. Just because I like tinkering with the settings doesn't mean people should have to to get a good game.

Yeah, my latest game is an archipelago, and it's frustrating being isolated until 500BC (stuck with one sea passage to the nearest civ, took me a while to build that !@%^& LightHouse (I lost several galleys), I still can't trade luxuries with the continent that has 6 civs on it b/c there's no sea passage). It really changes your strategy.

My preference is builder strategy anyway - it's just more challenging then a straight-out military. IMO people can choose to play the game different ways and create their own challenges - that was my point to Calvin.

I tend not to tweak the game preferences besides the initial world setup. I don't find much of a need for tweaking, since I'm fairly disciplined about avoiding what I perceive as "cheap" ways to get ahead. This in no way means that other people shouldn't engage in those practices - but they might consider eschewing those tactics/exploits if they're finding the game isn't sufficiently challenging.

Tarquelne, I'm sorry this post doesn't address your "strategic depth" question. Another message....
-belchingjester

[belchingjester]

Brian Reynolds' list of game turnoffs (thanks Libertarian - excellent link) is a good guideline. I haven't had situations where I've been too far behind the whole game - but it takes some gumption to stick in there like Ironkinit was saying.

Re: being too far ahead, since I don't play aggressively military until modern era, this usually isn't a problem given the aggressive expansion that the AI prefers. Usually I benefit some from culture bombing.

Re: tedium/micromanagement, I think a lot will be handled in the patch (can't wait until Friday).

I think it's universally agreed that no AI is a match for your dedicated human gamers. A lot still remains to balance the game for MP - again, let's see what the patch does.

Part of the problem comparing chess AI to Civ AI is that the Civ AI is supposed to be a far more compelling simulation of human behavior than "d2-d4". Especially in tournament chess, interaction is formalized to the extent that playing a human vs. playing a computer is not that much different unless you're watching sweat bead up on your opponent's forehead.

I think Civ3 (separate from the AI) is a rich environment that allows for very nuanced strategy if one doesn't try the "obvious" pop-rushing - again this may be sufficiently addressed in the patch. If the issue is unit balancing, there are lots of mods out there that try to address this, although I would prefer that Firaxis change their defaults (might make battles even more tedious if you have animations on, however...)

Of course, all we have to play directly against now is the AI... I like the option of culture although in Civ2 I used the diplomats exhaustively, so peaceful assimilation isn't totally alien.

I think the developers consciously tilted the balance in favor of builders and not warmongers compared to Civ2. This doesn't mean the "winning strategy" if these two meet is the builder - but the game experience is more fulfilling. If people want fully developed combat, AoE is probably a better option. It's tough meaningfully abstracting combat, but I like the way it's done (still don't know why they didn't use more from SMAC, but oh well.)

Sorry for rambling.
- belchingjester

[Libertarian]

Good analysis, Belch. Food for thought, certainly. Thanks.

[Velociryx]

Sadly, I think that the biggest neon sign pointing toward the lack of strategic depth in the game is the fact that the Civ3 Strategy section is....well....not dead, exactly, but not what I'd call vibrantly exploding with strategic thought, either.

I've not started a new "Vel's Strategy Thread" becauase, IMO, there's not much need for one. The essential elements have already been discussed.

I have even put on hold my plans to draft out my own Civ3 Strategy Guide on the thinking that....there's just not enough material to warrant a book-length treatment of it all.

Maybe that'll change with future patches or the Gold edition, but in my mind, the relative quiet on the strat. forum says it all.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Had a bit more time to devote to the question, so I thought I’d put virtual pen to virtual paper and give it another go.

The single biggest reason that Civ3 plays in relatively linear fashion is the structure, setup, and total number of techs available over the course of the game.

On the one hand, I applaud the notion of breaking human history up into “eras.” That’s very cool, and it lends a sense of progress and the passage of time. I like that. The downside to it though, is that each era has relatively few techs, and with a “game-standard” expansion and exploration policy, you can trade your way through the tech trees of each era at a lightning fast clip. Thus, the whole notion of pursuing various tech beelines is tossed out the window. Simply put, it doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference what techs you research in what order…you’ll wind up getting them all in about the same timeframe in any case (Contrast that to Civ3’s immediate predecessor, SMAC, which had fewer techs in total, but all confined to a single “era” and no less than six radically different, quite viable beelines). The solution here that is most obvious to the eye is to create more techs in each era, but this alone is not enough. There should never be, IMO, “stepping stone” techs. All of them should DO something, so this then, also implies the addition of more buildings (and more importantly, more TYPES of buildings) and other improvements—including more Governmental types, special units with perhaps very specific uses/short shelf lives (which adds to the sense of urgency and strengthens the whole notion of a beeline in a given direction), governmental specific wonders, minor wonders, units, and possibly city improvements (the investment in which would provide incentive to remain IN a given form of government).

Of a somewhat lesser concern (especially in light of the latest patch) is the fact that Civ3 has an overly simplistic combat engine. At least with fast units somewhat tamed, it prompts and fosters the use of combined arms, and that makes individual battles much more interesting than they used to be. Nonetheless, the actual execution of an attack against an AI empire is exceedingly linear. There’s just not much choice in the way you go about it. The only thing that changes is the type of unit you use when you go in, but the attack pattern is essentially the same each time.

Not to say that either of these things make Civ3 a bad game. I’ve said repeatedly that it’s not, however, the structure of the game in light of the two points above makes it impossible for me to classify the game as one that has any real strategic depth…many of the normally crucial in-game decisions (what to build next to improve your cities, what tech to research, how to set up an attack) are practically harnessed to you. Deviate from the path and you essentially shoot yourself in the foot.

One final (also relatively minor) point is the state of the corruption model. The fact is, if you start on a peninsula or coastally, you WILL fight early, or you will not thrive with a large empire. This is because of the post patch cost of relocating your palace. It all but requires a Great Leader, and there’s only one way to get one of those….again, there’s no strategic choice here. Your path is largely dictated to you by your starting postion.

-=Vel=-

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Simply put, it doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference what techs you research in what order…you’ll wind up getting them all in about the same timeframe in any case

I wish I was as good at the game as you guys. I find, for example, that if I make a "bee line" for Cavalry when I want a military edge it _does_ make a big difference. I guess I just suck at the trading or something.

not enough. There should never be, IMO, “stepping stone” techs. All of them should DO something,

If you leave out the "stepping stone" techs you either need to multiple the cost of some techs by a factor of 2 or more, or think up abilities to be granted for some techs when you probably don't have the resources to devote to adding and balancing new abilities.

so this then, also implies the addition of more buildings (and more importantly, more TYPES of buildings) and other improvements

RIght - more difficult to balance, and, if past games are a good indication, lots of "stuff" means that each individual item matters less. There's that "fewer options, more care with each decision" thing again.

Just like many of "you guys" I've played all the Civ games, but I just don't see Civ3 as less "strategically deep" as the previous ones. The better AI and the Resources have made all the difference for me. Fewer options, but more interesting/difficult ones.

Seriously now: Vel (or anybody), What difficulty level did you play Civ2 or SMAC on, and what diff. do you play Civ3 at? How often do you restart early because of a very good or very bad position? Errr.... Lib and Vel - are you still playing? If not I have to question how much experience you have with the game.

Of a somewhat lesser concern (especially in light of the latest patch) is the fact that Civ3 has an overly simplistic combat engine.

Compared to Civ2 or 1 or SMAC?............................................. .....................................I guess you can't see my waggling my eyebrows up and down. C'mon, "overly simplistic" compared to any real wargame's system, sure. Simplistic compared to most RTS, yes. But compared to Civ1, 2, or SMAC? I don't think so. I think its obviously less-simplistic.... I can't think of any arguments otherwise, you'll have to give them to me.

At least with fast units somewhat tamed, it prompts and fosters the use of combined arms, and that makes individual battles much more interesting than they used to be.

Unless one had already significantly increased the cost of fast units... but that's really a balance issue.

Nonetheless, the actual execution of an attack against an AI empire is exceedingly linear. There’s just not much choice in the way you go about it. The only thing that changes is the type of unit you use when you go in, but the attack pattern is essentially the same each time.

Arg... ark! Sorry, Civ1 and 2 flashbacks.

Deviate from the path and you essentially shoot yourself in the foot.

I think it's just more difficult, in general. The strategies/tactics are more subtle. Not that they're inobvious (usually), or that you have to be a deep or subtle thinker to come up with them (not after 2 or 3 previous Civ games, certainly), just that its more a game of fine adjustments than broad strokes. I think that's why there's not as much activity on the strategy threads.

And I bet that's what "DrFell" meant by "diversity." I agree that the broad strategic options are more limited in Civ3... and its nearly impossible to pick a particular strategy and stick with it the entire game. But lack of grand-strategy "diversity" isn't the same as lack of strategic depth. It certainly implies it. But - again, I'm comparing Civ3 to the other Civ games - here I think the improved AI makes all the difference. The "depth" lost in being able to impliment a wide variety of strategies is made up of by the quality of the decision making you need to make with what you've got left.

BTW - one of the things that struck me about Civ3 was that, where in previous games I seemed to most often be in a state of "plenty," in Civ3 I'm usually dealing with "poverty." Previous Civ games were won by making best use of my surpluses (extra cash, a tech lead, a large military, whatever). In Civ3 I find myself more often focussing on what I lack - A resource, or territory, tech, whatver.)

Your path is largely dictated to you by your starting postion.

I think that's one of the game's strong points. You have to adapt. The "strategizing" in adaptation is in the analysis of your options rather than the decision making. Not everyone's cup of tea, I imagine.

One final (also relatively minor) point is the state of the corruption model. The fact is, if you start on a peninsula or coastally, you WILL fight early, or you will not thrive with a large empire. This is because of the post patch cost of relocating your palace. It all but requires a Great Leader, and there’s only one way to get one of those….again, there’s no strategic choice here.

You could relocate your whole empire - move to an island or down the coast while your homeland gets overrun. (I did that once, and won in the end.)
You could wait untill a non-central city is developed enough to build a FP without a Great Leader. (I've done that.)
You could do without the FP in your large empire. (I've done that.)
You could try to get by without a large empire. (I've done that, too.)

You say there's "no strategic choice." Are you sure you're aware of all your choices?

[Tarquelne]

DrFell
"Thing is in civ3 you don't really choose what techs to research."

I was looking over the thread and was struck by how often the tech tree comes up.

You know what? I don't think there's as much strategic depth in the Civ3 tech tree as there is in the Civ2 or SMAC tech tree. I don't think it's nearly as much a non-issue as some have made it out to be... but yes, its true that Civ3 tech decisions don't have nearly as much long-to mid term effect on your position as they do in Civ2 or esp. SMAC. I doubt that you'll ever go more than 1/2 an Age without a tech from path B if you chose path A....

Ok... so? There's a _lot_ more to the game than tech. I freely admit that the tech tree in Civ3 isn't nearly as interesting/fun as the tree in Civ2 or esp. SMAC. But there are other elements to the game. I see them as so much imporved over Civ2 that I just don't miss the large tech tree. I always questioned how much depth it added, anyway - following one particular tech path is certainly "a strategy." But I always found the decision on what path to follow a trivial one.... but I don't like arguing from personal experience that way - try this:

Civ3 takes away tech options...but gives you better trading options, a many Strategic/Luxury Resource options, and the better AI makes most of the other actions (building, movement, expansion) - things you do almost every turn, and multiple times per turn - more interesting/difficult.

impossible for me to classify the game as one that has any real strategic depth

....compared to Civ2, SMAC, etc? Well, of course that's what you mean - other comparisons would be irrelevent. MAN! I am _really_ discouraged. My copies of Civ2 and SMAC must have been completely defective. Rather than place futile posts here I'm going to get new copies of those games and find the strategic depth I've been missing! Unlike Civ 3 I will be challenged. I will have a myriad of important and difficult decisions to make. No late game tedium! I can't wait to sink my teeth into some "real strategic depth!"

[Tarquelne]

Try this:

Pretend I'm someone only slightly familiar with Civ2, SMAC, and Civ3. I've played one or two games of each. Now - You say that Civ3 has less strategic depth than Civ2 or SMAC. How so?

[Velociryx]

Tarquelne: The main body of your post has proved my point for me, and I'll show you how, but first, I'll answer the question you posed to me regarding the combat model.

To that end, let's take a close look at the combat model of the three games you mentioned: Civ2, SMAC, and Civ3.

Civ2's combat model is more advanced because it contains the FirePower aspect. This allows for tremendous variance in modeling various units. If you disagree that this allows for a more highly detailed combat system, then I invite you to check out any of the *numerous* threads in the general section on that very topic. That aspect alone makes Civ2's combat engine more complex.

SMAC: No firepower, but in the game we see 4 different reactor types (effectively increasing unit max HP over the course of the game), modifiers for terrain and unit types (rovers get a bonus in the open, infantry get a bonus when attacking cities, artillery get a bonus due to comparative elevation level, and a variety of different terrain modifiers). Thus, it sets up a highly tactical approach to combat....you can, with the right combat approach, arrange your attacks such that even with a slightly inferior force, wind up on top....not based on luck, but based on superior maneuver.

In Civ3, you have 2 factors: HP, and A/D values. In the ancient era, these values range from 1-5 HP and 0-4 A/D (taking the Persian Immortal into account). You've also got terrain defensive modifiers, but that's it. Thus, the notion of maneuver is relatively less important, since there are fewer total factors influencing combat. Another reason that the Civ3 model is a weak design is that it does not take into account the fact that a Elite Infantry's battlefield experience is any more or less valid in the modern era than an Elite Warrior (they both have 5 HP). It's patently *silly* to think that the Warrior's battlefield experience will help him much at all on a modern battlefield. Now it IS true that you can take a slightly inferior force in Civ3 and win battles against a superior force (like I mentioned you could do in SMAC)....the difference here is that in SMAC, you must do so through masterful control of the terrain....in Civ3, you just build lots of warriors and bulldog your way through....because the system has only two chief elements, you WILL eventually win. In other words...luck.

Techs:
Think about what you said for a moment. You acknowledged that Civ3's tech tree was not as deep as Civ2 or SMAC.

Dude...'member all those nifty subtle, deep strategic decisions you mentioned? Where do you suppose they *come* from???

If your answer is anything other than "The acquisition of tech" then I would highly recommend reading the rule book more closely before playing your next game, as it would seem that you lack a pretty basic understanding of the game itself.

The fact of the matter is, tech is THE most important aspect of the game. Tech DRIVES the game.

You want to build temples? Better research a tech to allow it.

Libraries? Same thing.

Wonders?

You see where I'm coming from.

My point is....if the tech tree lacks depth and meaningful long term choice/benefits, then the game itself is going to lack strategic depth.

You also made a point of saying how you enjoyed having your strategy dictated to you by your starting position, because it forced you to adapt.

I disagree strongly.

See...the essence of strategic depth is not having deep, interesting choices to make. That's part of it, sure....but the CORE of the issue is having multiple choices to make, all of which lead to vastly different gaming experiences, and many of which that can be argued to be equally viable.

You don't get that in Civ3. Let's take a closer look at the Peninsular start, in which you provided a number of other "alternate strategies" one could persue.

My statement was that if you find yourself in such a start, you WILL fight, or you will not have a good sized, thriving empire.

To which you responded that these were some of the other things you could do:


QUOTE:
You could relocate your whole empire - move to an island or down the coast while your homeland gets overrun. (I did that once, and won in the end.)
You could wait untill a non-central city is developed enough to build a FP without a Great Leader. (I've done that.)
You could do without the FP in your large empire. (I've done that.)
You could try to get by without a large empire. (I've done that, too.)

You say there's "no strategic choice." Are you sure you're aware of all your choices?

END QUOTE:

So let's do a quick compare shall we?

Fighting vs. Relocating the Empire: Relocation is clearly the weaker strategic choice....doing so costs you both time and cities, and on the higher levels of play (Monarch and above), given the AI's production and unit bonuses, that's not generally something you wanna consider, unless you're just mashochistic. Better to fight your way out of the corner and subdue the continent you're on.

Let the FP build naturally vs. Fighting: Sure, if you wanna spend 300 turns in poverty, you can do that. And based on this "strategic choice" I now see why you find yourself in a position of poverty in Civ3. No wonder!!! Very weak strategic choice.

Letting a non-central city develop: Again....300 wasted turns. No thanks! And another reason you often find yourself in a position of poverty in your games!

Do without a large empire: Shooting yourself in the foot again, cos remember, the AI gets unit production bonuses AND free units for founding new cities. If you intentionally limit your growth (avg. of 3 cities with good production if you start at the tip of a peninsula on a standard sized world), then you're backing yourself into a corner.

So yes....I'm well aware that there are other "strategic choices" besides getting in there and fighting if you find yourself with such a start...but the presence of those other choices do not amount to strategic depth at all, because compared to rolling up your sleeves and mixing it up with the AI, those are non-viable choices. They're strategically weak.

Now....if the game had a mechanism built into it where, say, if your empire was five cities or less, and all your cities were pinwheeled around your capitol (less than 8 tiles apart) and doing so gave you the option to build some kinna special unit, or provided production bonuses, then yes! Now we're talking strategic depth! Cos at that point, you can say...Hmmm...well, I could try for the juggernaught approach, or I could keep myself small and rely on the "small Empire advantages" to carry the day.

There's lots more I could say on it, but I think I'll get your response to these bits before continuing.....

-=Vel=-

[tmai]

Originally posted by Ironikinit


While you're testing, make a random map with the editor, make one of the starting positions ridiculously good, and load the scenario. Restart 1000 times. You'll find, I suspect, that the doctored start position comes up as often as any.

Don't feel like doing it? Well, you were the one who wanted to know. Or you can try it until you get the doctored spot and accept that it's random.

Pfew that took a while

Randomness does not exist and certainly not in software. It's always a combination of factors which eventually may result in something appearing like randomness.

Anyway, I did some aditional testing and got fairly consistent results. Theory: I think it's a consequence of how player starting locations are assigned. In the bic file the minimum distance between starting locations is defined, and after random map generation the program has to try and fit player starting locations within the available land mass, respecting the aforementioned bic file parameters.

Now it seems like the human player starting location is assigned last in the row. However, often (and especially on Archipelago maps) there will be a conflict in available land mass and distance parameter. And most likely, that's why the human player will often find himself starting at the tip of an island/land mass, where the computer opponents will start on a more central position. Now in general (more often than not) flood plains are found near the center of a land mass, and there's the explanation to my findings.

[Myrddin]

I agree that CivIII is limited at the grand strategy level, mainly because of the power of the offensive units - meaning it makes sense to wage aggressive war after obtaining knights, cavalry and tanks. This skews the game towards getting these key techs.

Alternative ways of gaining territory don't work well, since the AI won't trade cities, cultural conversion is erratic and subversion is expensive and ineffective.

[Spook42]

Originally posted by Velociryx

There's lots more I could say on it, but I think I'll get your response to these bits before continuing.....

-=Vel=-

On a tangent note, I am planning on a new topic called "My own take on what is lacking in Civ3 strategies," later tonight. Your insights are commendable, Velo, and your feedback on my later topic may be appreciated.

[Calvin Vu]

Originally posted by Tarquelne
Yes. So the issue becomes - _is_ there a "simplistic one-way formula to a sure win."
I think the answer is "No." If you've found a formula its because either your not playing on a high enough difficulty level, or the game doesn't have a high enough difficulty level for you.

If by "higher difficulty level" you only mean giving the AI civs even more production advantage than the current production advantage at deity level then I have no interest in such a game. As a matter of fact, IMO, if some common sense is put into the game, the AI production advantage at deity level can be reduced from the current level and the game will still be harder to beat. The game can then be balanced in a much more elegant way without having to resort to clipping this ability and that ability as an afterthoughts to fix glaring holes.
Going back to the chess analogy, I learned in those old days that by extending my pawn line too much in an attempt to cramp my opponent, I actually weakened my position by abandoning my defence and gave them more room to attack me later. The current single-mindedness of the AI civs with the ICS presents the same mistake. The raiding horse strategy wouldn't be half as effective if they didn't bring all those cities right at my doorsteps so I can literally just get out of my cities and into their cities to get the gold, use their cities as the rest stops, and use their roads as a quick path to destroy their civilizations. Everything is readily served right in front of me so I can just start a conquering war with just as few as 5 horse units at the beginning and use their roads to bring more and more reinforcements in later on.
If the game designers had developed the AI civs along different paths according to their strengths then the game will be much more diversified and interesting than the current city-city-everywhere strategy. I can cite examples if anybody is interested but I don't want to make this too long.

I agree the basic combat system is, well, just that "basic." Very simple, little "depth." How about the rest of the game?
If the strategy requires a lot of "maintinence" - if you have to make interesting/difficult decisions to continue to carry out the strategy - then "Yes." Though prehaps it should be said to have "tactical" depth.

Sorry I can't think of anything difficult other than the fact that the AI civs can research at a very fast rate which is hard for me to catch up sometimes if I'm too far behind at the beginning and they just snap up all the wonders !!
At the beginning, it's just a matter of expand to survive and I can expand to around 6-8 cities before I start to get hemmed in on all sides. The corruption model (together with the cultural reversion risk) rules out expansion on another continent/island (also, at deity, the AI civs have a lot more spare production to grab the land before I do anyway) so there's not much decision left other than developing the cities I have or attacking the neighboring civs. Tradings or dealings with the AI civs aren't that complex either. I just have to follow the track with not much else to do. The only big decision is whether to get into a war or not, and if I get shut out on an island, that would be ruled out too and there would be no meaningful decisions left to make the game interesting for me to continue.

[Ironikinit]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Sadly, I think that the biggest neon sign pointing toward the lack of strategic depth in the game is the fact that the Civ3 Strategy section is....well....not dead, exactly, but not what I'd call vibrantly exploding with strategic thought, either.

The Civ 2 strategy forum is two years older than the Civ 3 forum and doesn't have all that many more posts on it, a good deal less I reckon if you go by posts per day. Granted, Civ 2 was out for a long while before the forum started.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Civ2's combat model is more advanced because it contains the FirePower aspect. This allows for tremendous variance in modeling various units. If you disagree that this allows for a more highly detailed combat system, then I invite you to check out any of the *numerous* threads in the general section on that very topic.

I disagree. I always have. I think that *numerous* people are wrong about it. Just like you think *numerous* people are wrong about Civ3. So lets skip the "numerous people" argument.

SMAC:

a slightly inferior force, wind up on top....not based on luck, but based on superior maneuver.

Look, I agree that SMAC's combat system was more complex.... but still simplistic. For a wargame (like TOAW, say) all three games have an "overly simplistic" combat system. Compared to each other there isn't all that much difference. SMAC certainly has a edge - but not Civ2. Civ2's basic resolution was more complicated that Civ3's, but that extra complication (FP) doesn't do much at all.

Thus, the notion of maneuver is relatively less important, since there are fewer total factors influencing combat.

Actually, the only thing left is maneuver, since there are few terrain modifiers. What's missing is seeking advantagous ground.

Another reason that the Civ3 model is a weak design is that it does not take into account the fact that a Elite Infantry's battlefield experience is any more or less valid in the modern era than an Elite Warrior (they both have 5 HP). It's patently *silly* to think that the Warrior's battlefield experience will help him much at all on a modern battlefield.

It doesn't. The Warrior still has low stats.

SMAC)....the difference here is that in SMAC, you must do so through masterful control of the terrain....in Civ3, you just build lots of warriors and bulldog your way through....because the system has only two chief elements, you WILL eventually win. In other words...luck.

I get it! I have better production and am able to focus more units at a given point because I'm _lucky_! Interesting use of the word....

Techs:
Think about what you said for a moment. You acknowledged that Civ3's tech tree was not as deep as Civ2 or SMAC.

Dude...'member all those nifty subtle, deep strategic decisions you mentioned? Where do you suppose they *come* from???

Trading
Unit movement
CIty placement
Improvement timing
Techs (I said not "as deep" not "utterly shallow")

If your answer is anything other than "The acquisition of tech" then I would highly recommend reading the rule book more closely before playing your next game, as it would seem that you lack a pretty basic understanding of the game itself.

Actually, I recommend that YOU actually try to see the strategy in Civ3 rather than simply noticing that tech is no longer such a dominant factor and that you have to seek other methods for gaining advantage.

[QUOTE
The fact of the matter is, tech is THE most important aspect of the game. Tech DRIVES the game.[/QUOTE]

Hi. This is a Civ3 thread, not Civ2 or SMAC.

You see where I'm coming from.

Yes - a pre-Civ3 perspective. In Civ3 you have to work harder to gain advantage, not just race up the tech tree.

My point is....if the tech tree lacks depth and meaningful long term choice/benefits, then the game itself is going to lack strategic depth.

Ah, like chess, TOAW, panzer general and all those other games....

See...the essence of strategic depth is not having deep, interesting choices to make. That's part of it, sure....but the CORE of the issue is having multiple choices to make, all of which lead to vastly different gaming experiences, and many of which that can be argued to be equally viable.

I disagree. That's what DrFell was talking about with strategic "diversity." Probably. "Vastly different gaming experiences" isn't the most precise statement I've seen. While I can't think of any Civ3 games that were "vastly" different from other Civ3 games, I can't think of any Civ2 games that were "vastly" different from other Civ2 games.

Let's take a closer look at the Peninsular start, in which you provided a number of other "alternate strategies" one could persue.

My statement was that if you find yourself in such a start, you WILL fight, or you will not have a good sized, thriving empire.

To which you responded that these were some of the other things you could do:


QUOTE:
You could relocate your whole empire - move to an island or down the coast while your homeland gets overrun. (I did that once, and won in the end.)
You could wait untill a non-central city is developed enough to build a FP without a Great Leader. (I've done that.)
You could do without the FP in your large empire. (I've done that.)
You could try to get by without a large empire. (I've done that, too.)

You say there's "no strategic choice." Are you sure you're aware of all your choices?

END QUOTE:

So let's do a quick compare shall we?

Fighting vs. Relocating the Empire: Relocation is clearly the weaker strategic choice....doing so costs you both time and cities, and on the higher levels of play (Monarch and above), given the AI's production and unit bonuses, that's not generally something you wanna consider, unless you're just mashochistic. Better to fight your way out of the corner and subdue the continent you're on.

Unless you think you can't win. Or fighting would be more expensive that starting in a more advantageous position. Depends, doesn't it? I'd generally rather fight than relocate, too. But I think I properly analyze the difficult position I was placed in and reacted well.

Let the FP build naturally vs. Fighting: Sure, if you wanna spend 300 turns in poverty, you can do that. And based on this "strategic choice" I now see why you find yourself in a position of poverty in Civ3. No wonder!!! Very weak strategic choice.

I guess I just don't have your god-like Civ playing abilites. I was playing on Emperor level, a not very good starting position, and I simply didn't feel that war would have been a good idea, so I waited, say, 50 turns, rushing buildings and adding pop to my city untill I could build the FP in less than 30 turns. I DID IT IN LESS THAN 300 TURNS.

Letting a non-central city develop: Again....300 wasted turns. No thanks! And another reason you often find yourself in a position of poverty in your games!

You're basic argument seems to be "Tarq, you aren't very good at the game." I'll have to disagree.

Do without a large empire: Shooting yourself in the foot again, cos remember,

... I guess I really just don't have your god-like Civ abilities. I can't always choose to have a large empire. You can, huh? And I can't invariably win any fights I start.

So yes....I'm well aware that there are other "strategic choices" besides getting in there and fighting if you find yourself with such a start...but the presence of those other choices do not amount to strategic depth at all, because compared to rolling up your sleeves and mixing it up with the AI, those are non-viable choices. They're strategically weak.

Not if your position is so bad you can't win the fight! You keep making that assumption and I really don't think it's a good one. Hmmm... I think here we have an _excellent_ example of how Civ3's less detailed (compared to SMAC) combat system helps the game's strategic depth. In SMAC, since there was so much more to the combat system, and because the AI couldn't handle it well, I bet you could really win almost any fight.

Remember - I quit games quite often because my position is too _good_ at the start. MANY of my individual civ games, then, lack depth in themselves beacuse the military option is so clearly the best one. I quit those games. If you want to see me say "To get good strategic depth in Civ3 you may have to start many games." fine. I just said that. But that certainly isn't the same as "Civ3 has less strategic depth than Civ2 or SMAC."

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Myrddin
I agree that CivIII is limited at the grand strategy level, mainly because of the power of the offensive units - meaning it makes sense to wage aggressive war after obtaining knights, cavalry and tanks. This skews the game towards getting these key techs.

Alternative ways of gaining territory don't work well, since the AI won't trade cities, cultural conversion is erratic and subversion is expensive and ineffective.

I think the offensive units were too powerfull. I made them significantly more expensive. I'd call this a balance issue, since that all it was for me: I noticed that the military option was too attractive, so I "legislated" against it. I agree that they cause a strategic-depth problem.

[Tarquelne]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Calvin Vu

The game can then be balanced in a much more elegant way without having to resort to clipping this ability and that ability as an afterthoughts to fix glaring holes.

It's a sad fact that, apparently, all the best game-AI programmers don't actually work at programming AI's for games.

[QUOTE
Sorry I can't think of anything difficult other than the fact that the AI civs can research at a very fast rate which is hard for me to catch up sometimes if I'm too far behind at the beginning and they just snap up all the wonders !!

Again that focus on tech....
I don't understand how you can isolate the tech race from the rest of the game. "The game isn't difficult exept that I sometimes fall way behind in tech. Otherwise I rule."

The corruption model (together with the cultural reversion risk) rules out expansion on another continent/island

People keep saying that, yes. I wonder how I do it? Sometimes - not always. Maybe you mean "I can't always easily expand to other land masses."?

so there's not much decision left other than developing the cities I have or attacking the neighboring civs.

Sure there is. Start another game and (hopefully) end up in a more interesting position if your current game is too easy. Thats what I do.

Tradings or dealings with the AI civs aren't that complex either.

The whole game isn't as complex. The AI is also better. (My basic argument.) Do you mean to say "The tradings or dealings with the AI civs are too simplistic to be interesting?"

I you're so good at the game that you can win on Diety level by just "following the track" then, I'd think, of _course_ you wont see much depth in the game. But I don't see how Civ2 has more.

Hmm... HEY! As I think about it, what I keep see here is how Civ2 strategies don't work as well (or at all) in Civ3.

Since I started reading this forum I suspected that the vast majority of the dissatisfaction with Civ3 was the fact that it didn't use the same design philosophy as SMAC or Civ2. Now I'm pretty much convinced that this is the case.

[GePap]

I am not a 'fanboy', and I certainly have disagreements with this game- but to think that this game has less strategic depth than Civ2 is silly.

On corruption- after the two patches, and fiddling with the editor, I no longer find it a worhtwhile issue. At most, I lose 10% of income to it, and I have no 1shield, 1 golc cities anymore. So large expansion is possible...

.....but large expansion odes not mean strategic depth. The new resource system, and I include luxuries, makes for much deeper playing. I find myself going to war just for ground, early in the game, whereas in Civ2 I could hold tight, wait for a big tech lead, and then crush the other guy, not because I had to (I ussually go for Spaceship) but because I had run out of stuff to do. I think luxuries are underappriciated, for example. If you have lots of them, you can sink far more money in reserch or troops without worrying, and usually you do have to trade. I find myself needing to make deals with even trully weak opponents simply because using my time to crush them is not worth it, if I can pay- none of these issues would ever come up in civ2.

Culture can also be important in trying to get land, to get resources, to keep the land- plus it does influence relations, so again, this adds depth to a game, forcing one to spend more time in the local economy.

Just those two aspects, plus the nature of bombardment and new airmission types, plus ICBM's with no range limits, all call for more complex decisions than civ2 ever called for.

The greatest weakness of Civ3 in terms of strategic depth is the lax diplomacy, and that can be fixed. Now, is Civ3 more FUN than Civ2? That, I don't know. BUt does it call for new, and longer term strategic planning? Yes, yes it does.

[Tarquelne]

"and fiddling with the editor"

I was just wondering.... Civ2 went through over a dozen patches, right? And is probably one of the most heavily modded games ever, right? Why do so many people seem to be throwing up their hands and giving up on Civ3 over issues that can be changed with the editor?

[Ironikinit]

I was just wondering if DrFell ever came through with that saved game.

[korn469]

Tarquelne

RIght - more difficult to balance, and, if past games are a good indication, lots of "stuff" means that each individual item matters less. There's that "fewer options, more care with each decision" thing again.

The better AI and the Resources have made all the difference for me. Fewer options, but more interesting/difficult ones.

this right here is where we differ
first off i will define a few things

Strategic Depth: It is the state of a strategy game having a large number of equally viable strategies and counters that use vastly different tactics to achieve the goal of winning the game. Not only should each strategy be of roughly equal power, it should be roughly equal in terms of difficulty to execute, and the more difficult to execute more prone to counter a strategy is, the more potenial power it should have. Each strategy should have roughly equal rewards in terms of gameplay. Simply put, Strategic Depth does not come from a large number of possible options alone, it comes from a number of viable options.

Tedium: Forced to repeatedly make a choice that is either inconsequential in terms of strategy, or repeatedly forced to make a choice that one has one worthwhile outcome.

AI: Has some correlation to strategic depth, but is more of a measuring stick than anything else.

Ok now let me give particular examples of where the Civ genre failed when it comes to strategic depth. My first example is culture.

Culture is a wonderful new system in Civ3 that should add to the strategic depth of Civ3, yet it falls far short of its potential. In my opinion, while having a cultural consideration in the game does boost the overall depth of the game the current culture model as a subset of the game lacks any real strategic depth. First off, culture only comes from building improvements and wonders in your cities. There is no alternative ways to generate culture unlike there is for example with taxes or science. Besides buildings, the play can use both specialists and diplomacy to maximize their taxes or science, whereas the player doesn't have any other options for generating culture. Furthermore, the buildings that provide the most culture also happen to be many of the buildings the player would build first even if culture wasn't a consideration. By simply not making a subset of culture only buildings Civ3 denys the player viable options when it comes to developing a strategy to maximize culture generation. So the only options for generating culture is to follow your normal buil order for the most part. Not only is the model to produce culture rigid and not open to any meaningful variation, few strategies exist to counter culture besides have more culture. There should be buildings and wonders that nullify to an extent the effect of culture. Also other methods of counteracting culture should exist.

Suggestions to add strategic depth to the culture model:

1) Add in cultural specialists, call them poets or artists (musicians, actors, etc. take your pick) and make them function in the same way as tax collectors and scientists do. (i would recommend all specialists to produce either +2 or +3 of each resource)

2) Add in a rule that says each Happy citizens adds +1 to the culture of a city and each unhappy citizen add -1 to the culture of a city. When a city is in a golden age each happy citizen adds +2 culture to a city, and each cultural specialist adds an additional +1 culture to the city.

3) Add in Culture only wonders and improvements.

4) Add in events, such as the Olympic games (lets say it happens once every ten turns and provides a number of extra culture points) which provide a boost to a city's culture.

5) Add in wonders and improvements which would counter the effects of culture, such as the Berlin Wall preventing a civ from losing any cities to cultural subversion.

6) Make some buildings only give culture in a time of peace.

plus various other ideas like that

SMAC had failures in its strategic depth as well. While their was a great number of choices when it came to terrain improvements, the forrest and borehole combination was of such power that it was the only viable strategy for optimizing overall civ output in the majority of games. All of the choices in the game only provided the illusion of strategic depth, when a one best strategy existed that limited a rational person trying to optimize the outcomes to a single choice.

Overall i think that SMAC has more strategic depth than civ3, yet Civ3 isn't too far behind. While it may lack the strategic depth of SMAC, it makes up in other areas such as having good AI to really force a player to exert good strategies, a streamlined interface, good graphics, etc.

In the fastest transcend challenge for SMAC, the outcome of the game was already a given, the player would transcend, yet that series of games had a great deal of strategic depth because the player must always make the right choice in every single situation or the real measuring sticks, aka other players' scores would outdue them.

[Libertarian]

I might add that, sociologically speaking, Civ3 does not really implement culture at all, but rather hegemony.

[notyoueither]

Wow. Tarq. Keep going. This is good.

Civ3 = less strategic choice. Hmmm.

I'm going to win by culture. I'm going to win by conquest. I'm going to win by making everyone like me. I'm going to win by industry.

All four are viable. OK. The UN sux. They got that realism right.

Less choice???

Yes, less meaning in tech. You can buy it.

Yes. Less meaning in combat. Dag Nammit. They could do navies better! Ahem.

But...

More meaning in the map. Resources.

More balance in building decisions. Can't see a one-dimentional approach being successful. That Spartan woman would be culturally assimilated in fairly short order with her single focus on the military.

More meaning in the map. It is how you win the advantage in combat, even more than SMAC. Terrain modifiers win and lose wars when they are in the balance. Whereas with SMAC it was more the Uber units regardless of terrain. If there is no balance, there is no challenge in either Civ3 or SMAC.

Hmm... Enough for now.

Salve

[Libertarian]

I submit that whoever might presume to lecture Vel on the strategy components of Civ3 ought to put up or shut up by opening a thread in the Strategy Forum that proves itself superior to Vel's famous series.

[notyoueither]

I submit that Tarq is carrying his own weight and should not be required to be a creative genius to have a voice in the forum.

If he wishes to address Vel, I will judge the exchange on its merits.

Salve

[Libertarian]

I submit that Tarq is not arguing, but rather lecturing.

-----

Evidence

I disagree. I always have. I think that *numerous* people are wrong about it. Just like you think *numerous* people are wrong about Civ3. So lets skip the "numerous people" argument.

So he disagrees. Whereas Vel gave the reason Civ2's model was more advanced ("Civ2's combat model is more advanced because it contains the FirePower aspect."), Tarq merely takes a posture, straining the argumentum ad numerum gnat and ignoring the firepower camel.

People keep saying that, yes. I wonder how I do it? Sometimes - not always. Maybe you mean "I can't always easily expand to other land masses."?

What Vel meant was clear, not only from the context of his post, but from the context of his strategy series. Expansion is problematic and "culture" (actually hegemony) is one of the reasons why.

Sure there is. Start another game and (hopefully) end up in a more interesting position if your current game is too easy. Thats what I do.

Dodging Vel's point, Tarq ties strategic depth to the starting position, effectively contradicting nearly every point he'd made so far.

I get it! I have better production and am able to focus more units at a given point because I'm _lucky_! Interesting use of the word....

Mere rhetoric.

Hi. This is a Civ3 thread, not Civ2 or SMAC.

And like a Salieri march, here's just more of the same.

-----

Once again, if Tarq has something substantive to offer on the matter of strategy, then he ought to offer it. Taking potshots at someone else's post by stripping it line-by-line from its context and then just basically exercising the cyber-equivalent of sticking out your tongue merits little more than a raised eyebrow and a sigh for having wasted a mouse click.

[notyoueither]