The Creation of Differences between Civs.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Civ2 was a fabulous game, but one thing struck me: all the civs were the same! There was usually nothing to distinguish civs excepts on their technology level. This was strange, especially after reading about Britain's mastery of the seas in the 1900s, and at the same time, the Prussian's great armies.

So, I though, how can we make differences, without throwing the whole system out of wack. I thought that civ specific techs were wrong. Because why would the Brits need great seamanship if they were a landlocked civ? It wouldn't make much sence, would it?

So, I began to think of ways to make civs different, where the player would have the choice on what path to follow. What did I come up with? "Traits".

Now what are traits? Well, first of all, we must divide the tech tree into 4 (or 5) eras, like the Wonders of the World were in Civ2. Then insert these "traits" into the tree. "Traits" are a dead end on the Civ tree, but they are specializations. For example, a trait during modern times might be -Advanced Armor-, which would increase movement and power of armored units. Now, the main part of this arguement, is that Civs can ONLY CHOOSE ONE TRAIT PER ERA! So they must make a choice between that -Advanced Seamanship- or -Advanced Infantry- depending on what the player sees as the better choice for his civ, based on where he is and where he wants to go.

This idea of "traits", dead end specializations that a civ can only chose one of per era, would add this differentiation between civs. You could have your great naval powers and great army powers by specialized picks. While an island nations choses -Advanced Seamanship-, a landlocked nation can pick -Advanced Infantry-.

However, it isn't just relegated to military. Traits can also be under political or cultural. You could have -Improved Fascism- or -True Socialism-, which could improve the benefits of a particular government. Or You could pick -Greater Playwrights- to improve happiness inside your empire. But remember only ONE Trait per era. You'd have to pick between military or political or cultural traits, and of course you could only get traits when you get the neccessary techs that the prereqs for the traits. This adds another element. A civ could pick a trait early in the era to get a boost through the era, or wait until the end of the era to get a more powerful trait, but be rendered weaker in the era as the result.

This addition of "Traits" adds more strategy and creates interesting differentiations. You could have civs that spend all 4 traits (one per each era) on naval upgrades, while others spread their traits in different area (like creating the Perfect Fascism, while having the best Infantry).

I'm open to suggestions on how to improve this concept, but I believe that this is, at its base, a good concept.

[DarkCloud]

This could be a good idea for special units for each civ say in the ancient era:

Japanese: Feudalism would grant them an extra unit a la Age of Empires (Samauri)

Chinese: [Scrolls] Scrolls would allow a boost in a temple if you have a library in the same city; Confucious's writings

Persians: [War Boats] They would have the War Schooner, with stats like the trime, 1-1-2 except it would be able to go away from land and carry troops.

If you want more ideas ask me.

[Imran Siddiqui]

NO NO NO NO!!!

No CIV specific traits! That is what I'm against! ANY civ can pick ANY trait! It is up to the player (Human or computer) to pick which trait is best for them at that point!

edit: sorry for being such an a**hole, but I really don't like Civ specific traits.
[This message has been edited by Imran Siddiqui (edited August 19, 2000).]

quote: I thought that civ specific techs were wrong. Because why would the Brits need great seamanship if they were a landlocked civ? It wouldn't make much sense, would it?

I think, this is just the point about it. I wouldn't make "unique" units like "feather warriors" for aztecs or Elephants for Phoenicians etc.
I've also thought a bit about "alternate tech-trees", but I have to admit that Icouldn't think of any senseful. Maybe you could specify more precisely what "Traits" you have in mind, it would be easier to discuss them.
They'd have to be really balanced if you want to implement them.
I always thought it was stupid that every civ builds cathedrals and wants to build "Michelangelo's chapel", but whenever I made thoughts about different effects of religions I noticed the game would become unbalanced. The same thing happened not only in religion but other aspects as well (either discover Samurai OR knights etc.)

Or just take the AI: Even if it gets much better, the AI wouldn't be smart enough to choose effectively between different "Traits".

Yes, that's about the fears I have on this.
If you can take them from me, I surely support your idea.



------------------
GAK-Sturm Graz 2:0 (0:0)
just the result of the recent football-derby in Graz.
We are the GAK, Grazer Athletik Klub, Austria's football club No.1

[Imran Siddiqui]

Good inquiries. Well, I was thinking of early traits such as "Advanced Horsemanship" (can be discovered after Horsemanship), "Advanced Defense" (after Pikemans), "Enlightended Monarchy" (after Monarchy), "Improved Republic" (after Republic), "Greater Playwrites" (after Theater tech), etc. You'd have to pick one.

I admit I haven't thought it out that much, but I'm sure that traits could be decided at a later date. And I'm sure they could balanced within reason. They are like mini-wonders, but you have to make a choice on which ones you want.

As for computer AI picking one of these... I figure if they could make the AI pick among social engineering, they could make them pick this. Though that might as well be a problem that I haven't considered.

[Biddles]

I like the sound of this, but with one small modification. You can pick from non-terrain specific Traits such as "enlightened monarchy", "advanced defence". However at the start of the game you get a travel bonus depending on the type of terrain you start on. So if you start on a coastal square you automatically get "advanced seamanship" on a plains square you will get "advanced horsemanship". Of course you will still be able to build on these traits in later eras by picking "medievel seamanship" etc.

I just think that all civs should have didfferences right from the start.


------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[Evil Capitalist]

I have a problem with the 1 trait/era point. Take Britain as an example- it had great playwrites, the most important physicists and naval dominance all, arguably, within the same era. I prefer the idea of civ- specific wonders, which the computer won't build if it doesn't need.

[DarkCloud]

Whoops! Sorry for not reading carefully enough.

Okay, but consider those the traits you can pick:

You could pick them no matter what civ but they would be 'meant' especially for one civ, say you get a research bonus if the trait is 'meant' for your civ.

Japanese: Feudalism would grant them an extra unit a la Age of Empires (Samauri)

Chinese: [Scrolls] Scrolls would allow a boost in a temple if you have a library in the same city; Confucious's writings

Persians: [War Boats] They would have the War Schooner, with stats like the trime, 1-1-2 except it would be able to go away from land and carry troops.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ugh... I hate civ specific wonders and will consider not buying Civ3 if they have them in there. CIV is not reliving history, it is recreating history!

As for Britain, they were kind of powerful, no? If you were able to be that strong, there'd be some balance problems, no? I think 1 trait per era is sufficent.

Biddles, good idea, but I wonder if it can be implimented (with the AI and all).

Again, NOTHING CIV-SPECIFIC!

[DarkCloud]

I was not saying civ-specific I was saying that if it was REALLY that particular civ's advance in real life then they would be able to research it quicker.

[Rashid]

Imran Siddiqui has a great suggestion that there be differences to civilizations. I also agree with him that these should be developed in the course of play and not imposed on civilizations at the beginning, or even made easier for one civilization than others. I like the sense of almost-infinite possibilities that you get at the beginning of the game, and I am partial to the idea that all human beings are equally capable of anything given the right historical circumstances.

Another thing I like about Civ is the way that it makes you plan ahead, and the way that earlier decisions affect later ones (or is that two things?). IMHO, it would be interesting if the differences between civilizations were somehow the cumulative consequences of a lot of earlier decisions. For example, if the proportion of trade arrows that you devote to taxes is higher than average (the average of all the other civs perhaps), then eventually you will have more efficient tax collection. Or if you spend more than the average number of shields on ships, or on cavalry, or on libraries, then these start to get cheaper or more effective for you. There could be cross-effects too, like if you keep building ships then eventually it gets easier to research naval technology.

By the same token, if you are spending much less than the average on land units, then your land units will become less effective, or if you are devoting much less trade than average to science, then your people will be less efficient researchers. If you happen to be near the average in that particular category, nothing happens.

After all, the reason the English had great navies was ultimately because they had a long tradition of seafaring. Allowing civilizations to pick a trait every once in a while would still allow sudden changes (the Prussians suddenly decide to become a naval power and so pick advanced seafaring), which seems odd.

Also, there should be some possibility for civilizations to be weaker in some areas, not just stronger, and finally, it might be easier on the AI if it doesn't have to make an explicit choice about what to be good (or bad) at.

To satisfy those (including me!) who want to see specialized units, how about adding some dead-end technologies to the tree that would be mutually exclusive? Once you have knights, for example, you could research crusaders, and once you have archers you could research longbows, but if you have crusaders you couldn’t get longbows, and vice versa. Have each of them make the other one obsolete, for example, or better yet, prevent a civilization that has one from ever getting the other (through research or trade or conquest).

[Evil Capitalist]

King Richards Crusade. English Longbows.

You can have both.

A better idea is that advanced archery delays research into early gunpowder.

[MidKnight Lament]

I'm not going to elaborate too far because I've said it one hundred times before, but I'm against civ specific units/wonders/whatever. Differences should be related to how you've played the game, not based on who you chose at the beginning of it.

Thankyouverymuch.

- MKL

[Adm.Naismith]

Well said MidKnight!

I already saw great idea for specific Tech trees, mutually exclusive or dead end discovery.

I agree Civilizations must have some cultural difference (until the advent of Hollywood movies and McDonalds menu, at least ).

I agree that having that difference evolving from different style of play, is better than having them strictly related to a specific Civ, but if you prefer so it can be quite easy to have a "earth like" scenario that can link from start a Civ and its specialties.

Thumbs up to Rashid for underlining that often "special traits" must have some drawbacks and to Evil Capitalist suggesting (e.g.)

quote: advanced archery delays research into early gunpowder

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

[Patriqvium]

Sounds good... and is acceptable in the terms of gameplay, too. Good idea!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Thanks... this idea hit me as I was lying in bed and unable to sleep..

Rashid, I'd love to do it that way.. though decisions made.. but I don't know if the computer AI is that sophisticated enough. That is why I made it simple... so that the AI can't screw it up .

If the AI can handle it, I'd say go for it. I do have my doubts about the AI though...

Mutally exclusive techs, I think might be a mistake, because eventually, everyone can research everything. And if you put too many mutally exclusive units, it becomes too constraining, and you must think 100 turns down the road for every tech decision.

[UltraSonix]

This topic has been especially well debated here. In here, I used to think that civ should be wonder-specific, but now I think that the AI simply won't be up to the job. Having exclusive techs would be even worst. So just having very distintive art of each of the civs is probably enough.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...
[This message has been edited by UltraSonix (edited August 23, 2000).]

[Beör]

'Civilizations' (aka fractions) that differ slightly in their abilities have been implemented in SMAC, greatly enhancing the replayability of the game. After having played one fraction for some time, switching to another fraction will give you a totally new experience.

But of course there is the difficulty with the AI.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That is a good point... Should Traits expire? I say no.. even though the Brits are #1 any more, they still have a pretty good navy.

I wonder if having traits be like wonders will be good? I think traits should be a mechanism to catch up with others, not to goble up... I still think one per age is good and it creates some strategy, as to when to pick the trait (it'll still cost research time, remember).

[Sirotnikov]

I agree with Imran.

Good idea.

I especially support the part about: each civ having an equal chance of researching these traits.

I think however that there should be more than one possible trait for civ. Especially in the modern era since now the changes all nations have underwent in the last century were enormous and many.

These traits will be like wonders and there will be tough competition. There are already trait like wonders even in civ2:

A wonder that gives all your sea units +2 mov points

A wonder that makes all your troops veterans (could be changed too only ground troops to give ground superiority)

A wonder that gives order in cities (Woman's suffferage)

However, a question comes to mind,
Should the traits ever expire?
For instance, until the 20th century england had obvious sea superiority, but now it's not bigger than US superiority.

Also, in ancient times rome and greece had infantry superiority that italy and greece now don't have. In the 20th century german and soviet troops were the best. And if I may add Israeli troops are quite good, especially special forces and THE MOSSAD.

[Evil Capitalist]

Many of the wonders are traits- Pyramids (Egpytian wheat fields), Adam Smith's Trading co. (British economists and financial preeminance), Hoover Dam (American production) to name a few. However some civs have traits that would get wonders duplicated- Lighthouse/Magellan's expd and British naval ability being one of the best examples.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, but wonders can be gobbled up by whose up front in production terms.. Traits are limited. You can only select one. I think this also balances the game better.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hmmm, I guess that could work, but then everyone would be saving up traits, no? I think it best to stick to one trait per era because of this. The Computer AI will probably do 1 trait per era, and if the Human players save up their traits they'll gain a greater advantage!

Maybe as an option though?
[This message has been edited by Imran Siddiqui (edited August 26, 2000).]

[Shadowstrike]

This would be an interesting option Imran. I was looking at some history texts when I came up with the idea. It struck me that some nations were mediocre in one era and powerful in the next. The double trait concept could represent this idea. For example, you could be bordering a civilization which is very weak at one era and eclipse you're empire in the next. An interesting scenario to play in.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, a good scenario. You are last among nation, but have 2 traits in reserve... pretty nice.

[Shadowstrike]

Maybe you could save one trait to the next era to strengthen yourself in that era while staying weak (due to the lack of a trait) in the currnet ear. The maximum saved should only be one trait, lest someone saves up all their traits and uses them all in one ear becoming a unstoppable juggernaut.

[Imran Siddiqui]

LOL! Some people can be kind of absurd when you think about it, eh Lonestar .

Anyway, I've NEVER, EVER (I mean Ever) been a fan of the "rise and fall" part of the game. I think it'd just **** up Civ..

[Shadowstrike]

Remember the "rise and fall of great empires" concept. Note specifically the word rise. For instance, this could reflect a small nation's rise to power, i.e. Mongols, etc.

[Lonestar]

Love the traits idea.

I have a friend who wants there to be faction personalities, like in SMAC. For someone taking Aerospace Engineering he doesn't seem to have the "Not-practical-to-have-32-different-personalities" concept down.

[Shadowstrike]

On the other hand, Civ 2 has never been very realistic. Most of the time, civs grow unimpeded throughout the world without costly battles or revaging barbarians. Playing the game on Barbarian Wrath would more accurately reflect the real world.