An example of how "unique benefits" can go wrong

[Ralf]

Below is an extraction from an Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire review from www.gamesdomain.co.uk. This is exactly what I fear if Firaxis stubbornly decides to implements civ-unique benefits only, ala SMAC. Save yourself some headache by choosing Civ-2 style temperament- and emphasize-benefits instead. Or at the very least: make the damn thing optional/bypassable.

"As for the new canned additions, while Paul didn't see a lot of faction disparity, I have to disagree - in my opinion the new factions are just not that well balanced, and are very unbalanced in relation to the original factions. The Cult of Planet gets a +2 planet modifier, a -1 economy, a -1 industry and mind worms perform double police duty. They also start off with Centauri Ecology technology, allowing them to capture mind worms. The Gaians, in contrast, start off with the same tech and get a +1 planet, a +2 efficiency, a -1 morale, a -1 police and a +1 nutrient bonus in fungus squares. Which would you rather play? That +2 planet translates into a +50% chance of mindworm capture off the pop. That's a pretty nice way to build up a free army quick and easy (of course, you could play with the option of scarce lifeforms, but this reduces the planet's role as a gaming factor).
The other factions also stand out. The Free Drones get a whopping +75% chance of getting a free base every time one goes into revolt. That's a whopping advantage considering how often bases revolt in the game. The Data Angels get a +2 probe modifier and the equivalent of a Great Library (gains any tech known to any other three factions) off the top. The Cybernetic Consciousness have low growth (-1) but gain a +2 in terms of research and efficiency. A nice little leap over the University's measly +2 research and -2 probe. But the prize for the most imbalanced new faction has to be the Nautilus Pirates (unless you are playing on a small planet with little water and no scattered unity pods in which case it just sucks). Their ability to explore with foils (+4 movement), to build formers from day one and their relative safety to mid-game (the other factions tend to concentrate on land combat with water used for exploration until mid-game) gives them a grand advantage. Their -1 growth and efficiency modifiers can easily be overcome through tech trading (since they will be in contact with other races long before the others unless the map is a big ball of rock) and society modifiers.

As for the aliens, well, playing the aliens is wrong. Wrong like the British calling potato chips "crisps" and french fries "chips" is wrong. Wrong like the Rams going to the playoffs is wrong. (Who the hell is Kurt Warner? Arena Football? What the hell is that?) Wrong like Dubya reading anything over the level of Dr. Seuss is wrong. Wrong like, well, you get the point. Aside from their tech advances, the fact that each comes with a lovely Battle Ogre makes them invincible. I used that one unit to kill off 3 factions one game in the early going (2 capitulated and the third I just killed off for fun). Aside from the positive modifiers and the free tech the ability to do non-blind research makes them just too powerful to be left in the hands of mortals. Now, theoretically, the drawback to playing the aliens (either the Manifold Caretakers or the Manifold Ursupers) is that you acquire a game-long enemy in the other. Yet, in the games I played, I only encountered a few sorties by my opponent which I successfully beat back. There was little to suggest such a hatred in this "phony war". Since the humans were all too eager to sue for peace at the first contact given the built-in advantages that come with the faction this left for a dull management-only game. The outcome was never in doubt. As for playing a human faction against the aliens, the AI just doesn't make it that hard."

See what I mean? And with Civ-3, the ranting & disapproval of this or that "wrongly" applied or "obviously" unbalanced and historically "incorrect" benefit, is most likely to grow even worse. The reason for this is that when it comes to our civ-history, many players (including me) consider themselves their own experts. Add to this a timeline six times longer then in AOK, and a huge pool of 30-40+ available pre-game civs to choose your max 6-8 simultaneously playing AI-opponents from.
The irony of it all, is that even if they go for Civ-2 style benefits, any civ-player can still create civ-unique SMAC/AOK-style benefits of his own, with help of more powerful and the more easy-to-use Civ-3 editors that we all have been promised. And Firaxis can likewise still create any future addon-packs, with Civ-unique SMAC-style benefits in scenarios, if they want to.
And these scenarios dont have to start in late game-eras with mostly everything already built. They can also start early on, leaving the fun of empire-expansion, city-development and tech-tree pursuing, to the civ-player instead.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 28, 2001).]

[The diplomat]

First, we do not know exactly how "unique benefits" will actually be implemented in civ3. "unique benefits" might not be implemented the same way as in SMAC.

Second, the reviewer does not quite understand some of those benefits. For example the Drones' 75% chance to get a revolting base is not as great an advantage as it may seem. It is not 75% to get a base suffering drone riots, it is 75% chance to get a base that drone riots to the point of revolt. How often does that happen? In all the single player games, I have played, I have not yet seen this advantage really make a difference! If it does not happen that often with the AI, then it is definitely not going to happen in MP.
Regarding the Aliens getting a Battle Ogre. I agree that those little beasts are too powerful. However the reviewer fails to mention that the Battle Ogre can never repair itself. This is a pretty big negative! Attack the Ogre first or have a mindworm attack it, and it gets a lot weaker.

Third, the reviewer only mentions Crossfire factions. Well, a lot of people complained that the Crossfire factions were unbalanced versus the old factions, that is not new! It just means that the new factions are unbalanced. Are the old factions unbalanced?

All this proves is that some of the factions are unbalanced not necessarily that the concept of "unique benefits" itself is wrong!

So, let us wait and see how Firaxis plans to implement the "unique benefits" and then we can express our opinions as to its merits or problems.

I still believe that if it is done right, and the benefits are balanced, that it will be a great asset to the game just as the benefits of the OLD factions were an asset to SMAC!

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

[Chronus]

If the "unique benefits" is to be implemented then, by all means, PLEASE make it an option! Trying to keep so many variables in balance is nearly IMPOSSIBLE as far as I'm concerned. Making it an option can obviously be done because it's there in AOE.

I want to be able to play against opponents on more even ground. And besides ... think of all the nightmare posts that'll pop up at Game League/Cases ...

... "Well, you only won because your civilization had the ability to blah blah blah"

[yin26]

Well-balanced (the operative word) unique bonuses will make the game for more interesting than many here seem to believe. And anybody who cries about losing when the bonuses are balanced just isn't a good player.

I agree, however, that this should be an OPTION. But if you look at AoK, I have NEVER seen anybody play an "All Techs" game. The fact of the matter is that ES did an oustanding job of play balance (well, the Teutons were out of whack before the Town Center adjustment). And these differences in civs are THE reason people still continue to play the game with such a passion. There's simply far more subtlety, stategy and possiblities because of it.

And nobody seemed to care that the Chinese are missing a certain tech/bonus and getting others, blah blah blah. 'Cause when the smoke cleared, people saw it for what it is: A GAME. Not a history book.

Sure, almost by definition adding more complexity to a game can make it "go wrong." But if we had that kind of attitude, any number of improvements we've come to love never would have made it in the game.

So, I see the answer here as follows:
[list=1][*] Make it an OPTION[*] Playtest, playtest, playtest and then when the Firaxis folk can't see straight any more, playtest it again, looking especially for how bonuses can be abused. For God's sake, don't just play the standard strategies...look for loopholes. Think of "TC-pushing" and you'll be on the right track.[*] And do your utmost to make these bonuses somewhat historical, though toss the realism wankers and racism tossers in the heap bin. Fun first. Realism a distant second (the whiners can just turn these off for the supposed "realism" they want).[/list=a]

So as far as I can see, there is absolutely no reason to worry if it's an option and every reason to be ecstatic if the bonuses are balanced, well-considered and at least passingly true to history.

I will join others, however, in saying that these elements can prove an absolute waste of time and worse if they aren't done with the utmost care.
[This message has been edited by yin26 (edited January 28, 2001).]

I agree if CIV3 has unique bonuses then please make it an option of the game play

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat on 01-28-2001 04:29 PM First, we do not know exactly how "unique benefits" will actually be implemented in civ3. "unique benefits" might not be implemented the same way as in SMAC.

True. But, how many alternative ways are there?

quote: Second, the reviewer does not quite understand some of those benefits.

Well, my point was that regardless if this or that game-magazine reviewer (or player) have correctly understand these civ-benefits, or not; there always going to be very contradicting viewpoints on the subject.
One can argue if that really matters. Well, it matters if these important-to-Firaxis-salefigures big game-magazines spends almost 25-30% of their reviews, on ranting and complaining about "unbalanced" civ-benefits.

Anyway; I guess I can live with Yin26 solution also: Make it an option (like in AOK), so we can play around with the game, both ways.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 29, 2001).]

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 01-28-2001 11:23 PM Well-balanced (the operative word) unique bonuses will make the game for more interesting than many here seem to believe. And anybody who cries about losing when the bonuses are balanced just isn't a good player. I agree, however, that this should be an OPTION. But if you look at AoK, I have NEVER seen anybody play an "All Techs" game. The fact of the matter is that ES did an oustanding job of play balance (well, the Teutons were out of whack before the Town Center adjustment). And these differences in civs are THE reason people still continue to play the game with such a passion. There's simply far more subtlety, stategy and possiblities because of it. And nobody seemed to care that the Chinese are missing a certain tech/bonus and getting others, blah blah blah. 'Cause when the smoke cleared, people saw it for what it is: A GAME. Not a history book.

Yeah Civ is a game. But its a game thats about history. In a way that AOE/AOK is not. I played AOE before I played Civ, and one of the reasons I switched was that AOE/AOK didnt "feel right" as an empire builder, largely for reasons of scale. The scale was so wrong that it wasnt worth arguing about the ahistorical charecter of the civ attributes. Civ, despite the movement speed problem (unsolvable in a 6000 year scale game IMHO) has a fundamentally more historical appeal than AOE/AOK. AOE/AOK is an RTS with historic atmosphere - Civ is a history game, an alternative history gane rather than a grognard historical simulation to be sure, but a history game nonetheless. If unique civs (AOK/SMAC style, not the "distinction through learning" some have suggested)are an option many more of us will play without them than play "all techs" in AOK. because its a different game, that we play for different reasons.

[Biddles]

Even if they do implement unique factions without the option to switch it off (they SHOULD though, can't be that hard to do), it would be simple to switch them off yourself. Just open up the civ.txt files (assuming that they have the same level of edibility as SMAC, which is pretty much a given) and reduce all the modifiers to 0. It is not the end of the world.

[tniem]

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 01-30-2001 12:29 PM Take a look at this extract from the Firaxis' Civ 3 site: "Culture and nationality will play dramatic roles in your Civilization's history. We have systems for reflecting cultural value of cities and civilizations that depend upon the players use of his resources." This seems to suggest that the unique civ benefits will develop from your playing style rather than be fixed at the beginning, which looks sensible to me.

If this is the case than I am all for it. I have always felt that having technology be based in some ways with what you have done with previous technologies is important. As is your people reacting to your decisions and you reacting to what your people want. If this does get included and is well done than the replay value will be huge and Civ III will be the great game we all know it will be.

[Jon Miller]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 01-28-2001 11:23 PM Well-balanced (the operative word) unique bonuses will make the game for more interesting than many here seem to believe. And anybody who cries about losing when the bonuses are balanced just isn't a good player. I agree, however, that this should be an OPTION. But if you look at AoK, I have NEVER seen anybody play an "All Techs" game. The fact of the matter is that ES did an oustanding job of play balance (well, the Teutons were out of whack before the Town Center adjustment). And these differences in civs are THE reason people still continue to play the game with such a passion. There's simply far more subtlety, stategy and possiblities because of it. And nobody seemed to care that the Chinese are missing a certain tech/bonus and getting others, blah blah blah. 'Cause when the smoke cleared, people saw it for what it is: A GAME. Not a history book. Sure, almost by definition adding more complexity to a game can make it "go wrong." But if we had that kind of attitude, any number of improvements we've come to love never would have made it in the game. So, I see the answer here as follows: [list=1][*] Make it an OPTION[*] Playtest, playtest, playtest and then when the Firaxis folk can't see straight any more, playtest it again, looking especially for how bonuses can be abused. For God's sake, don't just play the standard strategies...look for loopholes. Think of "TC-pushing" and you'll be on the right track.[*] And do your utmost to make these bonuses somewhat historical, though toss the realism wankers and racism tossers in the heap bin. Fun first. Realism a distant second (the whiners can just turn these off for the supposed "realism" they want).[/list=a] So as far as I can see, there is absolutely no reason to worry if it's an option and every reason to be ecstatic if the bonuses are balanced, well-considered and at least passingly true to history. I will join others, however, in saying that these elements can prove an absolute waste of time and worse if they aren't done with the utmost care. [This message has been edited by yin26 (edited January 28, 2001).]

Yin, once more I must disagree with you. The reason why no one ever plays AoK with all techs is because it is too boring that we, the game is not made with enough stragtgic options to allow people to create there own civ as in civ and civ2. I do not want a game like that and I do not even want one like SMAC. Sure it might cell just as the backstreet boys sell but it is not good gaming. Them being implemented will cause people to use them (since most just play default) and so the entire civ franchise will be weakened by them and the great replayability will be gone. Sure make that option (I can see how it would be very useful for scenario developers) but don't make it default. I am for the idea of bonuses and weaknesses coming in because of how you play the game but uniques at the start is just a horrid idea and I think it is for any eppic game (at least on the scale of civilization). And you still haven't addressed the issue that even in SMAC the different factions forced the player into one particular strategy, if that is not the strategy the player uses the bonuses of the particular faction are wasted (and since 1 or 2 strategies have proven themselves time and time again to be the strongest in Civ games who wins on a fairly equal playing field is decided by the faction choice). I have played AoK and AoE and the only reasson why I played it more than a couple of times is because I can almost always get 2-4 player games going. The uniques (I will repeat again) are neccesary because of the low amount of playing options and so are needed to keep more gullible players from getting bored quickly. And finally, there is no way that they can have even passing historicness unless the civilization was static like the Aboriginees. Face it, Civ is a dynamic game (or at least was) unlike AoK.

Jon Miller

[yin26]

Yes, that's precisely why it was so much fun to play all the civs and find the one that fits your style of play. That was the whole point of factions as well. I fail to see how making every supposed civ exactly the same does anything more than limit replayability and strategic challenge.

Sure, a civ that evolves according to your actions would be ideal, but can we realistically expect it? That's what SE was supposed to be, but we all know something was missing there.

And I'll just have to disagree with you that AoK's unique civs are there as some kind of candy for the masses. The fact of the matter is it takes an immense amount of time and gaming talent to truly execute strategies that both complement your civ and exploit the civs you're fighting against.

Then again, in civ you can take minutes, hours and days to decide what you want to do. A far easier task IMO. Relaxing and intersting, sure, but hardly much of a mental (or physical) challenge.

But all of this is pointless, really, since we don't even know how or what they are implementing.

[Jon Miller]

So are you saying that the theory of relativity (for example) was not mentally taxing because Einstein had a lot of time to do it in but who wants to be a millionare is(since it is timed)? I admit time does play a factor but a very small one and doesn't up the stategy much (you do like you do in Civ and just understand the game before hand, I never take long figuring out what I want to do in Civ and make all my choices instantly (same with smac), all the rts's do is make it so that those who click the fastest win (the most dexterity), while this has some physical difficulty it has no mental difficulty and I do not go to computer games for physical difficulty).

Jon Miller

[yin26]

Again, the grandioseness of Civ, eh?

If you want to try to compare Civ to the Theory of Relativity, be my guest. Einstein would probably point out a few differences, though. Civ just isn't that mentally taxing, sorry. Chess is much harder (especially when the clock is ticking, ahem). Civ is something to play when I want to relax. Of course, its beauty so far has been its simplicity and slow pace. I, for one, want more complexity and a faster pace (but still a TBS). Are unique civ bonuses the answer? We'll see. Could be part of the answer.

What I see, oddly enough, is a number people fighting to keep the game simple and then calling THAT "realistic" or "complex." I don't buy it. If that's your point here, then there's nothing to be argued. Most likely, Civ will remain the simple game it is. I'll enjoy it. You'll enjoy it. But went I want a real challenge, I'll play something else. Others will reach and consider playing Civ more difficult than writing a history book.

And I've heard this "who ever clicks faster" nonsense so many times. I have NEVER (not at least after I had learned the game) been beaten because the other guy was clicking faster. Every game of AoK I've ever lost has been because the other guy executed better econ/military balance along with superior troop mix and timing. But I suppose if you could look at the guy with a programmable mouse (the kind that allow you to literally script parts of the game), there'd be a legitimate complaint. And I'll grant that there is a certain minimum requirement of hand-eye coordination in order to play competitively, but it's much lower than many people think.

After all, it's easier to blame genetics than to admit you just suck.

[yin26]

By the way, you could give me until the day I die and I'd never come up with the Theory of Relativity. Some people are just geniuses. But if you put Einstein under lights and time-constraints of a quiz show, he might well look like a blathering fool.

It looks like we are heading down the tired RTS v TBS road. And I don't think either of us want to re-hash all that stuff. Maybe if MP Civ were somehow more feasible, I'd be a whole lot happier.

[Chronus]

Gee, I thought making it an option would be a win-win situation for everybody. As far as I can tell, all the "anti-unique civ" people (for lack of better words) haven't mentioned anything about eliminating the idea entirely, we just don't want to be forced to play the game that way. Personally, I see unique civs as a scenario ... and I love the scenarios in Civ 2! But I also like the good ol' fashioned way too with everyone starting out on a more even basis (not perfect, but more even).

Jon - I agree. Comparing AOE players and Civ players is like comparing apples and oranges. The guys at work, after playing a night of AOE, gather 'round, joke and laugh about what happened, etc. Civ players, however, continue the war long after the game is over. As the forums show, there's some kind of personal honor at stake with a lot of these people. Most of the time, it can be shrugged off. But some of the posts can get really nasty.

YIN QUOTE:
"But all of this is pointless, really, since we don't even know how or what they are implementing. "

Perhaps, but if we wait until they announce what they're implementing, it may be too late. I'll take my chances and air my concerns now.

[yin26]

Unfortunately, without enough detail, we are running in circles. Hopefull Firaxis is aware that this is a hot topic and they will take the initiatives to try to get some detailed feedback. But that rarely happens...

[Roman]

Take a look at this extract from the Firaxis' Civ 3 site: "Culture and nationality will play dramatic roles in your Civilization's history. We have systems for reflecting cultural value of cities and civilizations that depend upon the players use of his resources."
This seems to suggest that the unique civ benefits will develop from your playing style rather than be fixed at the beginning, which looks sensible to me.

[lord of the mark]

yin, i appreciate your not wanting another RTS vs TBS, or Civ2 vs AOK debate.

But you invited that when people said that unique civs would hurt civ3, and you replied by citing AOK. without saying which is better, lets say that they are DIFFERENT.

As for complex, there are different forms of complexity. AOK is more complex in its unique civs, and in its military formations and tactics. Civ is far more complex in its tech tree, its building options, its civ development options, and its social-political model (which AOK does not even have) Either can lead to a 'fun' game. The question is whether unique civs make a civ-type game fun, not an AOK type game. The other question relates to history.

for the first SMAC comarisons would seem apt, not AOK comparisons.

for the second, aok is MORE historically accurate than civ in its military tactics, less so in other respects. Does unique civs add historical accuracy? Yes, when the time frame is short. No when the time frame is long. In this case simpler is MORE accurate - the 4000 BC start means a "tabula rasa" (clean slate) as far as civ charecteristics.

[Grumbold]

I don't think this thread is saying anything not already said in our current poll. Differing attributes or attitudes to give a unique flavour to AI civs is a good thing. I am less certain that human players need them because unless the game has certain key winning strategies different players should have their own style anyway. If it does have limited paths to victory then the civs with the unique benefits that enhance those strategies will be unbalancing. I challenge anyone to identify unique governing attributes of civilisations that hold true from 2000 BC to the current day anyway. Everyone has had to adapt to changing circumstances or go under.

[yin26]

Well for that matter, then, architecture and techs should be determined by your civ's starting point, experience etc...as should your civ's name reflect some kind of history you create in-game. Along with bonuses. Now, while that basic concept is being done in Black and White, I doubt we'll see it in Civ3.

Rather, I think we'll see some sort of modified SE in Civ3. Be ready...

[Grumbold]

Are you not expecting there to be any architectural differences between towns? I would hope for at least the few varieties we have seen up to now in the pre-industrial ages. At worst if Firaxis leave hooks allowing different civs to have different graphics then someone will exploit it even if they leave them all identical initially.

Having a tech tree that only allowed you to research 2 out of every 4 dead-end techs in each era could be interesting but a nightmare to balance. An SE system which only enabled certain choices if you had utilised others for a significant number of turns is another. I.e. having been 'philosophical' for 25 turns, you could then choose to switch to an enhanced philosophical that gave you slight production (work ethic) or research (intellectual freedom) bonuses. Any switch away from 'philosophical' would mean you lose the advanced options and would have to rediscover them again. These are all customisations that make civs unique without enforcing historical stereotypes. I am all in favour of that.

[Theben]

Another thing to note is that the factions of SMAC get old pretty quick. If people want to play with unique civs, why don't they build a modpack?

I am all in favor of uniqueness that comes with the experience and direction that a civ takes. In fact I'd be MORE impressed if I was playing the English and due to my playing style the computer decided I should be allowed the "unique" unit "Horse Archers" (Hey! I can build horse archers!! Cool!!) as opposed to playing the Mongols and knowing I'll always get them at some point (oboy, I have horse archers. yay.).

[yin26]

What I'm saying is if you follow the line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, why have ANY real-world civ names, abilities or architectures? Why have the name "Mongols" or "Chinese" at all with a certain plus or minus ability? And why have one style of building for one or the other at all? These things should all reflect the kind of experiences and research you do over the course of the game, right? Hey, I'm all for it.

But it won't happen on that scale. We just have to accept that at a certain point, we like being "anchored in history" to some degree. That's why we like the civ names and recognizable architecture.

And that's why I argue that an option to have certain historical traits makes perfect sense. And it WILL make for more strategic interest, at least against a human opponent who knows what's going on. But if you wanna go blank slate with this game, then take it all the way.

Give me a no-name civ that starts the game using building materials based on its starting evironment. Have the computer draw those buildings accordingly, reflecting the appropriate advancements, perhaps blending in-coming information gained from contact with new civs and environments. At some point in time, my civ is advanced enough to "earn" recognition of itself and others, thereby establishing a name that reflects something in its brief history. And let my bonuses add and subtract throughout this process based solely on my actions. Sounds great! Won't happen...

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 02-02-2001 02:21 AM What I'm saying is if you follow the line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, why have ANY real-world civ names, abilities or architectures? Why have the name "Mongols" or "Chinese" at all with a certain plus or minus ability? And why have one style of building for one or the other at all? These things should all reflect the kind of experiences and research you do over the course of the game, right? Hey, I'm all for it.

Whats "logical" about following the abilities through experience-idea to such obviously extreme & absurd conclusions? One can stop halfway, you know.
Too much and too little destroys everything, also when argumenting.

quote: But it won't happen on that scale. We just have to accept that at a certain point, we like being "anchored in history" to some degree. That's why we like the civ names and recognizable architecture.

Nobody of those of us who prefers Civ-2 style AI-civ temperamental and emphasize-differences, have ever argued against that. Your kicking in already opened doors here.
The problem is instead that static once-and-for-all SMAC-style civ-benefits fails miserably when it comes to achieve what you asking for: how historic civ-abilities can be correctly "anchored" to a historically huge 6000+ year dynamically changing timeline. In short:
How do one design a civ-specific list of rigid/static benefits, that simultaneously is suppose to fit both that ancient living civ and a couple of hundred turns later; that same civ living in late modern eras? Thats the problem.

DAN MAHAGA quote:
"While the design workshop was an interesting feature of SMAC, its design constraints are wholly inappropriate for a game that covers as much ground as CivIII."

Now, what has the "unit workshop" idea anything to do with pre-fabricated SMAC-style civ-benefits, you may ask? Well, (again) its about the huge 6000+ year timeline, and the problem of dynamically evolving historical/cultural civ-conditions - from the pre-ancient civ extreme on one hand, and all the way too the late-modern civ extreme on the other hand.
While "cardboard cut-out" faction-benefits perhaps was an interesting feature of SMAC, its design constraints are wholly inappropriate for a game that covers as much ground as CivIII.

It seems to me that Firaxis (at least partly) have realised this. Also reconsider ROMANS post:

Take a look at this extract from the Firaxis' Civ 3 site: "Culture and nationality will play dramatic roles in your Civilization's history. We have systems for reflecting cultural value of cities and civilizations that depend upon the players use of his resources."
This seems to suggest that the unique civ benefits will develop from your playing style rather than be fixed at the beginning, which looks sensible to me.

My underlining, and yes; I agree! More of that!

quote: And that's why I argue that an option to have certain historical traits makes perfect sense.

OK, I can (barely) live with an optional SMAC-style alternative. But, this debate isnt really about "civs having historical traits", or not. Its about whether it isnt enough to restrain those historical traits to AL-civs alone (Civ-2 style), or not. I have nothing whatsoever against the idea of AI-civs having unique traits in terms of...

- AI-civ unique temperament-differences (aggressive/peaceful, expansionist/perfectionist and so on).
- AI-civ unique emphasize-differences (what shall this or that AI-civ priority, in terms of tech-tree, units, city-improvements and city-area development?)

Infact, I welcome it - playing against totally generic AI-civs would be rather dull. What I dont like however, is the idea of one-and-the-same military-unit (or government-type, city-improvement, or perhaps even tile-improvent) being 25% stronger (or weaker), for no other reason then that it happens to belong to this or that specific Civ. Its ridicules! And I also dont like the idea being forced to accept these clumsy, rigid and unintuitive civ-benefits/trade-offs in order to play the damn game with this or that specific Civ.

quote: And it WILL make for more strategic interest, at least against a human opponent who knows what's going on.

Well, i didnt like it in SMAC, although I could better understand the feature in that game. About AOE/AOK; I can only agree wholeheartedly with Lord of the mark, below.

LORD OF THE MARK quote:
"Yeah Civ is a game. But its a game thats about history. In a way that AOE/AOK is not. I played AOE before I played Civ, and one of the reasons I switched was that AOE/AOK didnt "feel right" as an empire builder, largely for reasons of scale. The scale was so wrong that it wasnt worth arguing about the ahistorical charecter of the civ attributes"

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited February 03, 2001).]

[yin26]

Scale schmail...AoK is one damn fun game. As long as Civ3 is FUN, it can have any scale, bonuses, colors, sounds it wants.

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 02-03-2001 10:11 AM Scale schmail...AoK is one damn fun game. As long as Civ3 is FUN, it can have any scale, bonuses, colors, sounds it wants.

Well thats the crux of it, isnt it. You're of the view that historical accruacy (of the gameplay variety that ralf and i have been discussing, as opposed to the atmospherics) is not needed for the game to be fun. Fine. For you. Its great that the game appeals to both us "grognard lite types" and also to people who want a fun game independent of historical accuracy issues. It is wrong for you to derrogate the concerns of others however.

[Jon Miller]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 02-03-2001 10:11 AM Scale schmail...AoK is one damn fun game. As long as Civ3 is FUN, it can have any scale, bonuses, colors, sounds it wants.

But would it still be Civ? Or would it be AoE knockoff. I want Civ.

Jon Miller

[yin26]

quote: It is wrong for you to derrogate the concerns of others however.

Listen, I spent about 300 hours of my personal time making sure Firaxis got a list of suggestions from the fans here. Give me a break.

My point is that Sid has always kept his games rather simple in the name of FUN. And while I would love a hugely complex and intricate game that truly realizes the best and gradest dreams on that list we made, we're still going to be left with a game.

A game.

And as such, we will still have ships that takes 20 years to sail from one place to another and all those issues that "aren't to scale" and so forth. So this is my point. Build on Civ2, make it better, use as many of the suggestions as possible...but make it fun. DON'T try to simulate every little bit of history because Civ never was about realism as about a fun abstraction.

People forget that all the time.

[tniem]

yin,

Anyone that has been around here for any length of time knows that you make sure that everyone gets their fair shake as to expressing an opinion. While you may not always agree with a position if it is the majority's you have happily (maybe not the right word) sent this on to Firaxis or made it the official Apolyton position.

Thanks for your dedication, many people obviously forget how much time it takes and what a thankless job being a moderator requires.

[yin26]

tniem,

MUCH appreciated. But I suppose I should be ever-vigilant in how I argue against certain ideas "off the record." Another one of those fun parts of being a moderator.
[This message has been edited by yin26 (edited February 03, 2001).]