When is firaxis going to fix.....

[Solver]

Just look, Sid wants to do something else apart Civ. For Civers, he's the Big Daddy of Civ, but he wants to design other games, too.

Yes, in Civ 3, he was only making some decisions, and was more of a name, but he was doing Golf, something that interested him at the moment. Though maybe I can be gotten to agree that Civ 3 misses Sid's touch .

[Capt Dizle]

Oops, sorry. Sid does not call the shots at Firaxis and Firaxis has no rights to the Civ series. Get your facts here, facts here.

[simwiz2]

"People register dislike about facets of the game and they get attacked. There are about a dozen hardline Civ3 defenders here that gang rape anyone expressing a negative opinion on the game."

This is completely true. I personally don't care about whether the AI knows that one of my cities that it has never seen is undefended, because it also works against the AI as someone said. But apparently the originaly poster finds it to be an annoying AI cheat, which I can see why some may not like it. But he gets attacked, suddenly he is a newbie, he must be bad at civ3, his strategy sucks, he can't adapt, he has a huge ego and should be playing cheiftain, etc.

I have seen countless posts about how "those awful whiners keep attacking firaxis" yet those same posters then turn around and attack anyone who disagrees with something in the game.

[notyoueither]

He also got discussion of the points that concern him.

The fact that some posters reacted to the red flags in his and other posts and became a bit combative might have a lot to do with how their beefs were stated in the beginning.

Come to a discussion board. Take a stand on an extreme, like saying 'I hate the topic that this forum exists for' and you should expect to be in the market for asbestos protective gear.

miike wasn't that offensive, but he wasn't completely the voice of calm reflection either. Then COT fanned the flames and the temperature of the thread rose. Then other posters started telling them what they thought in mildly combative terms. Go figure.

'Attack anyone who disagrees with something in the game'? Methinks you are generalizing a wee bit large. Fact is, if you are belligerent in your message you should expect some belligerent responses.

OTOH you have a bit of a point. Civ3 General is a bit like a busy cross roads in the TBS gaming world right now. All sorts of strangers and freinds will pass through from time to time. It would be better for everyone if the regulars could err towards tolerance for opinions they don't agree with. Not me though

[Civ Old Timer]

jimmytrick

I don't follow the gaming world all that closely although I do follow it some. You might be right that Sid isn't all of Firaxis, but I would be very surprised if he gave up the rights to Civ. I think it's probably the most valueable proptery he has created, so it wouldn't be wise. My copy of the Game's CD does say, Sid Meir's Civilization 3. I assume from that that the game is still Sid's. If I'm wrong, can you bring me up to speed?

Much thanks!

[notyoueither]

COT. The rights to Civ are owned by Infogrames. The publisher. They got them via a convoluted sequence of transactions and legal procedings among gaming companies.

The claims that Sid may have on any given version of 'SM's Civilization' are unclear. They are undoubtely filed away on contracts that will probably never be made puiblic. It is a good topic for speculation.

However, there is the case of the various Norton products owned by Symantec. Symantec bought Peter Norton out and they have the rights to produce 'Norton X' even though Peter is long gone.

[Civ Old Timer]

"Then COT fanned the flames"

Well, maybe. It was unintentional if it happened.

My first thread in here was minutes after abondoning a game I'd been working on for a week and I was quite annoyed, feeling that I would probably put the game aside until the next patch. I had only recently picked it up again after the 121 patch and that only added to my annoyance and disappointment.

My venom was directed at the game's producers and not at anyone here. We should be free to critize the game, freely, and take a softer touch to each other. I that vein, all my posts since then have taken a more collarborative touch. I also think it is very very easy to forget how harsh words on the screen can appear - much more than we intend. So perhaps if someone is angry we cut them a wee bit 'O slack.

Right? Right.

[notyoueither]

Right. But get that some people might respond harshly when something or someone they like is slagged. That is human nature. BTW. Some people might feel a bit of an attachment for the programmers who show up here personally. Uber has said he loves Soren, that's why he beats him.

I didn't feel that either you or miike slagged the game or the programmers. I hope my responses showed that. Yes, you were a bit belligerent, and some of the responses were a bit belligerent too. Thicker skins would be a good complement to the softer touches.

[Captain]

COT,

The editor is far from what I hope it would be, but even so, there are a few things you can do. your question about how to lesson impact of resources? (I don't like to do this because i like strategic resources but whatever is fun for you - that's why I'm pushing for a better editor al the time, we can both be happy)

here are two solutions.

the quick and easy one is to go to the editor, open civ3mod.bic, and edit the units. where it says required resources, just put none instead of whatever it has. this virtually eliminates the effect of thos resources though.

the second is to use jimmyh's hacked editor (it has add/delete buttons) to add units (or use gramphos's multitool to copy units) so that you now have two versions of tanks, armour, bombers, etc...
and then make the second set of units to have a higher shield cost (to represent the expense of using some substitute material for oil/rubber/whatever resource), or even a pop cost.
alternatively, make the second set slightly less powerful, like -1 hp, or a -1 A/D, to represent using inferior substitute materials. you could have coal steam powered tanks instead of oil run combustion engines, but they'd be weaker, more vulnerable...
this keeps strategic resources in the game, gives it that edge, but you're still in the game if you don't have them.

ask in creation forum if you have any specific questions on that.

hope this helps!

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Oops, sorry. Sid does not call the shots at Firaxis

Wrong. Sid is the co-founder of Firaxis and he and Jeff Brigs call the shots there.

and Firaxis has no rights to the Civ series. Get your facts here, facts here.

Right. Infogrames has the rights. I think they only have a license for them but in any case they have the rights to the name Civilization via a buyout of the original boardgame company.

However if Firaxis wanted too they could make a civ game with a different name. Just like was done for Call to Power II. Anyone can do that. Even Velocyrix.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Ethelred

Right. Infogrames has the rights. I think they only have a license for them but in any case they have the rights to the name Civilization via a buyout of the original boardgame company.

However if Firaxis wanted too they could make a civ game with a different name. Just like was done for Call to Power II. Anyone can do that. Even Velocyrix.

Does infogrames "own" sid's name? I mean, could Firaxis make a "sid meier's [insert generic empire building name here]" without infogrames? To distinguish what ethelred said, could it have sid's name on it?

[Ethelred]

Does infogrames "own" sid's name?

Maybe they can find an employee named Sid of their own. Meiers is another problem.

I mean, could Firaxis make a "sid meier's [insert generic empire building name here]" without infogrames?

Of course. They do it all the time.

Sid Meier's ---

Sim Golf

Gettysburg

Alpha-Centauri


The real question is whether Firaxis will ever make a game without Sid Meier in the title.

GAME ANOUNCEMENT

Sid Meier's Sid Meier Simulation Tycoon.

Create a company to make Sid Meiers games. Earn money and inflame Jimmytricks and Coracles everywhere. Scheduled for release in the third quarter of 2003.

[Panag]

Originally posted by notyoueither
For $750 I'll bet Soren could take you on a tour of what TBS AI could really do.

hi ,

yep , and they will use the 750 to buy beer with , ...

have a nice day

[Civ Old Timer]

notyoueither -

not to belabour the point, but if you like Pepsi and I tell you I don't, will I need to carefully think about how "some people might respond harshly when something or someone they like is slagged"? It's only a drink, or a bit of software. We have different opinions about it, but you might still be an ok person. So the game or the drink don't need to be defended. It doesn't have any feelings. As for the programmers, well, it's a struggle for us to get heard and colourful commentary can help. I hope. I also expect that they know fans can get unruly and that they don't take it personally. They get paid to have tough skins, as it were.

On another gripe I have with the game - why does it insist on putting me on a mid sized island when I select a pangea? I only got about six cities on my last try. Between the corruption and my gallies sinking and taking all my swordsmen with them, and missing out on tech trading, it's a very behind the 8 ball position to be in. More than I can be bothered with.

Somebody earlier mentioned how they like to "play it through" even when they know a position is doomed. Well, to each his own, but it looks like a waste of time to me. Even grandmaster chess players resign positions that are hopeless and no one calls them quitters for it.

I need to check out that editor...

[Panag]

Originally posted by Solver
Good thread and great posts.

Yes, I like the AI. And I really got the philosophy "The AI has those advantages, but I got the advantage of being human". And don't you try to find a better spot for the invasion whenever you attack the AI?

The AI wants to expand, and it wants new land. So it will attack. It wants money and technology, so it wants you to actually pay for resources.

And to all those who want the resource system of Civ 2, where resource squares only gave a tile bonus. Go to the Editor, uncheck the resource requirements to all the units, and play it like Civ 2. In fact, there are much more options to play Civ 3 like Civ 2 than you would think there are.

hi ,

behold , some-one who is a addict , of , ......civ3 , .....

Solver ya put it all so nice , unfortunatly a lot of people dont even look at the editor , ......its a shame because its worth it , every inch of the way , ....

civ2 this and civ2 that , civ3 is the next in line , and its a whole new ball-game , ...

have a nice day

[miike]

I want to thank everyone for their thoughtful comments including the people that thought that my ego was keeping me from learning how to play the game. I know how to play the game and win the game. The fact is this. Firaxis released a below average product. And they need to fix it. You can call me all the names that you want too, but the fact is this CIV3 just is not that good. If the programers allows the computer to cheat, they are not challenging the players, they are weak programers. A while back people used to use a standard that timed how long it took people to beat a game. They would say that it took 100 hours to play a game. In theory the longer you took, to beat the game, the deeper the game was. Well, programmers got around that, by making some incredibly hard challenges that took luck to get around. That does not mean that the game is good, that means that the programers wanted to drag out the game. Letting the AI cheat and barter unfairly is not challenging. That is lazy programming. So go ahead and say all you want to about me, that does not change the fact that CIV3 is not very good.

[notyoueither]

miike. I don't think you deserve to be flammed, but I'll ask you this. In what way does the Civ3 AI cheat any more than Civ or Civ2? I think less, but maybe that's just me.

I can only recall one TBS that I've ever played that the AI got no cheats in. Warlords. That was a great game and had immense replay value. It could even be finished in an evening easily. But it's not Civ.

[miike]

Ok case in point. I am on the northern part of a continent. I go to war with my neighobor to the south. He loads up a galley and sails up the coast towards my cities. He drops his units off and they move inland. Between other cities. I watch him go. Because he is on my territory, and I have rails everywhere. I just let him go. The AI moves past 3 other cities that are closer and attacks a city with only one defender. The other cities that he passed had more then 1 defender or 1 defender and a few attackers. Somehow the computer knew exactly which city was the least defended. I have seen this happen numerous times. The computer moves past cities or units that are closer to attack a poorly defended city or unit in the heart of your territory. Know that is why I really miss the zone of control that was used in SMAC and CIV2. Of course, you could say that the programmers had to get rid of ZOC when they knew that they were going to allow the AI to know exactly where your units where. On another point. Isn't it obvious that the computer knows where resources will pop up when that tech that leads to that resource has not been discovered. Next time you play a game on a huge map. Check out the computer territory after a while. I swear I have seen the AI make roads that lead out to no where, but in the future that tile will produce oil or rubber or something. Just look around, and you will see why the computer places its cities in such oddball places. I have played this game quite a bit. And I know what I see.

[notyoueither]

You're entirely right miike. You have mentioned two of the AI advantages (cheats) that we have been discussing around here for some time now. I could defend why they are there and claim that they are necessary, but that would be pointless. Suffice to say that Soren seems to think they are necessary, obviously since they are in the game.

However, the game is what you make of them. As for the AI vectoring for your weakest cities... I make a point of not having any cities that are noticably weaker than all the others. When the AI does launch an attack I meet it at as early a time as possible. That is what I would do with any invasion.

As for city placement, yup. And they will never give up that city with resources unless it is taken from them by force. Whereas they can be coaxed out of other poor cities sometimes. OTOH I would never give up any Desert or Tundra city myself, because I know that I will need them for Oil. No Oil, no joy.

In other words I fight fair and I react to the game the way I would if my opponent were a flesh and blood OvB, rather than a pixelated version of him. That way I do not take advantage of weaknesses that I know are there. Weaknesses that are in Civ, and Civ2, and...

[miike]

Isn't it better to target cities that have wonders or resources squares. I specifically go after all the resources tiles early on so that the enemy Civ gets weaker. I also will go after specific cities that have wonders. Just in case. They should have programmed the AI to do that instead. Now that I think about it. One other thing really bothers me. When I attack the enemy civ I will usually do so, starting at one end and working my way through them. Along the way the enemy civ is attacking my attackers. After I take their capital, the enemy civ stops attacking me all together and uses its attack units to defend. It seems that after the enemy civ loses its capital it gives up totally. Not really a complaint or a bug, just weird.

[Ethelred]

After I take their capital, the enemy civ stops attacking me all together and uses its attack units to defend. It seems that after the enemy civ loses its capital it gives up totally. Not really a complaint or a bug, just weird.

I think its more that by then the AI doesn't much in the way of attacking units left. I haven't finished a game yet with the 1.21f patch but I suspect that it might be a bit different now that Soren has given units dual strategies. Now they are more likely to attack with defensive units if those are the best remaining attackers.

[notyoueither]

I suppose that Soren has not programmed many advanced target selection procedures. Determining whether to go for the nearest (to them) city or the distant city with the only Oil or a Wonder would be to assume that the AI has a choice and has beaten you so thoroughly that it can pick targets with impunity. I agree with the criticism that picking the weak distant city is a flaw that could and should be addressed. It's rather a waste of force.

I think rather that the value of the AI we have paid for is struggling to defeat us in the field on the frontier. Once it has you at a disadvantage it will likely just roll you up in a relentless fashion.

I have said before, I would love to play the AI that can beat me in the field given roughly equal forces, but that is a verrrry long way off. For now, I will settle for one that can give me a challenge and occassionally surprise me by defeating me in a single campaign.

[Captain]

how about an AI that commits suicide? not to spam this with another thread. just since you're talking about the ai priorities anyways, can anyone explain why it might do that suicide routine?

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Ethelred


I think its more that by then the AI doesn't much in the way of attacking units left. I haven't finished a game yet with the 1.21f patch but I suspect that it might be a bit different now that Soren has given units dual strategies. Now they are more likely to attack with defensive units if those are the best remaining attackers.

I just saw the Babs land four riflemen near a town of mine. They all attacked. Three were destroyed and one reduced to one hit point. I killed it next turn. Whatever Soren did - IT AIN'T VERY SMART.

[Civ Old Timer]

To the Captain and others who suggested I take closer look at the editor: thanks.

I have done that and removed resource requirements for all units. Just to see what happens. I'm usually reluctant to do these things as I worry about the game balance being off in some way that I hadn't anticipated. If this doesn't work, I will probably try to see if I can make resources more plentiful.

I like having resources in theory, I'm just quite convinced that their impact on the game is too severe. I can illustrate my line of thinking by saying that I also play with Civ specific abilites turned off. Why? I don't think it's fair or right that players should have different abilities "hard coded." Your fate should depend on how you play. To my way of thinking that is what strategy games are about. Too many random factors and it becomes more of a dice game than a thinking game. Life can often be like that. A game is a nice chance to have more of a fair shake. That's why I like TBS better than real time, which I find frantic and no fun whatsoever.

I know, I know, lots of people have different views. The civ units add colour and so on. But I want to know that I won or lost because I played well or didn't. I don't want winning or losing aided or hampered by units or critical resources.

Just my two bits. Anyone feel the same? Or am I just really weird? On second thought, never mind about that last part...

[Jon Shafer]

I agree for the most part. However, being historically correct is also something that should be taken into account as well. The German Panzers had a great advantage over the rest of the world's tanks (perhaps aside from some of the Russian T34s and other heavy armor), as well as the British Ships of the line (Man-o-war just sounds dumb to me ) in their time. Perhaps this is making things less strategically oriented along with the inclusion of resources, but in the end, as you've done, you can simply eliminate these things. So in the end, it depends on your preference: historical accuracy compared with strategic equality. Personally, I like a mix of both.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Civ Old Timer
I can illustrate my line of thinking by saying that I also play with Civ specific abilites turned off. Why? I don't think it's fair or right that players should have different abilities "hard coded."

I take it then that you are not planning to buy Master of Orion III when it comes out? Race specific talents is a major part of all the Science Fiction Civ type games.

[nato]

Just my two bits. Anyone feel the same? Or am I just really weird? On second thought, never mind about that last part...

Well, not me. I myself really love strategic resources and civ specific units/traits. I think it is a major part of the fun and an improvement over Civ1 and 2. Thats just me though, whatever is most fun to you is always the correct thing.

If you were trying to make it more similar to Civ1, and maybe recapture the magic, your changes are obviously very good steps. Recapturing the magic is hard though.

No Oil, no joy.

I thought that was pretty funny. I agree with NYE's posts.

[Panag]

hi ,

so much for the AI's "thinking" , .......maybe the AI use a kind of intel we dont know about , ......how many times have we not seen the ai running for a place , even ready to go to war for that place , ....the aswer , after fission , its got uranium , ....grrrrr , ....

have a nice day

[Willem]

Originally posted by Civ Old Timer
notyoueither -

not to belabour the point, but if you like Pepsi and I tell you I don't, will I need to carefully think about how "some people might respond harshly when something or someone they like is slagged"? It's only a drink, or a bit of software. We have different opinions about it, but you might still be an ok person. So the game or the drink don't need to be defended. It doesn't have any feelings.

I've said this before to someone else, so excuse me for repeating myself, but to many people here, Civilization is more than just a game, it's something of a passion. A good analogy would be European soccer. It's just a game as well, but people will riot in the streets if their team is insulted or belittled in any way.

I need to check out that editor...

Yes, do that. There were a number of things I didn't agree with in the game, but I managed to resolve most of them by fiddling around in the editor. There's enough capabilities in it to keep anyone busy for awhile. It may not be great for creating scenarios at the moment, but there's lots of potential for modding, especially combined with the MultiTool. The game has a great deal of potential for customization, far more than Civ 2 IMO.