Sid Meier on Civ III 231
Irishman writes "ZDNet News has an interview with Sid Meier and Jeff Briggs about the upcoming Civ III. For any Civ fans, this is a must read. I am now having flashbacks of days without sleep, trying to capture that last city or win the game in a different way. "
Phd students everywhere take a year longer (Score:5, Funny)
All that time spent in front of the screen insted of working.
Re:Phd students everywhere take a year longer (Score:1)
Re:Phd students everywhere take a year longer (Score:1)
Re:Phd students everywhere take a year longer (Score:1)
Re:Phd students everywhere take a year longer (Score:1)
Ohh S@#T, there goes my GPA, might as well take a semester off.
Classic games (Score:4, Insightful)
I am hoping for larger maps (in the sense that they are more detailed than previous versions, not actually a larger area of land). Real terrain, where you can use the terrain for battle advantage, etc. That would be cool.
I don't need real 3D environments for a game like this, it doesn't need it.
Re:Classic games (Score:2)
Real terrain, where you can use the terrain for battle advantage, etc. That would be cool.
Uhh... well you can already use the terrain for battle advantages. For insance: your squad of catapults is being hunted down by a Knight? Head into the mountains to equalize the movement points. Want to be able to quickly deploy your units without building roads? Move you units down the river.
Although, I think that I may see what you're getting at. There really are only so many types of terrain, of which all squares of each type have the same tactical advantages/disadvantages.
Re:Classic games (Score:2)
Actually, I think that you are right. Although, it has been quite a while since I last played Civ or Civ II, so I can't exactly be sure either. I just seem to remember reading something in one of the manuals about that. It makes perfect sense, and wouldn't be a very hard feature to implement.
Re:Classic games (Score:2, Insightful)
The terrain granularity never bothered me too much in Civ/SMAC games. The fact that, say, you could *block* incoming missiles with, oh, Locusts of Chiron in SMAC did; as did the horrible pathfinding (esp. the GOTO command); the complete lack of stacks; and other nonsense such as being able to launch cruise missiles into a submarine while it's at sea. Plus, of course, the blatant cheating w/ the AI having at least some FOW removed, like knowing how much money and technology you had at all times, and its remarkable knack for finding cloaked units...
Re:Classic games (Score:4, Informative)
Terrain will, reportedly, play a different role in the new version, with combat units able to better guard passes because enemy units will effectively be forced into a given field of fire. There will also be a bit of a slaughter factor, with Pikemen no longer able to effectively fend off riflemen. I just hope I can get DaVinci's Workshop early enough...
And you don't know how big those Locusts of Chiron are. They carried my car off the other day!
An army of one (Score:2, Interesting)
Ahhh... an army of one.
Yes, there's nothing like the feeling of watching one tiny little iron age swordsman defeat a modern day tank, one tiny chunk at a time.
(doesn't that just give you a great mental picture - Russell Crowe takes on an M1 Abrams?)
"On my command..." (Score:1)
I'm not hoarding food because of the terrorists... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm not hoarding food because of the terrorists (Score:1)
And I'm hoping for Cipro in that new technology tree...
Game Design and Recent Events (Score:3, Interesting)
Granted I am not expecting Microsoft Flight Simulator, 2002, Terrorist Edition.
But I wonder how, in games like Civ III, and others in the gendre, they will include the potential for the outrageous without screwing up game play.
Take for example, the scenario discussed in this paper [wfs.org]. Yes, very radical, but effective.
and would we even want such a capability in a game, to give terrorists ideas? At this point we have the issue of realism in gameplay vs helping the sociopaths of the world.
I am not saying that this would drive the fragile minds of children over the edge. I am looking at those already warped and twisted by years of training in training camps with the very best of modern mind flushing techniques. Do we want to help wackos like these?
[Just a disturbing thought, from the middle of a hangover on sunday morning.]
Re:Game Design and Recent Events (Score:2)
-henrik
research required (Score:2)
For example, I could not think up the scenario in the link because I was not even familiar with the infrastructure involved, or the possibility of cascading system collapse.
Why help them with the research?
Re:research required (Score:3, Insightful)
Censorship is never, ever the answer.
Re:Game Design and Recent Events (Score:1)
Re:Game Design and Recent Events (Score:2)
Give me a break. Not all of us fall for that liberal rhetoric bullshit. Games don't cause violence. People cause it.
Ideas from video games, sheesh.
You must have missed this, then (Score:2)
You must have missed this news item then....
As seen here:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/News/10/10/rec.ter ror.scenarios.reut/index.html [cnn.com]
Filmmakers mull terror scenarios for Army
October 10, 2001
LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) - Some of Hollywood's top action filmmakers - men behind such octane-fueled thrillers as "Die Hard" and "Delta Force One" - are helping the U.S. Army dream up possible terrorist threats America might face in the future and how to handle them.
The counter-terrorism brainstorming sessions are the latest focus of the Institute for Creative Technologies, formed in 1999 at the University of Southern California to develop advanced training programs for the Army, institute officials said Tuesday.
[...]
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, declined to describe any of the scenarios discussed by the latest panel at its first meeting earlier this month, just days after the September 11 aerial assaults on the Pentagon and world Trade Center that left at least 5,000 people dead.
But one official confirmed a report in the entertainment trade paper Daily Variety that participants included "Die Hard" screenwriter Steven E. De Souza, television writer David Engelbach ("MacGyver") and movie director Joseph Zito, whose credits include "Delta Force One," "Invasion U.S.A." and "Missing in Action."
Also joining the panel were directors Spike Jonze ("Being John Malkovich"), David Fincher ("Fight Club," "Seven"), Randal Kleiser ("Grease," "Honey, I Blew Up the Kid") and Mary Lambert ("The In Crowd"), as well as screenwriters Paul De Meo and Danny Bilson ("The Rocketeer.")
[...]
Re:Game Design and Recent Events (Score:1)
Re:Game Design and Recent Events (Score:1)
Hoo-yah!
(Score: -5, Inappropriaaaaaaaaaate!)
Re:Game Design and Recent Events (Score:1)
Re:Game Design and Recent Events (Score:1)
Ok, that's plausable. riight
Here's something in the similar vein, reverse the polarity of the power lines so your computers run backwords thru the programs and untype your word documents and undownload your porn.
That's about plausible too.
Not GPS, but something else (Score:1)
but you didn't read that far, I see.
Dam breech (Score:1)
Where you get the really tragic dam breaks, like the Johnstown flood [johnstownpa.com], is towns in narrow mountain valleys.
Dam breeches are definitely one of the most destructive potential terrorist acts, no question, but I don't see the cascading effect happening. If you blew Aswan High Dam, you might get the scenario, ten times the water and a symmetrical river valley with with only minor dams below it.
If you want to cause max destruction on the Mississippi, there's always the Control of Nature scenario -- drift a barge up to the face of the Old River Control Structure and blowing it, and watching the waters of the Mississippi pour into the Atchafalaya basin, drowning it and leaving New Orleans dry.
Porting Potential? (Score:1)
Re:Porting Potential? (Score:2, Informative)
NT 4.0 won't cut it. The initial version of the game is apparently heavily dependent on DirectX 8.0, but the promise of a Mac version implies that porting to non-DirectX operating systems is feasible. Here are the Civ III system requirements ( http://civ3.com/features.cfm ):
Operating System: Windows® 95/98/Me/2000
Mac® Version coming soon.
Processor: Pentium® II 300MHz
Memory: 32 MB RAM
Hard Disk Space: 400 MB free hard drive
(+50 for swapfile)
CD-ROM Drive: 4X Speed or higher
Video: DirectX® 8.0a-compatible video card* (must be able to display
1024x768x16 bit)
Sound: DirectX® 8.0a-compatible sound card*
DirectX: DirectX® version 8.0a (included) or higher
Why can't Civ use a hex grid? (Score:4, Insightful)
A hex grid more closely resembles a "circle" of influence. With a square grid you have to cut corners off a square. This results in a whole bunch of funky problems:
1) It's impossible to put your cities adjacent to each other without wasting space. The best you can do is waste two spaces per group of four cities. This ain't bad but odds are that some important resource is going to be stuck on one of those wasted squares. A hex grid would make it possible to pack cities close together in several different designs while still not wasting any space.
2) Units get jammed up on enemy units because they are diagonally adjacent. It's absurd because while the computer won't let you move sideways when there is a unit at the diagonal, you can move down and diagonally to end up in the same place. With a hex grid, movement from each space basically forks into two opposite directions. So it's very easy to go around units without getting caught in these kinds of bogus traps.
3) People argue that square grids are easier to navigate with a standard keypad. This is entirely untrue. Other strat games that have hex grids still use the keypad, they simply use either the top and bottom row or left and right column (depending on how the hex grid is oriented). The bonus is that you have three extra buttons now to control movement.
The continued use of the square grid is the one thing about Civ/CivII/AlphaC that I absolutely detest. I really wish someone at Firaxis could have thought to change that with this upcoming CivIII game...but perhaps the next one will finally be this way.
- JoeShmoe
Re:Why can't Civ use a hex grid? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why can't Civ use a hex grid? (Score:2)
Draw yourself a 5 by 5 square grid. That represents the range of motion 2 spaces from the center square. But it's a square. Which means for some reason these mythical Civ units can somehow move 50% farther if they travel in one direction than they can in another. Now consider an 11 by 11 grid representing the range of motion of some units and you see how this is a bit ridiculous.
Civ designers understood this and that's why cities have such a funky shape (that same 5 by 5 grid with the four corners cut off). This crude "sphere" represents what an area of influence around a central point should look like.
Part of a rich gaming experience is realism and accuracy. By allowing units to move farther on a diagonal, it's cheating. A unit can traverse a whole continent in a couple turns if it moves along the diagonal.
Not to mention, what kind of rich gaming experience is it if you put a unit out there to guard something, expecting that attackers would have to go through it...but finding that by travelling along diagonals they can simply go around it?
If a unit is supposed to have a "sphere of influence" that they are guarding, you need a hexagonal grid. On a hex grid, a unit is surrounded by six spaces and creates an effective blockade. On a square grid, a unit is surrounded by only four spaces (N S E W, diagonals aren't protected in Civ).
Given that the goal seems to be emulating spheres of city/unit/artifact influence, a hexagonal grid is the most accurate way of doing it.
- JoeShmoe
Easier (Score:2)
Path's would actually become easier, it would become a O^6 rather than O^8 problem.
Here goes my karma... (Score:4, Insightful)
I know that Sid Meier has what it takes to make a really fun and creative and new game, so why is he limiting himself to sequels and knock-offs of his previous stuff? I mean, here was a guy who practically created his own genre of games -- and it's this sort of experimentation and risk that pushes the industry forward. Right now, though, he's just resting on his laurels.
I've seen the descriptions of Civ3 and I'll probably be all over it when it gets to the bargain bin, and I'll probably play it so much that I'll lose sleep or miss a deadline or something. But still, I'd be a lot more excited about an impending product from Firaxis if I knew it was going to do what it did in the late 80s/early 90s and take some chances and try to push the entire industry to a new level, instead of just improving the game logic on his own tried-and-true formulas.
Re:Here goes my karma... (Score:1)
I sincerly hope not, there are tons of civ wannabes out there, but none come close e.g. CTP.
I hope they keep producing improved versions of the same style game.
Unfortunately i have to sell my soul and install windows to play it.
Re:Here goes my karma... (Score:1)
Like what? Sim Golf (the first one)? That was awful. Gettysburg? Alright, but I wasn't real impressed with it.
The guy's doing what he does best. There's a lot of room for refinement and new touches to the Civ genre and I'm going to buy Civ 3 as soon as possible.
I'd skipped Civ2
You missed a classic. It's better than the first one.
I know that Sid Meier has what it takes to make a really fun and creative and new game, so why is he limiting himself to sequels and knock-offs of his previous stuff? I mean, here was a guy who practically created his own genre of games -- and it's this sort of experimentation and risk that pushes the industry forward. Right now, though, he's just resting on his laurels.
Oh, come now - if he was just resting on his laurels, he'd have just sold the rights to someone else and let them grind out half assed versions of the game like Activision's Call to Power. There's a rumor going around that he may be working on something else.
I've seen the descriptions of Civ3 and I'll probably be all over it when it gets to the bargain bin
You know that's probably going to take 2 or 3 years, don't you? This is probably going to be the major smash hit of the year.
Re:Here goes my karma... (Score:5, Informative)
> something new out of Sid Meier?
The thing you gotta realize however is that the recent flood of Sid Meier-branded games weren't exactly owned by him or his creative team. The license has been tossed around quite a bit over the past several years, and only with Civ III did the license fall back into the hands of Firaxis, which is the company Sid Meier owns.
EBworld has a pretty decent history of it right here [ebgames.com].
The obvious implication is that the game isn't bogged down by market drones who don't really want a new game.. they just want the same old game glossed up so people will buy it. I have faith that now that full control is back in Sid's hands, the game will be just as fresh as it was back when I was playing Civ on my 286.
Re:Here goes my karma... (Score:1)
Good, bad, or indifferent, Mr. Meier was responsible for making that decision to sell his name. If the intervening games have tarnished it, that's just too bad.
So, the point is valid: If Mr. Meier wants to demonstrate that he still has the brilliance he showed us in his first games, something new and fresh would be a Good Idea.
Re:Here goes my karma... (Score:1)
Sure, sure he helped on coming up with ideas and play testing, but he himself did not write a single piece of code. You can't say that he had all that much to do with those games.
Civ II and SMAC (Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri) were designed by Brian Renyolds. In the manual for Civ II, Sid talks about how Brian went to Europe after discussing a sequel and basically wrote the game himself. They made a few changes but the protype that Brian wrote was basically what made the final game. Meanwhile, SMAC had many new innovations and again was designed by Brian not Sid. Colonization, was another TBS game that was under Sid's name that was designed by Brian Renyolds with some work from Sid. But again he wasn't the man doing the work on the game.
During that time period from Civilization I to today, Sid has instead worked on the following game:
Covert Action
CPU Bach
Sid Meier's Gettysburg! (And Antitem!)
Sid Meier's SimGolf
Cover Action was an espionage action game that failed according to Sid because it had too many new innovative ideas in it to make it all work. CPU Bach was really a program that created Bach style music with a few parameters that you set. An amazing feet. Gettysburg was an early tatical warfare game in RT. Was given tons of awards and would lead indirectly to the Total War games. SimGolf has yet to come out but it will basically be a Maxis game involving a golf course, nothing original but something he wanted to do.
So there you go. In the last ten years Sid has worked on four projects where he actually designed the game. Of those three were very innovative, two to the point where they had little interest. If that is isn't enough new for you then I don't know what else can satisfy you. Oh and just to let you know, Sid hasn't done Civ3 either. Again it is just a marketing stunt, Sid has been too busy on SimGolf.
Re:Here goes my karma... (Score:2)
Something new? How about Sim Golf [ea.com]?
Yes, some mad scientist decided to combine the all-encompassing game creation powers of Sid Meier with those people who make the Sims to create an utterly dominating force which will rule the gaming market.
Sid? Are you there Sid? (Score:2)
The first Sid Meier game I played was the venerable DOS/VGA-based Sword of the Samurai. The multimedia technology was very primitive, but the game actually made a virtue of that, melding Japanese-style graphic arts and music to create a beautiful and engrossing experience. None of the other SM games I've played really measured up to that experience. Even Civ, good as it was, struck me as a slightly-evolved version of Empire [linux.org].
The sad fact is that when that "Sid Meier" is now just another brand, like Gene Roddenbery or Pepsi. And this brand has been diluted quite to death.
Re: What about Majik the Gathering? (Score:1)
It's been a while, but I seem to recall he personally had a part in the development of that title. Either at the start when it got screwed up and delayed, or later on - to fix it for release.
Re:Here goes my karma... (Score:2, Interesting)
If you're having trouble getting started here's one: Carmack/Romero and Doom. Everything after Doom was just a refinement of the same concept. Quake III is nothing more than Doom revved up to 3D standards.
There's nothing wrong with this, except perhaps that people come to think that *every* game put out by that designer is bound to be something new and exciting. If you come to accept that two strokes of genius from the same person are pretty rare, then you won't be disappointed if future offerings are just variations on the theme. Instead, you'll look to fresh talent for big changes rather than those who've already done their bit.
I'm going to buy Civ III, but I doubt it'll be that much different from Civ II or Civ I. I don't expect it to be and I won't really care if it isn't. Sid Meier has done his thing, made his mark, and I don't expect that Civ III will revolutionize anything. I'll look to others, yet untried, for the next new thing.
Max
I figure that... (Score:2)
Seriously, the civilization-specific units are sweet! I want me some samurai!
Re:I figure that... (Score:1)
"Hey, let's see what one of these do," I thought, thinking it would politely let off a widdle mushroom cloud like in Civ. Imagine my surprise when it creatively rearranged the face of the planet.
I once took out an entire, clumped-together island civilization with just one of those. Won't be paratrooping into those cities... they're all underwater now! Here's your diplomatic solution, CEO Morgan!
Sure, every other faction then declared war on me, but that's ok... I had plenty of planet busters for them, too...
Uh, anyway. This is why I'll never run for political office...
LMFAO (Score:1)
Love me dem nukes.
Leoprachaun: Now ya know what to do... burn the house down!
Ralph: Mmmhmm!
Re:I figure that... (Score:1)
Game: "Tidal waves have submerged He Walked on Water* (Believing)!
The base is presumed destroyed, as we have detected no further transmissions."
Me: "Ha! Let's see you walk on water, Miriam!"
*No, I don't know how I could sink a sea base either. It's just an example, OK?
Irritating screenshot (Score:5, Informative)
Cleopatra was a GREEK, folks! Not black.
For that matter, the other Egyptians weren't black either.
For that matter, neither are they today.
Where in the heck do these ideas come from?
ASA
Re:Irritating screenshot (Score:1, Informative)
No one is perfect
Re:Irritating screenshot (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Irritating screenshot (Score:1)
Re:Irritating screenshot (Score:2)
Actually though, I think this whole black-Egyptian thing comes from that Michael Jackson video to "Do You Remember the Time", and a lot of sincere wishing on the part of a lot of African Americans.
Re:Irritating screenshot (Score:2, Interesting)
(The answer: becuase they never made a movie about Nefertiti. Oh brother...)
Re:Irritating screenshot (Score:2)
Re:Irritating screenshot (Score:1)
If Cleopatra had not aligned herself and Egypt with the Roman empire, they would have taken it by force. Through diplomacy she was able to keep the country's sovernty and identity.
Re:Irritating screenshot (Score:1)
She consorted with Julius Caesar during his stay in Egypt, and ended up giving birth to his son, Caesarion. This gained her and Egypt security, so long as G.J.C. remained alive.
Now, once the Ides of March had passed, and Octavian began to gain power in Rome, Cleopatra was in a completely untenable position. Caesarion could have acted as a focus for opposition to G.J.C.'s nepwhew, adopted son, and inheritor, Octavian (the future Augustus).
Now, to cut this long story short, Cleopatra aligned herself with Octavian's fellow triumvir, Marc Antony. With the collapse of the second triumvirate, Octavian/Augustus could hardly allow Rome's food supply to remain in Antony's hands. Moreover, attacking Egpyt gave him the opportunity to eliminate Cleopatra and Caesarion, along with Antony. At the battle of Actium, the Roman fleet pasted the Egyptians, and the rest as they say is history.
Now, just to keep things on topic, there are several thousand years worth of Egpyptian rulers to choose from. Akhenaten perhaps, or even Ptolemey. Just so long as they don't look like Nubians....
Per Ardua Ad Astra
Re:Irritating slashdotter (Score:2)
During the 9th century B.C.E. the Nubians from Northern Sudan conquered Egypt and ruled for some 50 years. ;-) and I've got a book to go and read
Under these black pharaohs there was something of an artistic renaissance in the region. I would dig you out some links but I've reached my limit for terminal time today (23 hours
- Derwen
Re:Irritating screenshot (Score:2)
Cleopatra was a GREEK, folks! Not black.
Where did you get this idea?!!? Television??? In actuality Cleopatra was Egyptian. Her death at 39 was the end of Egyptian pharonic rule that was followed by Roman government. As for the question of whether or not she was black, I believe that question goes unanswered by history. It is entirely likely that she was of "dark" skin, but certainly not the alabaster white that you seem to percieve.
It might also help to understand that Egyptian culture around 50-20 B.C certainly did not take race into account as much as other cultural issues. In Western society these issues seem almost intertwined, but in ancient Egypt, slaves could be of any race as could leaders of state and warriors. These issues are well documented in history with membership in Egyptian society or culture not at all dependant upon race. The different racial lineages of Romans, Libyans, Nubians, Asians, and yes, Greeks all could become part of Egyptian culture and participate in all levels of society.
Take a basic undergraduate history course or two and some of these "ideas" may become clearer for you. Better yet, travel to Egypt and North Africa in general. Visit museums while you are there, especially in Cairo. As for other museums with good collections of Egyptian history, try Berlin, London, and New York.
Re:Irritating screenshot (Score:3, Funny)
Res ipsa loquitur.
Where did you get this idea?!!? Television???
A graduate degree in ancient history.
In actuality Cleopatra was Egyptian. Her death at 39 was the end of Egyptian pharonic rule that was followed by Roman government.
As the other respondents have pointed out, by the time of Cleopatra's death it had been a long time since there had been Egyptian pharonic rule in Egypt. A dynasty of Macedonians descended from Ptolemy had ruled since the time of Alexander the Great's death.
but certainly not the alabaster white that you seem to percieve.
I do not think anyone has contended that Cleopatra was an albino.
These issues are well documented in history with membership in Egyptian society or culture not at all dependant upon race.
Take a basic undergraduate history course or two and some of these "ideas" may become clearer for you. Better yet, travel to Egypt and North Africa in general. Visit museums while you are there, especially in Cairo.
You'd be better off looking for Egyptian artifacts in the British Museum. Head in the main entrance and turn in to the first gallery on the left to get started. Another good source is the Museum of the Ancient Orient on the grounds of the Topkapi in Istanbul.
On the other hand, if you're interested in finding out why Cleopatra wasn't an Egyptian, try your local library. I hear "Ancient History for Dummies" is a good introductory work.
ASA
A question for those in the know about Civ III (Score:1)
However, maybe Civ III has this option?
Re:A question for those in the know about Civ III (Score:2)
Re:A question for those in the know about Civ III (Score:1)
Re:A question for those in the know about Civ III (Score:2)
CivIII vs CTP2 (Score:2, Interesting)
Many of the things added to this release of Civ (trading routes anyone) are already in CTP2.
I wonder why they Sid didn't push for something more radical - the previous post about the hex grid would be just right
But anyway, I'll wait for some reviews and coparisons before rushing out to buy it.
Re:CivIII vs CTP2 (Score:1)
No, not at all. CivIII sounds many leagues above that travesty. CTP2 has one advantage over old CIV II: production queues, though less useful than in SMAC.
What I really miss is production routing, which Empire had back in 1988. If I have a frontline somewhere I would really like that I can say that units produced in FarFromWarCity automatically move to FrontlineCity, and not have to manually order them there.
Re:CivIII vs CTP2 (Score:1)
Jaysyn
Oooooooooo... (Score:2)
Re:Oooooooooo... (Score:1)
But that guy's not even a programmer, he's the hardware editor. Why's the hardware editor telling us about this game? Was it his turn to be on the web or something?
Civilization vs. CallToPower (Score:1)
I have recently played Call to Power 2, and I must say that even FreeCiv is much better. CtP's combat and AI are unbelievably stupid. All you need to conquer the world is a bunch of artillery (even catapult will do). The problem is that you can have many defensive units against one attacking. So all you need for winning is to collect a strong army with several defense/bombardment units. You can just walk from one enemy city to another, bomb it, and after several turns walk into it. And that has completely ruined the play.
Re:Civilization vs. CallToPower (Score:2)
All one has to do to take over a city is to park your army next to a different city. The AI will evacuate all nearby cities of defensive units (sometimes they don't even leave a single one!) to defend the one you're standing next to. Switch course and capture the 5 empty enemy cities. Works every time.
All Wonders Great and Small (Score:1)
I'm gonna wait... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I'm gonna wait... (Score:2)
-henrik
Re:I'm gonna wait... (Score:2)
It's much more fun to play against a human than a dumb computer. Hopefully the AI for CIV3 is much better than previous games.
Anyhow, I really don't mind waiting long, if the game is worth it. I use to play Axis and Allies multiplayer, where you could end up waiting 15 minutes for your next turn... :-) But, damn, it was a fun game.
Re:I'm gonna wait... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I'm gonna wait... (Score:2)
total war (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:total war (Score:1)
Re:total war (Score:1)
Re:total war (Score:2)
And taking over such a large city in the heart of the world's most powerful empire usually involves a sneak nuke attack.
Re:total war (Score:2)
That depends very heavily on how you play it. personally, I always liked playing "Hong Kong style" - having just one city and making it so rich, big and advanced that no-one can keep up. To do that on Emperor level, you also had to pull off some skilled diplomacy, "blessing" your second-most-powerful rival so that they could keep your most-powerful rival in check.
Re:total war (Score:3, Interesting)
Both of the above mentioned alternatives can be achieved mostly by diplomacy, and by choosing your alliances carefully.
Also in SMAC the "corner the global energy market" (Economic victory) option should also be quite doable without war. Actually, if you want to save up the energy amounts needed, I'd preferrably try spending only whatever I need to defend my borders on military. Gotta try that next weekend :)
"Just one more turn, then I'll get some sleep" (Score:2, Interesting)
The interview didn't really answer the questions I have about the game.
Have they done anything about the micromanagement hell seen in Civ II? A little after the industrial revolution I find it seems to take forever to make things happen.
Are the AI's a little better? do the computer players still cheat? I assume so, but hopefully not as bad as before.
I definitely like the improvements though. Culture is gonna add a new dynamic to the game and certain resources being required will make things interesting.
I'll be looking forward to playing it... many sleepless nights ahead...
Will Civ III be a better game? (Score:5, Interesting)
Special gimmick units that are only available to a specific civilisation? Yuck, no thanks. Relatively heavily-classed players may have worked quite well in Alpha Centauri (which I haven't played much), but I'd rather Civ kept giving players the ability to choose their strengths and weaknesses "in-band" and to change those trade-offs over time as circumstances dictate, rather than locking them into one optimal style of play at the start of the game.
I don't see why the tech tree needs to be bodged with "ages", either. Yes, in Civs past you can, for example, specialise relentlessly to get a particular technology. If you keep it up too long, however, the dependencies bite hard and you have a huge amount of "filling in" to do before you can progress. (RPM fans will recognise this as the Gnucash effect.
I'm also not sold on the changes to Wonders. Doesn't a reproducible Small Wonder defeat the idea of a Wonder somewhat? More fundamentally, in Civ I-II, Wonders were too good to be ignored, but not so powerful that they dominated the game: a nice balance. I wouldn't like to see them become more central to the game. They're mostly candy-floss. Too much bonus-grabbing candyfloss and not enough civilisation-building meat and potatoes is very un-nourishing and will make you feel sick before long. Moreover, the more exceptions-based and bonus-heavy you make a game, the more vulnerable it becomes to the game-breaking "killer strategies" and unstoppable units so familiar from RTS Hell (and many other places, like munchkin tabletop RPGs). Playtesting helps, I'm sure, but if even one slips through, that's the end of the game as a good multiplayer expeerience. Gotta catch 'em all... (ugh, sorry, couldn't resist it!)
It's hard to say much about the new culture score from the little detail given, but I wonder what it adds to the many standards of comparison that Civ already has. In general, it seems as if "second-system effect" may finally have caught up with Civilisation. I'm sure the AI will improve in Civilisation III, but I suspect that the gameplay will get more elaborate but not better, maybe worse. Not that Civ's gameplay is beyond improvement; the things I'd love to see are even better and more detailed player-player (especially human-AI) interaction, and systems to help take some of the drudgery and guesswork out of city and transport management, without taking away the power to control things in detail when you want to.
Of course I could be wrong: all I have to go on is the article, and Civ III could turn out to be a great game without, despite, or even because of the changes I've criticised. Given its makers, I'm sure it will be a good game, whether or not it improves on its ancestors. I'm also sure that it will sell many copies and be widely praised, whether or not it's an especially good game.
Keep playing Civ 2, then (Score:1)
Re:Will Civ III be a better game? (Score:3, Insightful)
Special gimmick units that are only available to a specific civilisation? Yuck, no thanks. Relatively heavily-classed players may have worked quite well in Alpha Centauri (which I haven't played much), but I'd rather Civ kept giving players the ability to choose their strengths and weaknesses "in-band" and to change those trade-offs over time as circumstances dictate, rather than locking them into one optimal style of play at the start of the game.
What they're trying to do here, I think, is improve the historical realism in the game. Players can then take the civ that fits their playing style. When fighting the AI, the AI will act according to its historical advantages/disadvantages. They did this in Civ2, just not as greatly.
I don't see why the tech tree needs to be bodged with "ages", either. Yes, in Civs past you can, for example, specialise relentlessly to get a particular technology. If you keep it up too long, however, the dependencies bite hard and you have a huge amount of "filling in" to do before you can progress. (RPM fans will recognise this as the Gnucash effect.
Again, I think the issue is historial realism. How could a civ surge towards a goal when realistically they wouldn't even know that they existed. Science is relatively incremental.
I'm also not sold on the changes to Wonders. Doesn't a reproducible Small Wonder defeat the idea of a Wonder somewhat? More fundamentally, in Civ I-II, Wonders were too good to be ignored, but not so powerful that they dominated the game: a nice balance. I wouldn't like to see them become more central to the game. They're mostly candy-floss. Too much bonus-grabbing candyfloss and not enough civilisation-building meat and potatoes is very un-nourishing and will make you feel sick before long.
The key here is again realism. The Manhattan Project must now be built by ANY civ before that civ can have nukes. Much more realisitic. Far better. In reference to the previous point, this can allow, at times, for a scientific leap.
I may be wrong too, but that's just my take on the issues.
Re:Will Civ III be a better game? (Score:2)
Not dominate the game I beg to differ. Wonders, are the key to victory, particularly Leonardo's Workshop, properly managed this gives free unit upgrades from warrior/horsemen to rifle/cavalry and Victory becomes a walk in the park even at deity level.
Civilization 3 sites (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.apolyton.net/civ3/
http://www.civfanatics.com
Is it just me? (Score:2, Insightful)
Civ3 is not multiplayer. (Score:2, Interesting)
Cant wait ?... (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.freeciv.org a Online Multiplayer and Singel version of the civ classics and civ II rules. It has *nix and Windows Ports and even Amiga and os/2 and more...
Becarefull its very very addictive...
Quazion.
things I'd like to see in the new game (Score:3, Interesting)
- better AI. Please, by all that's holy, a better AI. Better at *everything* - expansion, city development, conducting war, etc. One that doesn't break treaties every five turns and attack willy-nilly, even though I've beat on the damned computer player but good the last half-dozen times it decided to stab me in the back.
One of the things I really detest about all the Civ games is the fact that the AI continually starts wars, especially when it doesn't have a prayer of forcing even a minor victory. It slows the game down enormously having to deal with all these 'irritation' attacks. This almost forces you to go on a world-conquest rampage just to keep the game from bogging down and getting boring.
- much slower tech advancement. All the Civ games are cursed with tech advancement which races by so fast you don't have time to build all of the city improvements you might want, or even field an army before it becomes outdated. It's impossible to have 'period' warfare (e.g., musketeers and cannon) because once your army is created you'll already be producing the next great thing (e.g., riflemen). I 'fix' this by slowing down tech advances by a factor of 20 when I play the game, meaning that there'll be at least some measure of time spent in each 'period' before advancing to the next. I just hope the game gives you the option of doing this without having to monkey with the tech tree and rules.txt files.
- I liked CTP's replacement of the Settler units. I'm sorry to see Civ III will include Workers, pretty much the same thing. CTP cut out the micromanagement required by having Settler units and this made me a very happy camper. It's too bad that Civ III will add this annoying bit of micromanagement back into the game.
- Pollution: use some other model than having Workers clean it up. Like irritation attacks, having to direct your workers to all the spots that develop pollution each turn (because the AI is too stupid to do it properly on its own) is very time-consuming - and boooorring. Really, have a 'Superfund' or something along these lines instead.
- Age advancement: no one likes to see musketeers or even pikemen take on a tank and win. So why not incorporate age advancement in a more substantial way: when one civilization advances to a new age (with substantially different combat technology), they *all* do with immediate upgrades to field units. However - those civs that are behind the civ that triggered the event still have to research the various techs to get all the goodies/upgrades for that age.
- larger maps with smaller scale.
- better control of the terrain when randomly generating a map. For example, being able to specify 'no desert', or saying '20% of all squares will be mountains', or 'make 3 discrete continents'. Hand-crafting a map is dull and, of course, kills the element of surprise, but the map generator in all the Civs is crude and not very good at the job. I'd like to be able to set specific characteristics and let the generator do it's bit based upon the parameters I give it.
That about does it for my wish list. Everything else is gravy.
Max
RTS? (Score:2)
Sid Meier: It's pretty straightforward. If you don't have certain strategic resources, you can't build certain units. For instance, without horses a player won't be able to build chariots, horsemen, knights, cavalry and so forth. Without oil, you can't build battleships, bombers, tanks etc. Most units, including the special ones, require one or more strategic resources. Players will probably find that their short-term strategy will be shaped by the realities of which resources they have and don't have...launching wars to obtain certain resources, building distant colonies, entering into one-sided trade agreements to gain access to Saltpetre so they can build musket men. All of these changes, along with the changes to the technologies, wonders and units, make Civilization III both more challenging, and more historically realistic."
Are they turning Civ into an RTS, or am I just misinterpreting this? Because we already have RTS games... Maybe TBS?
(for the unclueful, RTS = Real-Time Strategy, TBS = Turn-Based Strategy. Both are wargames. The Command & Conquers, Warcraft 1&2, Starcraft, and the Age of Empire games are all RTSes.)
I'm not sure I'd like Civ to go that route... Civ should always be Civ! =) Ahh, the memories. Nothing like Civ 1 for DOS on a 386 back in the day.
Heh, who'm I kidding? I'll buy it, 'cause it's from Sid. ^_^
-Kasreyn, once and future Zulu warlord!
Yup, RTS it is. (Score:2)
Let's look at Starcraft and the unit known as the Guardian.
You have to have access to a certain resource, actually, two. Namely, minerals and Vespene gas. Gas is sometimes harder to get than minerals, so it's the sticking point. Each Guardian costs a total, over time, of 150 minerals and 200 gas.
And get some other effects? Yup, once again, sounds just like an RTS. To be able to build Guardians, you must first build all the buildings which allow you to make a Lair, then you must build a Spire, then you must upgrade your Lair to a Hive, then you must upgrade your Spire to a Greater Spire so that your Zerg colony (civilization?) will have the needed "technology" or advancement to produce Guardians. All these upgrades and buildings require a sizable investment in your infrastructure and economy.
Getting resources by diplomacy and trade? Well, Age of Empires includes a "tribute" option where you can give another player some of your resources. Few protest that AoE is an RTS game. And conquest has long been the de facto standard RTS method of seizing resources from an opponent. Diplomacy can be as simple as "don't take that mins expansion or I'll 0w|\|z0r j00."
You describe RTS games to a T. So I wonder how many "horses" it will take to "build" a knight?
"Sorry... not enough horses. Breed more horses!"
-Kasreyn
Re:Civilization has always been bogus (Score:1)
Or look at some of those crazy games like Descent where they make use of technology that doesn't even exist. What a crock! WHat the hell are they thinking?
Seriously though, that's why it's called a computer game and not a Real World Simulator or something like that.
Re:Civilization has always been bogus (Score:1)
Re:You're a fecking idjiit (Score:1)
+ Ridiculous AI cheats
These were toned down (computer civs have to build wonders too - they aren't just given them). But I'll admit, knowing which of your cities have SDI defences is a bit much.
+ Spending hours moving around settler units is not fun.
You can always hit 'shift + a' to automate a settler.
+ Having your bomber shot down by a spearchucker over and over again is stupid.
Again, this was fixed in civ II by introducing hit points. A spearguy might hurt a bomber, but he's not going to kill it.
Re:You're a fecking idjiit (Score:2)
> These were toned down (computer civs have to build wonders too - they aren't just given them). But I'll admit, knowing which of your cities have SDI defences is a bit much.
The biggest cheat is the computer earn's between 2 and 4 times the resources relative to human players depending on level.
+ Spending hours moving around settler units is not fun.
You can always hit 'shift + a' to automate a settler.
Automated settles lack finesses and efficiency, and always do the wrong improvements, for example irrigating a hill with coal, hacking down a railroad'ed forest on my front line and loosing key defensive units. This is probably the main reason for the above cheat, I would bet this feature just uses the Settler's AI.
>> + Having your bomber shot down by a spearchucker over and over again is stupid.
> Again, this was fixed in civ II by introducing hit points. A spearguy might hurt a bomber, but he's not going to kill it.
Improved not fixed. Perhaps you did not realise that the Italians defeated 'spearmen' in ethiopia with 6 (WW1 era) bi-planes and hand grenades. Aircraft are ridiculously weak and too easily lost. Expecially when compaired to Battleships Howitzers , tank's, etc.
Typically just sail a Battleship upto the city pound it
Fortu
Re:slashdot (Score:1)
Re:slashdot (Score:2)