Good and wise decision! Above is the key-argument (my underlining).

In SMAC you played around with futuristic strap-on weaponrys only - its obviously MUCH easier to combine imagined & made up chassis and weapons in a pure SciFi-game like SMAC, then it is in a game that also covers historic ancient, medieval and early-modern eras. That says itself.
Even late-modern eras could offer the game-designers some problems: Why, for example, should it be possible for the civ-player to design a tank-unit with modern Gulf-war armour, but only with WW-2 era turret-cannon? Or vice versa? Would it make any sense? Would it be realistic?

Roughly the same argument: its obviously MUCH easier to combine imagined & made up futuristic value-systems and political ideas in a SciFi-game like SMAC, then it is in "a game that covers as much ground as CivIII" - can also be accounted for then trashing the "Social engineering" idea. And I hope they do.

They just made it CivII+, in my opinion. Bad decision. Very questionable. You now have a static, repetitive game. There will be no replayablility, with the same units every time.

Mods are all fine and well, but they'd suffer from the same problem. They'd be fine for one or two plays, until you learned the unit strenghts/weaknessess, then you'd be done.

quote: Yes, maybe. But, that could be achieved by adding an parallell extension of Civ-2 style governments-types. The player choose an government-type, but added to this he can now also choose a specific Religion- (or philosophy) type. That would lead to a more basic version of SE "mix and matching", then in SMAC - but anyway.

Ralf, you have it all wrong about Social Engineering,

SE is more flexable, more emersive, and more FUN than choosing a single form of government as in civ2, i think if they changed the name from Social Engineering to something else that sounded less futuristic that you would be happy with the more robust civ 2.33 (SMAC) game mechanics

out of the four SE choices you already endorse two of them, politics and values, aka government and philosophy and i think that you could go for economics with just a little push...however future society is just too far out for a historical game so lets call it something else like perhaps utopian vision (only available late game) and i am sure that it will be a better system than the OBSOLETE civ2 system

_______________________________________________________

the civ 2.33 unit workshop system was flawed in execution, the gui was much too user unfriendly, the units were too hard to distinguish between on the map, and the whole execution could have used some serious upgrades, but i think that the idea of the unit workshop was unsurpassed and that civ3 (2.51) will miss its flexability

rest in peace unit workshop
the good ones always go too soon

quote: Originally posted by RonHiler on 02-03-2001 12:04 PM Without a unit workshop, I won't buy the game. They just made it CivII+, in my opinion. Bad decision. Very questionable. You now have a static, repetitive game. There will be no replayablility, with the same units every time.

With all due respect, that's a pretty myopic view. Have you not heard of custom scenarios and events? A static, repetitive game?!? Maybe you've been playing too much of SMAC, ToT or CtP but not enough of Civ2?

hey there! long time no see

i respect your opinion but i totally disagree with most of it. i think that with tweaks an improved SE system would allow the players to develop unique civ that would involve the player on an emotional level, like a character in an RPG game. i am not on the net much as i used to be but when i am on i'm playing diablo 2 so i know all about the way a player becomes attached to characters in an RPG (however i have a piss-poor laggy ISP and i play hardcore...in diablo2 hardcore lag=death, i think i am in the running for most characters created though) and i think that the best way for a player to get emotionally involved with his civ's buerocratic institutions is to use SE

i can and will conceed that the SE system in civ 2.33 is far from perfect and has many irrational loopholes that prevent a player from making hard choices to fix those loopholes and to make SE function more rigidly i suggest that firaxis do the following things

quote: Originally posted by korn469 on 02-03-2001 12:37 PM SE is more flexable, more emersive, and more FUN than choosing a single form of government as in civ2,

Well, thats your viewpoint, and some civers will certainly agree with you, and maybe Firaxis as well, although I dont believe so.

I base above believe on below Firaxis Civ-III website quote:
"The short answer is simply the best strategy game experience you've ever had! We will accomplish this by keeping the components that made Civilization I and II incredibly addictive and fun games and adding NEW elements and features that complement and enhance the existing system. In addition, we've built a completely new graphic engine that will provide the most stunning maps, animations and graphics you've ever seen in this genre of game. Here are some of our key objectives in developing the best Civilization game you've ever played:"

My underlining/capitol letters. You see: there is NO talk whatsoever about keeping any old components (like the SE-system, or the concept of futuristic SciFi-tecs) from SMAC. Only from Civ-I and II - and (of course) adding totally new and fresh components as well.
Maybe im over-interpret, and maybe my prediction is totally wrong. But, it seems to me that SMAC-features, to a large degree, is going to be side-stepped in Civ-3, and if im right I think thats a good thing.

The problem with SMAC-style Social Engineering (SE, for short) in Civ-3, is mainly two-folded (well, three-folded counting Raingoons excellent post):

1: I have already toched this one in above post. Anyway; its obviously MUCH easier to combine imagined & made up futuristic value-systems and political ideas in a SciFi-game like SMAC, then it is to combine real-life value-systems and political/religious ideas in a game that suppose to cover real-life historic & present day realities - as in Civ-III. It just a game, yes - but it can nevertheless easily be a hot potato - producing endless discussions about "wrongly" applied, or "obviously" unbalanced and historically "incorrect" Social Engineering results.

These pitfalls can be avoided more effectively by keeping Civ-2 style "stand-alone" governments-types. Just DONT fractionize the game by "mixing and matching" buckloads of SE half-components with each other.

2: One persistant critisism of both SMAC, and (to a larger degree) CTP/CTP-2 is the "detached feel" that many players have complained about. This problem sticks its ugly head up, each time the player cannot relate to, and/or easily see through the correlations between his own inputs on one side, and the games outputs one the other side.

In SMAC the problem was partly those hard-to-relate futuristic techs, and partly those "half-component combination" systems (like SE and the unit-workshop). The the latter produces endless variations and combinations - yes, but at a cost. The snag is also that any "transparent" and "easy to overview" game-mechanical correlations between inputs and outputs, very easily gets "flushed down the toilet" in the process.
The problem got even worse in CTP/CTP-2: Both the old CTP "public works" idea and the "expanding city-areas" idea, just added salt to injury. Firaxis should really keep those CTP-ideas away from Civ-3, at all cost.

I have played many earth- and space-based strategy-building games where i had rather foggy idea how this or that gradual improvement actually added to the overal output. And IF i could see an exact output-change, i still often couldnt understant why the output changed the way it did. I simply lost the connection - it all ended up with that i just added "yet another fractionally incremental improvement", because - in one way or the other, that i didnt clearly understood - it supposed to be beneficial. It all felt - well, if one was "detached" from the game after a while.

"In 1998, Firaxis Games released Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, a turn-based science fiction strategy game. Alpha Centauri was extremely successful and had many game play innovations that advanced the turn-based genre. Firaxis Games will utilize many of the cool innovations made in Alpha Centauri in CivIII. In Civilization III you'll find borders (but even more realistic than in SMAC), unique benefits depending on the Civilization you choose, enhanced and more realistic diplomacy AI, build- queues and more ways to delegate commands for those who want to minimize micromanagement at later stages in the game. These are just some of the innovations that will be found in Civilization III and that made Alpha Centauri the highest rated PC game ever!"

Another quote from the site:

"This game isn't simply about a face-lift or adding more "stuff" to the existing design. It's not even just about keeping and refining the good, addictive aspects of Sid Meier's Civilization I and Civilization II and combining those with what was new and innovative in Alpha Centauri - though this is a major thrust of our efforts. It's also about amplifying some previously unexplored areas of gameplay and enhancing some others in ways that give players more options and fun choices to build their empires the way they want to."

quote: Anyway; its obviously MUCH easier to combine imagined & made up futuristic value-systems and political ideas in a SciFi-game like SMAC, then it is to combine real-life value-systems and political/religious ideas in a game that suppose to cover real-life historic & present day realities - as in Civ-III.

Ralf

Ok before before i go on, are you being serious? I mean i find this hilarious, but you don't seem to be joking.

Ok here is what you are saying

1. That using a single government system WILL be more balanced than using the slightly more complex SE system.

False! Civ3 has yet to be balanced (it's not even in beta) so it is impossible to say for sure which system will have better balance. The government systems in civ2 were even more unblanced than the SE system in civ2.33. Your argument automatically assumes that a complex system will be inferior to a simple system. This is wrong, many complex systems work better than simple systems, conpare dos to windows 2000. W2k dwarfs dos in size and it dwarfs it in features, stability, and possibilities. It is possible for a SE system to have great balance (and SE in civ2.33 is remarkably well balanced) and i'm sure that firaxis can do it.

2. That using a government system is more historically correct than using SE.

FALSE! The government system in civ2 does not have any more basis in reality than SE. According to the civ2 model, All democracies operate like an idealized United States in 1968-1970. All religious governments operate like an overstated Iran circa the 1980s. All forms of government in which the state has a massive say in the economy operates like most likely East Germany in the early 1980s. Every one of these examples fail under a close analysis. One of the longest, most heated, well documented debates is the debate over can democracies goto war without unhappiness penalties. Many historical examples exist that show democracies CAN goto war with mass support of the people. The Spanish-American war, WW2, the gulf war, all of these are examples of where the people overwhelmingly support the war effort. These historical counter examples prove that all democries are NOT like the United States in 1986-1970. That alone shoots down your Basis in History argument against SE.

SE provies much greater nuance and lets social institutions be much more intricate than the inferior civ2 government system. SE provies for more replayability, more player emersion, and more historical relavance. It is far superior to the civ2 system.

Your argument also forgets the most important aspect of civ3...that gameplay comes before any other aspect. Civ3 coul be the most historically accurate game ever and it could suck too. So civ3 needs to be fun first, and i am talking WAY more fun than civ2. Civ3 has alot of pressure to perform way better than anything that has come before it. If it doesn't then it is destined to go down as a critical flop (worse yet it could go down as a critcal success, and a commercial flop).

quote: I have played many earth- and space-based strategy-building games where i had rather foggy idea how this or that gradual improvement actually added to the overal output. And IF i could see an exact output-change, i still often couldnt understant why the output changed the way it did. I simply lost the connection

How does a government system insulate a player from feeling detached in a game while using SE just drives a wedge between the player and the game?

It does not. Simple as that.

Hippee! i just switched to Monarchy baby! Where is my burger king kid's meal crown at? I FEEL so much like a real king i can barely stand it.

Compare that to

Right now i am an absolute monarchy of a feudalistic state, where i have begun reforms of our agrarian based economy to change it into a mercantilist one. I am pondering approving a magna charta to quell unhappiness amongst the nobles, eventhough that might weaken my long term power base. Though we still have a stong belief in God and Country and i will not allow any hersey in my realm.

which one seemed more realistic? a cookie cutter, unrealistic, unbalanced, system with no historical basis or the more versitile, more fluid, SE system? Which one would the normal player get more satisfaction from? We need to tap into the Sims market with Civ3, not the Overly Grand, Long, and Boring History of the World Volume 87 4th extra long edition gaming set.

What i want are a wide array of fun (though vexing) choices to make during a game. The civ2 system doesn't even give a glimpse of that. Civ2.33 system is a step in the right direction, but Civ3 must go beyond what has been done before and develop a fun and elegent way of making a large amount of choices available to the player.

quote: ...an absolute monarchy of a feudalistic state, where i have begun reforms of our agrarian based economy to change it into a mercantilist one. I am pondering approving a magna charta to quell unhappiness amongst the nobles, eventhough that might weaken my long term power base. Though we still have a stong belief in God and Country and i will not allow any hersey in my realm.

I can see where you must get frustrated with us non-SE people. I think most of us are speaking with a memory of SMAC, where you seem to be speaking with a vision of something we haven't seen before. I'll grant you that. But Ralf made a great point that I think you glossed. Quoth Ralf:

quote: ...many earth and space-based strategy-building games (gave me a) rather foggy idea how this or that gradual improvement actually added to the overal output. And IF i could see an exact output-change, i still often couldnt understant why the output changed the way it did. I simply lost the connection.

This is an excellent description of the sense one gets from playing SMAC with its Social Engineering. It may be a more sophisticated connection and lost on Ralf, but I agree with him about this. Civ 2 with its more rigid system was almost groundbreaking in the way players were able to see the cause and effect links of their actions to the output in the game. SMAC's SE system simply obfuscated those relationships for the sake of more sophisticated choices.

NOW, I say hold on a second. Maybe the problem is using the term "SE" and all its attendant definitions and associations to SMAC (which Firaxis claims is still the best game ever invented, but okay).

Maybe there is a synthesis of these two ideas that would actually be better than either. Simply, if the ruler of a civ has as much flexibility to design his government as his technology allows, than he can set parameters as he sees fit. I wouldn't call it "social engineering" because that, well, "smacs" of Alpha Centauri.

our thoughts are on the same track

in my mind what i keep on seeing is a system like social engineering, but a system that has "ordinances" like in simcity 3000 (sc3k).

first for those of you who haven't played sc3k i will briefly explain ordinances...you open up an ordinance screen and there are a series of check boxes. when you check them then that ordinance goes into effect. one of the ordinances is to make your city a "nuclear free zone" so you can't build any nuclear power plants in your city but it increases happiness...another option is to have a pollution tax, which scares away heavy polluting businesses (to the detriment of the economy) but it helps keep pollution out of your city...many of the ordinances cost money, some provide extra income to your city, but they all have an effect on your city

now i think that civ3 should incorporate the idea of ordinances into the game. it is a simple system, you check a box and then a known result happens. it is also easy to evoke an emotional responce in the player to each ordinance, which would ward off detachment.

i think that civ3 could incorporate ordinances in one of three ways.

Some of you might say, "Okay, but I can do the same thing by building cities."

That's not the same. Although you can build cities almost wherever you want, cities themselves are just indentical. It is just like making cookies from cookie cutters.

One of the best features of SMAC is the unit workshop. It allows you to build customised units to tackle a situation. I don't see why that would cause such a problem in Civ 3. For example, maybe I want to build some defensive units with pikes and heavy armor at the expense of their speed. Why can't I? Right now in Civ 2 an English Phalanx unit is exactly the same as a Chinese one. Why is that the case? That's more unrealistic than having each civ design their own units according to their situations. For example,

Okay, we have a bunch of iron mines around here, but we don't have many horses. Why don't we make armor for the horses so they get protection?

quote: Originally posted by don Don on 02-04-2001 01:17 AM "Without a unit workshop, I won't buy the game." Reminds me of certain celebrity leftists who whine at every election that they would "move to Canada" (or wherever) if so-and-so isn't elected. Cry me a river.

This is completely uncalled for.

If you don't agree with his view, state your reason why. Sitcking a label on another person to demonise him or her is just plain low.

I think the SC3K ordinances are perfect for Civ 3. I'm with you. Perhaps Government Options or The Policy Window is a good label.

quote: Originally posted by korn469 on 02-05-2001 01:29 AM have a government ordinance system where you have a few different rigid government types and you have some ordinaces available to each goverment that could really create some variety and flexability in the old civ2 system.

I dont like the other two options at all. I like above one however. The player chooses Civ-2 style take-it-or leave-it government-types, but he now have a lot more tweak-options (ordinances) to choose between, then in Civ-2.
These tweak-options could deal with global empire-level decision making. In Civ-2 we only had the "How shall we distribute our wealth" percentage slider-bars; Tax-Science-Luxuries options.
They could at least add Health as well (any more suggestions?). Above slider-bars (and more ideas?) can be fitted under a new Empire-manager (or government-manager) tab as a secondary global alternative to the indevidual city-manager tab.

If Firaxis could make an ordinance "tree" that grew and changed with the passage of time and changing scientific and cultural values that would be brilliant. Particularly if the effects of differing combinations of ordinances were not felt immediately but built up over time. That would actually lead to the sort of situations we have had in the real world, with badly chosen or antiquated policies slowly fuelling resentment until one final straw suddenly explodes into revolt, repression or emigration. This would help to banish the eternal China syndrome, one of Firaxis' stated ambitions. Getting it right would make designing the perfect tech tree look easy, of course

so today on break i will retype part of that post detailing some examples of ordinances...i will elaborate on the following:

constitution
bill of rights
secret police
universal health care
conscription