The wonders represent specificc civs becoming specialists at certain things. Seafaring civs have magellen etc.

In real life, the english would have had the seafaring wonders

Peoples aren't inherently different - they're shaped by their environment. Ok, I admit, I just started reading Guns, Germs and Steel. I'll post something about that later though...

quote: Originally posted by Zulu Elephant on 03-06-2001 06:05 AM Wonders... Thats it The wonders represent specificc civs becoming specialists at certain things. Seafaring civs have magellen etc. In real life, the english would have had the seafaring wonders That way civs choose their own specialisation

I agree completely, I always thought of wonders as providing the unique civ benefits. Whats the point if you have a civ with good sea units who starts in the middle of a continent? Now if only the AI could be taught to use wonders correctly, i.e. build Lighthouse if your stuck on an island, Sun Tzu's if your a conquerer etc. then we'd be on to something.

Not that I dont support the idea of unique civ benefits, as long as it's optional, but it would be difficult to implement so that civs did get appropriate advantages (at least on a random map).

Your civ should be shaped by the way that you manage it. The possibilities are open, and if you choose to lead your civ in that direction, then you have the ability to if you play it right.

After all, if you make sure the Egyptians get the Pyramids, do you make sure that the English colonise North America? Do you make sure that the Roman empire has to fall?

The whole idea of Civilization is to recreate history how YOU want it... Civ-specific built in traits would undermine this basic premise of the Civ game.

For full-scale, epic, historical games, I agree that Civ-specific bonuses make little sense. However, I can see a couple of potential uses for them in scenarios:

1) Small-scale scenarios. For example, in an American Civil War scenario, only the Union should be allowed to build, say, Abolitionist units, and only the Confederacy should be allowed to use slave labor (however that may be dealt with in the game/scenario). Note that the Confederacy could be allowed to actually abolish slavery (to gain favor with England, if that were included in the scenario), but I think they'd have had a tough time finding very many strong abolitionists who were also strong Confederate loyalists.

2) Non-historical scenarios. The obvious example would be a Middle-Earth scenario: The forces of darkness would have access to orc units, dwarves could build cities in mountains without starving, etc. In a not-even-fictionally-historical Star Trek scenario with all the ST races starting on one planet (!), Vulcans might get science bonuses, Ferengi might get trade bonuses, and so on.

There might even be some limited justification in full-scale historical games. I've heard it argued that one reason the Japanese samurai fighting style is so different from the European knighthood fighting style was that the steel ore in Japan was of higher quality, which made for better swords, which made armor less effective, which forced them to develop a style based on speed, accuracy, and dodging & parrying, rather than on encasing themselves in armor and going toe-to-toe. I'm not sure that Civ3 will simulate a fighting-style level of detail, but that's just the first example that came to mind. Since (if "true") this is a cultural/technological difference that was dependent on available resources, the only ways to simulate it that I can see would be either a civ-specific tech or bonus (assuming pre-determined starting locations), or tying a tech, unit, or bonus to local natural resources. While that would be WAY cool (Elephants, anyone?), it would also be very hard to balance, especially for random worlds (and would probably require more than one or two resources per terrain type).

I view the Civ games as "What If" tools. That may be as simple as "What if I were in charge of Rome?" or "What if the Japanese were pyramid-builders?", but one interesting experiment would be "What if one group of people were inherently better at [something] than all other groups of people?" How would this alternate history have been different from (or similar to) our own?

quote: Originally posted by Salvius on 03-17-2001 12:56 AM Just wanted to voice my agreement with the "have them, but only as an option" position. For full-scale, epic, historical games, I agree that Civ-specific bonuses make little sense. However, I can see a couple of potential uses for them in scenarios: 1) Small-scale scenarios. For example, in an American Civil War scenario, only the Union should be allowed to build, say, Abolitionist units, and only the Confederacy should be allowed to use slave labor (however that may be dealt with in the game/scenario). Note that the Confederacy could be allowed to actually abolish slavery (to gain favor with England, if that were included in the scenario), but I think they'd have had a tough time finding very many strong abolitionists who were also strong Confederate loyalists. 2) Non-historical scenarios. The obvious example would be a Middle-Earth scenario: The forces of darkness would have access to orc units, dwarves could build cities in mountains without starving, etc. In a not-even-fictionally-historical Star Trek scenario with all the ST races starting on one planet (!), Vulcans might get science bonuses, Ferengi might get trade bonuses, and so on. There might even be some limited justification in full-scale historical games. I've heard it argued that one reason the Japanese samurai fighting style is so different from the European knighthood fighting style was that the steel ore in Japan was of higher quality, which made for better swords, which made armor less effective, which forced them to develop a style based on speed, accuracy, and dodging & parrying, rather than on encasing themselves in armor and going toe-to-toe. I'm not sure that Civ3 will simulate a fighting-style level of detail, but that's just the first example that came to mind. Since (if "true") this is a cultural/technological difference that was dependent on available resources, the only ways to simulate it that I can see would be either a civ-specific tech or bonus (assuming pre-determined starting locations), or tying a tech, unit, or bonus to local natural resources. While that would be WAY cool (Elephants, anyone?), it would also be very hard to balance, especially for random worlds (and would probably require more than one or two resources per terrain type). I view the Civ games as "What If" tools. That may be as simple as "What if I were in charge of Rome?" or "What if the Japanese were pyramid-builders?", but one interesting experiment would be "What if one group of people were inherently better at [something] than all other groups of people?" How would this alternate history have been different from (or similar to) our own? Anyway, in short: Unique civs good for scenarios, probably bad for standard full game.

I have just started to play scenarios, and my sense is that any addition to the tools available to scenario builders would be welcome, as the existing ones make it difficult to model some historical (and other) situations.

I continue to believe that it unique civs (other than earned benefits) should be excluded from the basic, default game.

Yours in Civin

Troll

------------------
Hebrews 11:1

------------------
Ilkuul

For example if some civ spent a lot of time in desert they could survive with less food, and those living seaside get naval bonuses. If they had to use boats to get their location, they probably have map making or equivalent, and so on. What this also means, is that continents which are isolated from others by large bodies of water are completely uninhabited, cause no one could get there.

Heres my model

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia on 04-03-2001 10:21 PM Lets say you just finished reserching Armored warefare. Now you can research a minor tech called Panzer Tank or something like that. It would give you say +x% over other tanks and mechanized ground units. Therefore, 'superpowers' can existe because they have time to research all of these minor techs

Hey, that ain't bad. With one addition: this "Panzer Tank" tech should only be available for a limited time after you first discover Armoured Warfare, so that it becomes a question of research time-vs-military benefit. That way, a research juggernaut wouldn't be able to race through the military techs, then go back and pick up all these "enhancement" techs. You can rationalize it by saying, if you don't research these advanced tactics now, your armies will formulate their own tactics and become set in their ways.

Then comes the question of how to prevent a civ from picking up a lot of these "enhancement" techs. Perhaps a hard limit of, say, five enhancements per civ? A floating limit of three? By floating I mean that if your enhancement becomes obsolete, you're allowed to choose another. A "negative prerequisite" system, where if you have X enhancement, you're not permitted to research Y? That one would be tough to balance, though.

quote: A bit complex, but can be used to add some early settings to the game: Every Civ starting with a nomadic tribe (not able to settle down into a proper city, wandering around a bit meeting early tribes, will let you start early diplomatic actions (join tribe) or early battles (crush people and enslave them, pillage their gold), explore early or hunt a food reserve. So you have some early turns (random range 10-20 before game start) with limited rules, just to chose the way you will lead your borning Civ. You'll achieve very early tech (that pre assigned in Civ2), achieve early reputation (bloody or pacifist), gain first momentum in resources, money or food. Then usual game will start You are forging your Civ, so you must face decisions mutually exclusive. You can skip this only to have a random quick start, but you probably want to keep control, so you'll see the "intro" every new game.

Given the game intro rules limit, Firaxis can add quoting, animations and musics action-related, more easily than inside the full game, pumping up the "epic feeling", helping to hook players into the game, and given some Civ difference NOT PREDEFINED, but matured from players early actions.

I liked the Master of orion and SMAC civ bonus/penalty system, it gives
you different challenges with each species/civilisation making you want to play the game again after you've won.
Its also great that it means each civilisation is different to conquer,
some with lots of money you need spies and courthouses to prevent you being bribed against, against enemies with natural wall defences (like the Hive that all were underground and had Walls) you need to bribe them more or use wall penetrating weapons .. airpower.

Wonders aren't that good, as once you've captured the enemies wonder they
are no longer given that bonus which seems very unrealistic if we're saying wonders can simulate the differences in civilisations.

In reality there are big differences, some civs like the germans have till recently been orienated more towards barbarism and less cultural avenues perhaps, and they've always been industrious.
Persians could be more affected by religions to simulate the power of Islam which came to them and other mid east areas.
America could have more free speech and its benefits/problems.. problems in the way that the constitution could lead to gun control being weakened maybe and more affected by internal rioting and strife (such as the civil war) etc.

quote: some civs like the germans have till recently been orienated more towards barbarism and less cultural avenues perhaps, and they've always been industrious.

Barbarism? Prussia brought luxuries to Europe, like the first european-made porcelain. What about all the great German composers? Your example here is based on two radical regimes (smaller still, two radical PEOPLE) who changed Germany. It seems obvious to me that these examples of "barbarism" are based on the German leader, not their people.

quote: Persians could be more affected by religions to simulate the power of Islam which came to them and other mideast areas.

Isn't this simulated by having a Theocratic government? If I want to make the Persians communist, why can't I? You are talking government, now.

quote: America could have more free speech and its benefits/problems.. problems in the way that the constitution could lead to gun control being weakened maybe and more affected by internal rioting and strife (such as the civil war) etc.

This is a joke! All of these were decisions made by the people at the time, and were not the result of some mindset that permeates their entire history. If I led America, and never allowed the slave trade to happen, would I still be affected more by internal strife? Of course not! Everything you describe their is also America as a Democracy. Those above examples refer to Democracies in general.

So, all in all, it seems your examples only prove that an attitude, tendency, or "special ability" in a Civ is the result of the leader's conscious choices. The decision to start a war... to allow slavery... to choose a different government. These are obviously choices made by the ruler... why should the computer make those choices for me?

The United States has supported dictatorships and military regimes from the 1930s to the present day. Franklin D. Roosevelt, the president who implemented the "Good" Neighbor policy, forced military dictatorships on several Latin American countries.

quote: Originally posted by MrFun on 04-11-2001 01:48 PM I have a question - what about giving a bonus to democracy and republic governments to make it easier for them to force nations of other races to accept dictatorships and repressive regimes? The United States has supported dictatorships and military regimes from the 1930s to the present day. Franklin D. Roosevelt, the president who implemented the "Good" Neighbor policy, forced military dictatorships on several Latin American countries. Could this republic or democratic principle be represented in Civilization III somehow?

I'll ignore the obvious affront to my country here, and say in our support that the USA has also tried to oppose these opressive regimes, like those of Castro, Milosevic, and Hussein.

Anyway, this is not a good idea. Can you give me an example of another democracy that has done this? This policy is a result of the people in government at the time, and does not represent democracy as a principle. This again is a leader's decision and should not be stuck to the government in general.

quote: Not to mention that overseas American businesses also finance dictatorships for profit in other countries while enslaving native people today on starvation wages. But those are just facts -- not opinions.

I would argue against this, but I think this is better for the OT or if you want to message me. For the record, I disagree with both your points.

You still haven't answered my question: Can you tell me of another democracy that has done this? I say again, the policies and events you are talking about are a result of one country and one government. They are not representative of democracies as a whole. Therefore, there is no reason that a Democracy in Civ3 should be representative of these traits... rather, you as the player would make such policies.

quote: Originally posted by Admiral PJ on 04-10-2001 07:05 PM Oh I forgot- Like in SMAC , If your having different ending/winning rules, this goes well with civilisation specific bonuses.. as different civs can win with different winnings strategies, so a civ with an economic bonus can win best by getting the most money, enough to buy out all the other countries and win this route. A civ with a culture bonus can win by being the greatest culture ever, if this is a winning condition. This could make it fairer , as you don't just need to have a big millitary complex and army to win.. some other civ can win by researching the greatest technology known to man and win.. Speaking of which what will happen to the spaceship win condition? I guess thats in another thread.. bye for now, time to dream about civ3 in bed

But why should I choose both the civ and the path even before I start the game??

I want to grow my civ according to changes and developements made in other countries and made in my country. If I decide on a play style in advance and stick to it It'll be boring. I already know what I am going to do. I already have confined myself to a specific playing style. This is exactly the reason why such games, SMAC and many RTS games are nothing but fads. They have alot of hype around them. For a year if they're lucky. And then everyone dumps them and moves to the next. This is not replayability.

The stupidest thing I've heard is that it simulates history, It doesn't as in history leaders were always open to choise, had no goals set from the beginning to end and learned to sruvive by adapting and changing their goals once in a while.

The claim that it is more fun or easier to play means that who ever is talking just doesn't realise the meaning of civ, and should be better off playing some AoE or Red Alert and not civ. We are talking Civ here, not semi-historical SMAC.

I agree, this could be a major possibility in Scenarios, but please, OPEN YOUR EYES! The latest Civ game ToT, added a whole bunch of masks for the costumization of Civs. That means, I can, when creating a scenario, set the special charachteristics and limitations on each civ. What units it has, what it can explore, what pluses it has. This is good. THis should develop.

However in no case should this invade the true, main single player game.

I know many people voted to have that as an option. This is because they have faith it will be well implemented and interesting to play. This is because they want to compomise with peple who want it. This does not mean they will recieve it well if this is the only option.

I have been protesting against pre made and unchanging attitudes for more than a year now. I kept suggesting and supporting the implementaition of random leaders to each civ, perhaps even from a preset of X possible leaders for civ. I also suggested and supported that these attitudes will change randomly (but not always randomly) during the game.

The romans weren't always fearce conquerors. The germans are now far from what they have been 1500 years ago. The french and english turned from warriors to one of the most pacifistic nations on the planet. This is what made them continue while other didn't. This is why the Ottoman empire fell. Change, developement. Knowing to see where the world is headed and be there first. This is true civ. this is reality. Not some 7 pre molded civs!

quote: Originally posted by MrFun on 04-11-2001 08:03 PM it's just plain facts that the United States will support dictatorships in opposition to communist governments.

I believe the point here is not democracy supporting dictatorships, but the natural opponenents that Democracy/Capitalism and Communism are. This could be reflected in an AI which while communist, is more aggressive towards democracies. I don't know how Firaxis could force human players to have this animosity though toward commie AI. This idea is dependent on the way gov't is handled in CivIII, none of the every 3 year revolutions between fundamentalism and democracy for wars and peace.

Anyway, if there is enough interest from others, this discussion will continue in the Off-Topic section. When you go there, just look for this topic's post under my name.