I'm worried that with all the attention given to Civ 3 military, there won't be an equal amount done for city and empire development. Civ 1 was pretty much 50/50, half the game was city development. Civ 2 changed that to 55/45 by up-playing the special combat rules in military, but leaving city improvements basically untouched, just adding more of them. SMAC did the same thing. SMAC slapped down peaceful civs by focusing 70/30 on military: tons of unit combinations, special abilities, and alternate "peaceful" ways to win that happened to go to the civ that actually was the most militaristic (case in point, the peacekeepers really couldn't win a diplomatic victory by playing nice -- Yang always conquered his neighbors, got a bigger population through more cities, and would win a diplomatic victory through what were really military methods.)

So, yes, I do hope Civ3 will allow alternative victory strategies that are truly 'peaceful', even if they take much longer!

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

Vitmore

Anyone play master of orion 2? In that game it was possible to never be at war and never kill another ship and still win by being voted in "leader" of the galaxy. Alliances actually meant something as your allies would vote for you. They were unfortunately annoying though and constantly demanded you attack their neighbors unless you put them on ignore :P.

It's not realistic that well-defended city can technically lose a hundred defensive units, and yet not take one point of population loss. Losing men at that rate should hugely inpact the total population (like WWI), as well as be very financially costly. You should lose city improvements in the bombarded city (I always thought it was odd a city's improvements could always survive a nuke) as modern bombs and shells rip up the landscape (like WWII). Also, what about morale and disease? Yes, your men are more experienced, but wars like Vietnam and WWI have shown that casualties cause huge morale problems in the soldiers and the population at home.

I really feel that the Civ II model is just fine for combat with the exception of unit stacking. One unit defending for all is a bit absurd. They should all be able to attack as one group as well. Once this is fixed, I think simply adjusting the current numbers (attack/defense/hit points etc.) can resolve most of the peculiarities we have now. Please, no more new statistics and/or hundreds of new units. DOH! Okay, let's add the Range Attack value (from CTP) and bombardment ... but that's it! (Sheesh, and to think that I advocate simplicity!)

Adding new units only means a quicker obsolescence. A few new ones is fine ... just no overkill.

I enjoy focusing on economy/infrastructure/diplomacy. Unfortunately, the payoff for winning a war is high. Peaceful progress is tough because your rewards too easily become somebody else's rewards (either through combat or espionage). By the way, can we tone down the tech stealing ability? It sometimes make research a moot idea. Or perhaps a spy/diplomat unit can be eliminated when it fails instead of merely sitting there outside of the city or getting expelled.

War is an important part of the game that can't be disregarded. I like Chronus' idea that there will be other civs out there hell bent on destroying me for the purpose of expanding borders.

The best way, i believe, for the game to reflect the problems inherently associated with war is that when you build a unit, you loose one population...this will reflect a strain on production (less production because your men have gone off to fight etc).

In CTP1/2, war was the only fun part of the game for me (I don't know how others felt - personally, I didn't feel inspired to finish the game any other way).

We must remember that war has it's merits - it's a good way to expand your borders, and in early times, Greece/Roman empires, this was how they expanded. It also has it's downsides. Lets pray Firaxis can find the right balance (And not forget about other aspects of the game as well)

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat on 03-25-2001 04:19 PM It is not just about introducing new peaceful strategies. I think that civ makes war too easy. The game needs to introduce some of the costs of war. Conflicts cause huge loss of life and loss of propriety which in turn can bring disasters on the victors as well as the losers. There needs to be a cost to war to make it more balanced with a peaceful strategy. So, I have no problem with making war more realistic in civ3 IF at the same time, the game makes war less beneficial to balance it better with a peaceful strategy.

Agreed! War in Civ should be an option, but often an expensive one!
I used to fight with enemy in Civ and SMAC, mostly because I can't keep them at a realistic diplomacy table. If they went seeking trouble, I did my best to help them finding a lot

But I must add that last Sid interview make me fear alot about "light heart" elements added for Fun. After months of debate about realism and best balancing I have a strange feel of incoming Civ III derailing for unnecessary humor...

You know, all that Deja Vu about "Wars are fun", "Smiling leaders" that add special effects (Magic? Super human? :eek to your army...

I'm also more interested in intricate management than into the fire-power of a panzer-tank or whatever. We don't need the next command and conquer.

quote: Originally posted by Sparky on 03-27-2001 07:35 PM What I'm hearing from CGW sounds promising. The elements they're putting in might correspond to the level of "civilization" we want. They have trade monopolies and culture points, as well as racial assimilation. Bravo.

Yes, I'm also encouraged by this. I hope they do allow for conquered cities to revolt spontaneously if they are not properly assimilated (i.e., if the conquering civ doesn't have enough culture points). This will really put the pressure on to militarists to pursue peaceful technologies -- if for no other reason than simply to prevent their growing empires from falling apart!

(By the way, I seem to remember that there has been a discussion somewhere in these forums of how the mechanics of such 'breakaway' cities would be handled. Can anyone direct me to it? Would they automatically always return to their parent civ, would they become barbarian cities, or could they actually start a brand-new AI civ?)

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

quote: Originally posted by Chris1111 on 03-25-2001 04:40 PM Anyone play master of orion 2? In that game it was possible to never be at war and never kill another ship and still win by being voted in "leader" of the galaxy. Alliances actually meant something as your allies would vote for you. They were unfortunately annoying though and constantly demanded you attack their neighbors unless you put them on ignore :P.

MOO2 in my opinion is the greatest strategy game ever made, when speaking of actual diplomacy, trade, and combat models (simple, yet concise). Civ II is still my favourite of the two because it is grounded in history, and I am a history buff. If Civ III borrowed some of the elements of diplomacy and trade from MOO2 and expanded upon them, Civ III will be amazing.

Vitmore

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 04-05-2001 11:33 PM Just remember, don't kill off war altogether... many minor wars have occured quite quickly and ended the same, so you shouldn't completely discourage people from fighting in the first place!

Yes -- although I said in an earlier post in this thread that I would like to see more peaceful routes to victory in Civ3, war must still be a viable option when backed up with parallel economic and cultural development.

To me, Civ3 will have achieved the right balance if, when the most expert aggessive expansionist comes up against the most expert rational perfectionist, it's like the irresistible force meeting the immovable object. Each should be just as strong as the other, with neither able to conquer merely by virtue of military or economic power -- though in a real game, of course, there will always be random factors and other players that will tip the balance one way or the other.

It's not realistic that well-defended city can technically lose a hundred defensive units, and yet not take one point of population loss. Losing men at that rate should hugely inpact the total population (like WWI), as well as be very financially costly.

I really feel that the Civ II model is just fine for combat with the exception of unit stacking. One unit defending for all is a bit absurd. They should all be able to attack as one group as well. Once this is fixed, I think simply adjusting the current numbers (attack/defense/hit points etc.) can resolve most of the peculiarities we have now. Please, no more new statistics and/or hundreds of new units. DOH! Okay, let's add the Range Attack value (from CTP) and bombardment ... but that's it! (Sheesh, and to think that I advocate simplicity!)

By the way, can we tone down the tech stealing ability? It sometimes make research a moot idea. Or perhaps a spy/diplomat unit can be eliminated when it fails instead of merely sitting there outside of the city or getting expelled.

Well said. I agree with both of these suggestions whole-heartedly. Spies who fail blow their cover, and should either automatically die or be spirited back to their empire's territory, and that's if their lucky as a cat. Also, civs who routinely spy should lose favor points with other civs. Nobody trusts a sneak.