Sid Meier on Civ III

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. "

Comments

Phd students everywhere take a year longer

[Zeinfeld]

Civ II is going to have a bigger effect on the economy than bin laden.

All that time spent in front of the screen insted of working.

Classic games

[hattig]

It is good to see that these timeless games are being updated to use the latest technology and computer power to make them even more realistic, both graphically, audiowise and AI-wise.

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

[RESPAWN]

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

[Stonehand]

How about, er, logic?

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

[Martin Blank]

A couple of previous interviews and mentions on the main site have addressed this. Units now do stack, as opposed to the prior method of fighting against the biggest unit and destroying all if you win. In addition, you can form armies of mixed units, provided you have a Leader. I think interdiction of units at sea (always my favorite) will become much more necessary. After all, the tanks below-deck can't fire back, can they?

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! :)

Re:Classic games

[RESPAWN]

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.

An army of one

[brianboru]

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?)

I'm not hoarding food because of the terrorists...

[jack deadmeat]

It is so I won't have to leave the computer when CivIII comes out.

Game Design and Recent Events

[Alien54]

I wonder how much game design will be influenced by recent events.

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. 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

[abelsson]

What makes you think they aren't capable of coming up with their own ideas without any outside help?

-henrik

Re:Game Design and Recent Events

[garcia]

give terrorists ideas? excuse me but are you confused w/what Hollywood does? ID4 is a prime example. Air Force One another one.

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.

Why can't Civ use a hex grid?

[JoeShmoe]

Is there anyone else that gets as irritated with square grids as I do?

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?

[luge]

So... maybe I'm missing something here, but... given a choice between moving in eight directions or moving in six directions, eight directions seems to create the richer gaming experience. But maybe that is just me.

Re:Why can't Civ use a hex grid?

[JoeShmoe]

Well see it's not that simple.

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

Here goes my karma...

[wrinkledshirt]

Sorry to interrupt the mutual-masturbation fest that's going on here, but isn't it high time we started seeing something new out of Sid Meier? I had a lot of respect for the guy when the first Civilization came out, because between that, Pirates! and Railroad Tycoon, he'd really created a variety of strategy games that were engrossing and fun to play, and also replayable in different ways. I'd skipped Civ2 because there were other new games coming out that I wanted to try out instead, and when I bought Colonization and Alpha Centauri, I was a little bit underwhelmed, to be blunt. (Didn't try Antietam so I can't comment on that...)

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...

[Xzzy]

> but isn't it high time we started seeing
> 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.

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...

[MikeyNg]

Something new? How about Sim Golf?

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.

Re:Here goes my karma...

[maxpublic]

What you're railing against is something typical in the game industry. Somebody comes out with a revolutionary game that really makes a mark - and that's it. He's shot his creative wad. I could name quite a few games/designers where this has happened, but I'm sure you could too if you think about it.

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...

[kypper]

alpha centauri was always for chumps. Nuke everyone! Nuke them all!

Seriously, the civilization-specific units are sweet! I want me some samurai!

Irritating screenshot

[ArsSineArtificio]

The only thing that annoys me is the CivIII screenshot showing the leader of the Egyptians: Cleopatra, a black African.

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

[Quizme2000]

For actual game information gamespot has a decent information on a preview release.

Re:Irritating screenshot

[Some Dumbass...]

A better question is, "Why Cleopatra?" How about a real ancient Egyptian ruler like Ramses or Nefertiti, or a modern one (Sadat?), not one who was most famous for handing the country over to the Romans?

(The answer: becuase they never made a movie about Nefertiti. Oh brother...)

Re:Irritating screenshot

[Skyshadow]

Ramses sounds too much like a condom, and Nefertiti has the sound "tity" in it, whick would surely provoke complaints from parent groups calling for a more kid-friendly ancient leader names.

Re:Irritating screenshot

[BWJones]

I will respond rather than modding here because ignorance cannot go unanswered.

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

[ArsSineArtificio]

I will respond rather than modding here because ignorance cannot go unanswered.
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

Re:Irritating screenshot

[Squeeze Truck]

The kingdom of Kush, just below Egypt (that overran it a couple of times too, IIRC) is believed to be black.

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:A question for those in the know about Civ III

[SuiteSisterMary]

Don't think so, cuz Civ3 has countoured maps; a hill is actually a hill, instead of a flat square with a hill picture. Think Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.

research required

[Alien54]

Well, some things require research.

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

[Moofie]

Why help them with their research? Much better to just broadly censor everybody who wants to play with theories about disaster scenarios. Such dangerous ideas should be restricted to people who are trained for such things. Right?

Censorship is never, ever the answer.

CivIII vs CTP2

[dizzyPhoenix]

Does anybody else think that CivIII sounds waaay to similar to Call to Power 2? I bought CTP2 a good while ago and I am still playing it very happily. I really can't see anything (except maybe the new resource system - needing horses for building chariots, etc) which would make me buy it.
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.

You must have missed this, then

[Alien54]

give terrorists ideas? excuse me but are you confused w/what Hollywood does? ID4 is a prime example. Air Force One another one.

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

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.")

[...]

Oooooooooo...

[smcn]

GameSpot has some video previews of the game, if you can stand programmers with no PR training whatsoever blathering on for 7 minutes. But that hasn't kept me from adding it to my Christmas list, for sure. :)

I'm gonna wait...

[Skim123]

I'm gonna wait to buy this game until it goes multiplayer. According to the CIV3 FAQ, the game will not have multiplayer support when it ships, although they plan on making some multiplayer options available in Spring 2002. (Not holding my breath.)

Re:I'm gonna wait...

[abelsson]

Multiplayer civilization isn't much fun - it simply takes too long. You spend 4/5ths of the time waiting for the other players to finish some damn time. Also, every single game doesn't *have* to have be multiplayer - i think it's refreshing to see a game that doesn't have multiplayer support for once.

-henrik

Re:I'm gonna wait...

[Skim123]

Multiplayer civilization isn't much fun - it simply takes too long

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...

[Emugamer]

I'm gonna wait to buy this game until it goes multiplayer. According to the CIV3 FAQ [civ3.com], the game will not have multiplayer support when it ships, although they plan on making some multiplayer options available in Spring 2002. (Not holding my breath.)

:p Forgive the analogy but that is like saying I'm going to wait to have sex till Its available in multi version. This is Civilization! Don't forget that the lifeblood and father of all decent non-action games and atleast in my case, the whole reason I read slashdot right now. If it wasn't for getting addicted to Civilization I would never have gotten addicted to the computer and never learned how to program. True, I might have gotten laid earlier in life but that lasts 5 minutes if you are lucky and a good civ games can lasts 24-36 hours non-stop. you do the math. Please ignore all troll-like comments while moderating

Re:I'm gonna wait...

[Skim123]

I actually played it back in school three or four years ago (when I had more freetime). My only complaint was that the graphics were a bit blah and it was far too like Civ I. Seeing their site just now, though, I am quite impressed with their graphical improvements. I'll have to give it a try once I get some free time...

total war

[magarity]

The most annoying thing about Civ, Civ2, and SMAC (and probably Civ3) is that the game devolves to total war. Despite being titled and nominally about "civilization", it's really war. While you supposedly can win by the flight to Alpha Centauri (or the Ascent to Transendence), these are usually victories by side effect. You've had to militarity conquer or at least beat down, all opponents by the time you win by these other methods. What if it were more of a civilization simulator; think SimCity on a larger scale. It would be nice if there were a setting for the AI to be less fanatical war machines and more into peaceful competition.

Re:total war

[Squeeze Truck]

Yup. War is your only recourse if the AI launches a spaceship before you do. You *have* to take over his capitol during the 20-odd turns it takes for the spaceship to arrive, or lose the game.

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

[divec]

The most annoying thing about civ [...] is that the game devolves to total war.

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

[vidarh]

Civ and Civ2 maybe, but with SMAC I've found both Ascent to Transcendence and Diplomatic victory (being elected supreme leader) is quite possible even at the higher difficulty levels without extensive war. Sure, you may have skirmishes here and there - but realistically, which civilization haven't been involved in extensive wars over it's lifetime?

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 :)

Re:A question for those in the know about Civ III

[SuiteSisterMary]

Well, quoth from civ fanatics info center:

Civ3 has contoured maps. Elevations and terrain features affect strategies and combat. For example, positioning an artillery unit on top of a mountain will increase its range considerably.

And take a look, for example, at this screenshot supporting SSM's contention. In specific, look at the red border of the city as it crosses the hills.

Re:Porting Potential?

[hobuddy]

"""I expect I'll be trying to hunt down my copy of WinNT that's hiding somewhere in the bottom of a box..."""

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

Re:slashdot

[krow]

http://www.osdn.com/jobs.com.shtml

"Just one more turn, then I'll get some sleep"

[JahToasted]

Famous last words...

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?

[Roland Walter Dutton]

Many of the changes the developers mentioned in the article don't seem like great ideas to me.

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. :) ) The way old Civ calculates the cost of new technologies mades the effect even stronger, perhaps in fact too strong. The ability to skew your technological progress quite strongly is fun, and probably relatively realistic by Civ standards - look at all the pretty advanced preliterate civilisations that existed. "Ages" don't seem the solution to me.

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. :(

Re:Will Civ III be a better game?

[chazzf]

I've been following the development of Civ III rather closely and I would like to offer some counterpoint here:

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. :) ) The way old Civ calculates the cost of new technologies mades the effect even stronger, perhaps in fact too strong. The ability to skew your technological progress quite strongly is fun, and probably relatively realistic by Civ standards - look at all the pretty advanced preliterate civilisations that existed. "Ages" don't seem the solution to me.

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?

[Martin S.]

Civ I-II, Wonders were too good to be ignored, but not so powerful that they dominated the game: a nice balance.

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.

Sid? Are you there Sid?

[fm6]

...but isn't it high time we started seeing something new out of Sid Meier? I had a lot of respect for the guy when the first Civilization came out, because between that, Pirates! and Railroad Tycoon, he'd really created a variety of strategy games that were engrossing and fun to play, and also replayable in different ways.

Too true. I enjoyed Civ, and even Civ II. But there's a limit to how much you can improve a game just by tacking on more features, which is what Civ III appears to do. And games like Alpha Centauri, which take existing games and change the graphics and labels, are unforgivable.

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.

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.

Civilization 3 sites

[J23SE]

If anyone is interested in more information about civ 3, two of the best sites are:

http://www.apolyton.net/civ3/
http://www.civfanatics.com

Re:Irritating slashdotter

[Derwen]

The only thing that annoys me is the CivIII screenshot showing the leader of the Egyptians:
Cleopatra, a black African.

Cleopatra was a GREEK, folks! Not black.

For that matter, the other Egyptians weren't black either.

Leaving aside why you should get so worked up about the skin pigmentation of a character in a computer game, let's just look at some facts.

During the 9th century B.C.E. the Nubians from Northern Sudan conquered Egypt and ruled for some 50 years.
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 ;-) and I've got a book to go and read

- Derwen

Re:Civilization vs. CallToPower

[Squeeze Truck]

I agree. The CTP AI is tragically stupid.

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.

Is it just me?

[Doctor Faustus]

Or are more than half of the new changes mentioned taken from Age of Empires, and Warcraft/Starcraft style games?

Civ3 is not multiplayer.

[k4ne]

I just wanted to again point out that according to gamespot, civ 3 will not be multiplay. I think this is very disappointing. Reviews/Previews of civ3 that I have seen only seem to mention this in fine print or at the end. This need mentioning so people know this before they buy. Personaly I can't bring myself to buy a strategy game without multiplayer support. (10 years ago maybe but not today) Alpha is most fun when played as a multiplyer game. To me this smacks pretty heavily on relying on code from 10 years ago. Someone please tell me this is not the case. If this is not the case, why would a company design a game without thinking 'multiplayer' right from the start. (They could of at least used the code from Alpha). ..O well, back to those mind worms.

Cant wait ?...

[Quazion]

Want something todo in the mean while, check
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

[maxpublic]

Just some things I'd like to see in the new game:

- 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?

[Kasreyn]

"GameSpot: How do the trade system's new strategy resources work?

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!

Easier

[Martin S.]

Path's would actually become easier, it would become a O^6 rather than O^8 problem.

Re:You're a fecking idjiit

[Martin S.]

>> + 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.

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

Yup, RTS it is.

[Kasreyn]

"...instead you have to have access to a certain resource to build some units (and get some other effects IIRC). This leads to the need to get those resources by diplomacy/trade, by building a colony or by war/conquering them."

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