Games In Depth: Civilization III

[Hamumu]

Look at this, my weekly discussion has made it to a second week! Will people care? Let's find out...

This week, it's time to discuss what we can learn from Civ III. What's great about it, how does it fail, what, indeed, is the dilly-yo?

Civ III is chosen by request, since it's the only request I saw, and I've never played it. So all I can say is that I used to play Civ I a lot, and it was really really addictive! It was also really annoying and confusing, but that was pretty much par for the course in that time period.

So talk amongst yourselves.

[Christian]

You MUST play civ3, its the best of them until now.

Well, the most important thing i belive, its the randomized map. In it, heach square is important, you need to thing where is the best path to follow, and this is done in a simple way, you also have to pay attention to the kind of terrain for putting you citys, and is also good for exploration.

[cheese_phantom]

First I must say that I could not play any of my started Civ 3 games to the end. And finally I had to uninstall to game for a reason. But I think the game preserves many of the features in Civ2.

Civilization 2 has been one of the games I played the most in my life. Between 1997 and 2000 there was not a single day I haven't played it I think.
Without cheat/toggle, I remember I made 201 cities and a population of 340 milyon. The civilizations I crushed and that respawned couldn't find a tile to start so their settlers wandered along the poles. :) I discovered that after "future research 250", it turns back to "future research 1".

I think my addictiveness rating still deserves a medal. :D

Well, about the game...

I believe Civ2 is a simple but perfect combination of three "layers":

-The basic game loop (based on a map on which enemies spawn and expand, and which allows you to do the same) which actually contains everything to play the simplest version of the game (The AI for example)
-The tech-tree (which turns the loop into a climbing spiral)
-The unit upgrades and new buildings that a researched topic in the tech-tree releases into the game world.

The point is, that even without tech-tree and unit/building upgrades it would be playable (as a game that remains in the ages 4000 B.C). It would have a solid conflict where you are in midst of a tribal war for territory.

But what makes the game a great game is its two layers that create the dimension of progress: the tech-tree and the unit/building upgrades. This gives the conflict enormous depth. A depth that is highly appreciated by our minds that are familiar with modern concepts such as progress, nation and imperialism/colonialism. Hence it is a game that exactly knows how to address the thoughts, desires and dramatic needs of contemporary players. We are so familiar to this concepts that one can say we know what we have to do through intuition.

Besides these story settings, Civ2 cares a lot to keep us involved in the conflict. The desire for expansion and the insistance of territorial unity are two things that make the AI a constant threat to the player. Even if you are very strong, always someone will try to fight against you, struggle for a single ridiculous tile in its city radius or whatever. This keeps you involved, even if you prefer a peaceful strategy. Also the constant progress of the AI leaves you no other chance than progress. You can prefer not to fight, but you can't defend yourself on the long-term if you don't advance in technology. This means, you have to work even if it is for peace. There is no moment were you can really rest. Even if you are the strongest, you still have to work to remain the strongest.

But the high scores section is maybe more important, as it is your motivator to grow more in each game: more cities, higher population, more future research... Is there something higher than being "the Terrible"? The "forkbeard?" The "magnificient"?. It provides you a goal for the games you play, even if you are already a great master of the game. If the AI no longer causes trouble to you (since you are now so good in playing the game), it is yourself, your past with the game, your highscores, you go out to beat. This is maybe the best way to support the *perfect* learning curve of the game.

It's balance and turning points are cleverly aranged; there are moments in which you can boost yourself away from the rest and gain an important lead. But it is still a hell of work and organization to clean up all enemies.

The game is also very responsive to your actions. You are rewarded for a clever strategy by being the "cutting-edge" civilization and each confrontation with the enemy is an indicator for this. Also if the opposite happens you see that bad management makes you suffer and leads to defeat.

It's interaction is very often based on auto-prompts: select what to build next. select where to move a unit next, select what to research next. The auto-prompting is essential to not lose control over the many units. You can't forget about a thing. You will be reminded of it. But still you have controll over everything and can change your decisions.

It is also amazing how much versatility is achieved through a single tile. Tiles are like paintings you have to re-draw during the game... irrigation, roads, railways, farming, mining... And this versatility is anchored in the basic conflict of the game: progress... if you don't redraw them you get into a disadvantageous position. Each tile becomes part of your strategy, which maintains a high integrity of all game elements.

[Edit] Another fine thing is the "Emperors Room" that you can fill with nice artefacts. True rewards, especially if you can get a few in a row.

(I'll add stuff as I remember)

[Raptisoft]

I don't have a whole lot constructive to add, but I was very disappointed that CIV3 had such an unfriendly interface. If ever a game could be made "easy to use" and "casual," it's a turn-based strategy game.

Use the keyboard... AND the mouse? C'mon.

Also, for some reason, the improved graphics remove some of the fun, for me. I think it's that I have a problem seeing a tank as big as a city, if the tank and city aren't iconic.

As for the good... CIV1 I played for ages and ages and ages... but never could play the sequels too much.

[gcarlton]

Civ3 added some nice features. Culture is one, where your cities have an influence region that surrounds them. It is a slightly more refined concept of your country's border, one that you can tweak by having more cultural cities. In some cases, you don't even need to go to war, you can just swallow up enemy cities in your influence and they will revolt to your side.

Another plus is luxury items. You can only use one tiles worth, and any extra are worthless for your civ. So instead, you can swap the extra ones for a luxury you don't own. For example if you have 2 grape squares and another civ has 2 spice squares, you can do the trade to get 1 grape and 1 spice.

On the downside, Civ3 still suffered from the AI. The main annoyance is that the AI is balanced such that it always wants uneven deals in trades. Given that its a SP game with an emphasis on trading, it is terrible to propose a fair deal and be told "they would be insulted by that". It seems on hard difficulty, "fair" is weighted 2x against your favour, which makes trading almost worthless. This is regardless of whether you are a bigger or smaller civ than the AI, it is an across the board thing. I don't mind the AI cheating with money, build speed, map sight, or pretty much anything, but don't limit my ability to play the game so the AI can be "hard"!

Regarding finishing the games, it seems all the civ games slow down after the first third of playing time. They have never addressed this. I find the constant city maintenance gets beyond reasonable, and I detest the managers - they are playing my game for me, and usually making the wrong decisions. Its a horrible choice, to be bogged down in too many decisions, or give them all up and let managers play your civ for you.

Space Empires 4 handles itself far better with simple build queues, and in that game, you don't have the "slowdown" effect you get in civ3.

[botman]

First I must say that I could not play any of my started Civ 3 games to the end. ... Civilization 2 has been one of the games I played the most in my life.

Weird, I have had the same issue. Except for scenarios, I've never played any games to the end in Civ3 (the end of the time period -- I've won and lost before then of course). I have to say Civ3 never had the same "just one more turn" appeal to me that Civ2 did, and I've never worked out why.

The 3D unit graphics have certainly reduced the number of mods out there, and the ease (file size, etc) of install, but I don't think that's it.

I'd love to hear peoples ideas on why this is?

Perhaps the combat is too monotonous later in the game, with the huge stacks, seeing as you don't risk losing the entire stack unlike Civ2.

It annoys me the way the computer will set up useless little cities in any spare spot it can find in 'your' land, and floods you with settlers (Ah, The Settles, there's a game that brings back fond memories, especially the border road 'feature' that would trick another players workers into dumping their supplies on your land, next to a hastily built storehouse. ;) Man I wan't to play now...).

Civ4 looks ugly to be honest, but I'm still keen to try it. I think exposing the AI to scripting is a great idea, and can imagine some wonderful scenarios where the computer has a good grasp on how to use combined arms to fight the war at hand).

[cheese_phantom]

Weird, I have had the same issue. Except for scenarios, I've never played any games to the end in Civ3 (the end of the time period -- I've won and lost before then of course). I have to say Civ3 never had the same "just one more turn" appeal to me that Civ2 did, and I've never worked out why.

The 3D unit graphics have certainly reduced the number of mods out there, and the ease (file size, etc) of install, but I don't think that's it.

I'd love to hear peoples ideas on why this is?

I think something has changed in the games balance and it is caused by some changes in the tech-tree. At a certain point, around 1500 or so, I usually found myself in sort of a stagnation. It was like a single thing to research was left and it took me too long to research it. No matter how strong I came to that place. And that was a strange feeling because I never got the feeling that I get stuck in Civ 2. Of course, I got stuck because of my mistakes a lot; but this is not the same like when you have to wait for a new page to open, although you did everything well until to that point.

Usually I saved the game there... and I never came back to continue :-)

Maybe it's just that I am still too much in love with my "winning strategy" in Civ2. It used to go like butter.

[gcarlton]

The question of why Civ3 (and others) slow down on the late game is an interesting one. I agree with the other posters about some causes.

A big factor is that exporing the map is fun, and when that phase ends the game gets alot "drier" and becomes more an entrenched conflict sort of game. Exploring is rewarding because you may find new profitable areas your civ may use in the future. Once these areas have been mopped up by you or your neighbours, expansion takes far more work. There is no more low hanging fruit to take.

The gameplay of managing an already large empire is never as much fun, and I think gets less fun over time because there is more drugery as your civ expands. I think it could be more fun than it is. Racing to get high tech weapons to steam roller over your neighbours should be ok, but in practice it seems like you can never get that "birds eye view" of the conflict that you might expect at this stage of the game, because its still very mired in the low level decisions which become progressively less important.

If you picture modern day conflicts, they are very much abstracted from trivial city planning. The decisions are purely about troop numbers, deployment, last minute diplomacy/spying, etc. There aren't enough of these decisions, and gathering an armed force in once place from all your cities is painful.

In theory, civ3's features of city managers and auto-workers should help, but I find using them completely unappealing. Perhaps others who use these features may find the late game significantly more fun?

[Warpstorm]

The 3D unit graphics have certainly reduced the number of mods out there, and the ease (file size, etc) of install, but I don't think that's it.

Civ3 did not have 3D unit graphics. They were basic 2D sprite animations. If you want any technical answers about Civ3, I can likely answer them. Why you guys are quitters, I don't know, probably that you've gotten used to casual games ;)

One thing that a lot of players try to do is micromanage everything in the late game. I've played many, many games of Civ3 to completion and I never do.

Some people do not realize that there are things like rally points to have new units automatically go to one spot or build queues to simplify rote city planning.

The main annoyance is that the AI is balanced such that it always wants uneven deals in trades.

Actually, from it's point of view it is playing fair. If you are willing to meet its price it is a fair price for the good. It works both ways, if they really want something like oil or their 6th luxury they will pay a lot for it. You obviously are thinking fair means fixed price rather than what the market will bear.

[gcarlton]

One thing that a lot of players try to do is micromanage everything in the late game. I've played many, many games of Civ3 to completion and I never do.
Ok, I can see that would definitely help. Perhaps I'm too picky, but I can't bear to see the AI build things the "wrong" way, such as mines instead of irrigation, or temples too early etc. I'll have to learn to let go.. :)

Actually, from it's point of view it is playing fair. If you are willing to meet its price it is a fair price for the good. It works both ways, if they really want something like oil or their 6th luxury they will pay a lot for it. You obviously are thinking fair means fixed price rather than what the market will bear.
I am thinking fair as in what a normal human player would consider fair in the circumstances. As you have played more than I have perhaps my perception of the trading is off, but if it is doing what I think it is doing, it sucks.

I've never played any of the Civ games with real multiplayer, but I have with Space Empires 4. When playing with normal human players, and trading is an interesting and rewarding part of the game, even when the players are all competing. An obviously beneficial trade such as 1 luxury for 1 luxury would be instantly agreeable, regardless who proposed it first. Trading is not about trying to screw the other player, it is about cooperating in the short term so both sides get ahead of the 6 or so other players. Rejecting a 1-1 trade and proposing, say, a 2-1 trade is a stupid strategy. A reasonable player would just then offer the trade to another player and reap the mutual benefit there instead. In fact, in a mixed human/AI game this technique would seriously set back the AIs - it only works because there are no other reasonable players in the game.

From this point of view the AI is not acting like a normal player, and the game is deliberately shutting the player out of the trading game just to make it harder. You could argue here that is reasonable for a hard difficulty, as if the AI's are in cahoots, saying "don't trade with this guy, let's all screw him". But its still undercutting a game dynamic, and I'd rather have a separate "gang up against the player" slider if I wanted that behaviour. In fact, SE4 has exactly that setting.

[botman]

Some good points all around, especially from gcarlton.

Civ3 did not have 3D unit graphics. They were basic 2D sprite animations.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply they were actually rendered in 3D, in game.

My point being no longer could anyone open up the unit tileset in Photoshop (or even Paint) and start playing around. Due to the amount of animation, drawing your own units from scratch would, I imagine, be a painful process. So your only realistic option is to create and animate a 3D model -- which is beyond the capability of a lot more people than the likes of Paint is.