NOTE: This is The Column, a regular feature on Apolyton where anyone can write about anything to do with Civilization or the gaming industry as a whole. If you feel like writing, please visit the article submission page.

PREVIOUS ARTICLES

164# APOLYTON: THE GAMER'S HUB If you saw the opening of the Earth 2025 and Trade Wars 2002 forums, there is more, as Father Beast talks about the benefits of the Other Games forum 163# VARIANCES IN GAME PLAY SETUPS Some ways to spice up your civ games 162# STRATEGY "BUGS" OF CIVILIZATION Some things from real world strategy are missing civ. Here are some. #161 KNOW YOUR ENEMY A description of the most common "types" of civ players #160 JUST A LITTLE THOUGHT ABOUT CIV A smac lover does his duty as a user of Apolyton and writes for the Column :) COLUMN ARCHIVE

I always wanted to write and article for the column, but never had the courage to do so, due to lack of confidence in my English writing abilities. Therefore, I hereby ask for your indulgency towards my ankward style.

I've only made up my mind to submit this article to MarkG, because of an extremely worrying piece of news: Civilization III, the game we are all eager for, will have a maximum of 7 simultaneous civs.

This wouldn't necessarilly be bad news, if it wasn't for the fact that most Civ2 scenario developers and scenario players were waiting for a higher number of simultaneous civs to be implemented in Civ3.

Scenarios with 10 or 11 different civs would mean a great improvement since that would add realism and fun to a way of playing civ that is, in my humble opinion, what has made of Civ2 a game you can play for years and yet not get tired of it. Scenario creators wanted more civs and Firaxis didn't listen.

Furthermore, most multiplayers would find interesting to play against 10, or even maybe 12 humans, while most single players would love to play in a world map filled with 15 civs. The more enemies, the merrier.

But, I'll say it again, Firaxis didn't listen.

The Apolyton community has always had the assumption (or the hope) that Firaxis was taking in mind their input and their opinions on how Civ3 should be like. I'm afraid that's not true.

There's one thing I know for sure: Firaxis is not listening to the Civ2 community (Civ2 community meaning the community of fans that came to Apolyton or other Civ-gaming sites due to their love for Civ2).

And that's because they see Civ3 as a whole new game. And so, they don't want to design a brand new game around the opinions and hopes of the Civ2 (a 1996 game) fans community. They're aiming for a new target, people that most likely have never played Civ2- let alone the original Civilization. They're probably people that love Command&Conquer or Red Alert. And Firaxis make them to buy Civ3.

Just look at what Firaxis has shown us so far: they're including RTS-like eye candy, and they're implementing absurd Age of Empires ideas (like unique Civ units and advantages), so that they can appeal to the vast majority of gamers out there. Did the Apolyton community desperately ask for them? I don't think so.

At least, thet's not what you see when you read the Essential Civ3 List, the pride of the Apolyton community, and the result of hundreds of brainstorming effort from hundreds of Apolyton posters.

Let's take a look at it, and compare it with what we already know, thanks to the Firaxis official website and various magazine previews, about Civ3.

The things to fix that received the most votes were Trade and Diplomacy. They indeed seem to have been improved, but only the players will be able to tell, when Civ3 is actually out in the street.

The third people's choice was "Make it harder for Civs to last". We haven't read a word about this.

Comprehensive scenario editor. The List already explained, after loads of long posts on the matter, which means should the scenario creator be given to make his work. However, a few months ago, Dan Magaha asked the posters' opinion on the issue. He was given pretty much the same response. Should have read the List first.

Also, a very popular fix was "Improved rail & railroads rules". Firaxis doesn't think that needs improvement. Oh well.

And how about the new ideas?

There were 75 votes for "Rise and Fall of Empires" in the List, and not a single word about it in the previews.

Then came "Domestic Politics". It seems like it isn't in. None of the previews we've got so far have spoken a single word about this. The only step in this direction seems to be the implementation of Culture, which helps you to easily assimilate conquered populations (apparently more eager to revolt). But what about your own population? Wil they be as "influenciable" as ever?

New modes of Victory. The idea, as proposed by the community, was a radical and interesting idea dealing with three different maps in the game (political, market and religious). This idea isn't in. We know they've added the UN victory (not really a new feature in the genre, since it will work prety much like in SMAC), and they say they're "talking about" including a Corporate Victory. They confess it's a "very unformed idea". My guess is that it won't finally be in, as it happened to Minor Civs.

Energy. Another one that isn't in. There won't be energy Barrels. It's true that we will need certain resources to build some units, and it's true that uranium is one of them, but, errr... for some reason, the new resources system, though still an improvement to Civ2, doesn't look "Civvish" to me.

Stacks. They're in, but with some weird rules, and the player won't be able to build armies (read: stacks) them until Nationalism is discovered (most likely second half of the game). Boo! Besides, as Harlan has already pointed out, what will force you to build balanced armies?

Religion. Not a single word about it. Culture and nationality all the way.

That's pretty much it. You make your judgement. I feel disappointed, for the "Message from Sid" posted here in Apolyton something like a year ago, gave me the great hope that Sid Meier and Firaxis were aiming to please the community will.

But if you think about it, that would be pretty useless for a corporation like Firaxis. They want to stockpile bags of money, after all. We may be 10000 registered members in the Apolyton forums, but their goal is selling millions of Civ3 copies all around the world, so what are us to them?

I don't blame them. But I'd just like Civ fans to realize this: Civ3 won't be THE game. Most people here dreamt of an improved Civ2. Civ2 with a smarter AI, Civ2 with more simultaneous civs, Civ2 with improved trade, Civ2 with a better combat system, Civ2 with cool things like religions, etc. Civ3 won't be any of those.

Perhaps I'm going too far, but I don't even think Civ3 will be an appropriate sequel for a legendary saga like Sid Meier's Civilization. Why don't Firaxis just name it "Age of Civilizations"?

Seriously now, I suspect I'm not alone here. I could name without much effort a good bunch of friends I've made in the SL, Civ2 and Civ3 forums (you know who you are) who think that the seven civs limit is a sad omen for Civ3. And I think that they won't be very fond of the unit animations either.

So what can the community do about this? Well, I happen to have a very interesting suggestion for you all. Take some free time, and browse the Alternative Civs section. There you'll find some damn good projects, which are being run by the Civ fans, and which you can join if you want to. Speak your mind about how you'd improve Civilization, and help yourself and others to enjoy that perfect game we are all waiting for.

These projects are more worth my free time than Firaxis's Civ2 if you ask me.

Thanks for your interest,

Fiera.



---------
About the author: I'm a Civilization fan since 1991 and a Civ community member in the broad sense of the word.

Comment on this article!

The opinions expressed on this page do not necessarily reflect those of Apolyton CS or GameStats. They are just the personal opinions of the writer.