Civ: Call to Power Preview
Ian Wu
I was not impressed.
"Corporate raider" units that suck money from an enemy city?
"Lawyer" units that stop enemy production?
I know it's just a game, but when a unit's function is completely
unrelated to it's true function in reality, it becomes very
silly. Especially in games like CIV, where a great part of the appeal
was its attempt to be realistic.
Call me crazy, but I was not one of the people who said after
playing CIV II, "what would make this game *really* cool is an
eco-terrorist unit."
What about a more complex economic model?
What about different types of natural resources that one needs
to produce and maintain certain units and would require players
to trade for them.( "I have to be friendly to X because if he
stops selling me Pretroleum, all my tanks and jet units would
be useless.")
I was hoping those kind of elements would make it into the next
version of CIV. But alas...
--
Ian Z. Wu "What has always made the State a hell
on earth has been precisely that man
Vanderbilt Law '00 has tried to make it his heaven"
Yale University '95 ---- F. Hoelderlin
str...@nospam.bigfoot.com
I have to agree with you on your points there... I've always strived to
make Civ2 as realistic as possible (author of the Fascist patch... the
same patch that makes it impossible to build ironclads without figuring
out how a cannon works... [that was in the original civ2 engine]).
Eco terrorists and lawyer units just makes it sound like Civ2 call to
power is like Buggs Bunny meats Ghandi! You can't (or shouldn't) mix
pop-culture and silliness with a game that is suppossed to reflect
realism in mankinds struggle to achieve a true civilization.
I'm sure I'll still get the game and enjoy it, though I will no longer
be refering to the game as "historical based strategy game"... I'll now
categorize it as "comic-fantasy based strategy game".
-Steve
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-
*Steve Strayer*
Undisputed Ruler of the Universe.
(the act of reading this is your acceptance of
all claims made by Steve Strayer, and/or affiliates
of said party speaking on his behalf. )
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Damocles
Yes, I was sad when I saw that in the preview. I suppose that's what
happens when a company gets its hands on a classic name and wants to
make it more "accessible". It's enough to make me wait and see the
reviews before buying.
On Sun, 06 Sep 1998 02:18:25 -0500, str...@nospam.bigfoot.com wrote:
>Ian,
>
>I have to agree with you on your points there... I've always strived to
>make Civ2 as realistic as possible (author of the Fascist patch... the
>same patch that makes it impossible to build ironclads without figuring
>out how a cannon works... [that was in the original civ2 engine]).
>
>Eco terrorists and lawyer units just makes it sound like Civ2 call to
>power is like Buggs Bunny meats Ghandi! You can't (or shouldn't) mix
>pop-culture and silliness with a game that is suppossed to reflect
>realism in mankinds struggle to achieve a true civilization.
>
>I'm sure I'll still get the game and enjoy it, though I will no longer
>be refering to the game as "historical based strategy game"... I'll now
>categorize it as "comic-fantasy based strategy game".
>
>-Steve
________________________________________________
Look out my window, what do I see?
Crack in the sky and a hand reaching down to me.
All the nightmares came today,
And it looks as though they're here to stay.
- David Bowie, "Oh You Pretty Things"
Michael Kaspar
GenCon in August and they did try to explain this. What they felt the game
was missing in its original form (ie Civ2) was a level of deviousness for
multiplay.
Take Civ2 as it is right now. You are Germany, and you are in a war with
England. What can you do??
1. You can pump out military units. Most have identical abilities (attack
factor, defense factor, movement, power, hitpoints), and what differs is how
they move or fight (planes bomb, naval units bombard, etc.).
2. You can try to gain allies by persuading other nations to do the same
thing you are doing, ie. here is 500 gold, go attack England, thru the
diplomacy screens.
3. You can send diplomats and spies to do their dirty work, including the
"buying" of cities, planting of nuclear devices, bribing units, etc.
Its been a long time since I played this game, so I am probably missing alot
of ideas here, but this should cover the basics (I am a newbie at this
game). What you couldn't do was...
1. Attack another covertly, except by using spies and diplomats, and I
"think" that at least ruined your reputation with other world powers.
2. Disable another country's economy, except by outright force, ie send a
transport in with 4 armor units and 4 howitzers to go take a city, and at
least this will kill off some population and prevent the city from doing
other things, like producing a wonder or nuclear units.
What the designers said to me was the idea for these units was to give a
player more options when conducting covert and overt operations against
another. Lawyers and Raiders are both economic attacks. Infectors are also
a form of economic attack (these units spread a bio weapon from city to
city, causing unhappiness and decreasing production, depending on how
extensive your trade network is). I am not trying to defend these people
here, just passing on information. What I saw was pretty interesting, and
it reminded me of some of the treachery involved in a good old fashioned
game of Diplomacy.
Michael J. Kaspar
ICQ 3025001
remove DONOTSPAM to reply thru email
Ian Wu wrote in message <35F209C3...@idt.net>...
Christoph Nahr
>"Corporate raider" units that suck money from an enemy city?
>"Lawyer" units that stop enemy production?
Yes, isn't that great? Just like in real life!
>I know it's just a game, but when a unit's function is completely
>unrelated to it's true function in reality, it becomes very
>silly. Especially in games like CIV, where a great part of the appeal
>was its attempt to be realistic.
Completely unrelated to reality? What are you talking about? These
raiders and lawyers are way more realistic than phalanxes sinking a
battleship...
--
Chris Nahr (cn...@hal9000.net, replace hal9000 with ibm to e-mail me)
Please don't e-mail me if you post! PGP key at wwwkeys.ch.pgp.net
Ian Wu
>
> On Sat, 05 Sep 1998 23:04:19 -0500, Ian Wu <wuz...@idt.net> wrote:
>
> >"Corporate raider" units that suck money from an enemy city?
> >"Lawyer" units that stop enemy production?
>
> Yes, isn't that great? Just like in real life!
>
> >I know it's just a game, but when a unit's function is completely
> >unrelated to it's true function in reality, it becomes very
> >silly. Especially in games like CIV, where a great part of the appeal
> >was its attempt to be realistic.
>
> Completely unrelated to reality? What are you talking about? These
> raiders and lawyers are way more realistic than phalanxes sinking a
> battleship...
I guess I missed it when the US send lawyers to the USSR to stop them
from producing nuclear warheads.
Jon Nisbet
Ian Wu <wuz...@idt.net> wrote in message 35F209C3...@idt.net...
>Anybody saw the CIV: Call to Power preview on OGR?
>
>I was not impressed.
What Activision was banking on has paid off *ten-fold*, apparently. They
were banking that by using the name "Civilization" in their name, hundreds
of thousands of gamers would be lured to their game based on the name. By
looking at the number of you were sucked in, their plan was a great success.
Civilization: Call to Power is NOT A CIV GAME!! You remember Avalon Hill's
"Civilization" board game from the 80's, as well as their "Advanced
Civilization" computer game from just 2-3 years ago, right? This is the same
thing. Activision bought out Avalon Hill and just last year, was in hot
legal battles with Microprose over the real ownership of the name
"Civilization." Surely you all remember this. Out of this legal circus came
Microprose with full ownership of the name, but Activision was allowed (by
"licensing" the name) to continue with their current project (a sequel to
Advanced Civilization), calling it Civilization: Call to Power.
I can easily see, though, how many many people have been duped. The OGR
previewer was apparently completely duped as well. I hope he realizes his
error and takes the preview down before thousands more gamers read it and
become outraged.
BTW, a real (Micrprose-made) Civilization wouldn't have "corporate raiders"
units, televangelist (with TV's for heads) units, and wouldn't rip off Age
of Empires' combat model and look. Civilization: Call to Power is simply a
Civilization wannabe and classic game copier that is in the downright
rotten position of being able to use the name of the best computer game of
all time.
I hope that clears things up for many of you. Don't be worried. Call to
Power isn't Civ 3, but merely another company's copy of Civ2 and Age of
Empires.
Jon
JSpectre07
>BTW, a real (Micrprose-made) Civilization wouldn't have "corporate raiders"
>units, televangelist (with TV's for heads) units, and wouldn't rip off Age
>of Empires' combat model and look. Civilization: Call to Power is simply a
>Civilization wannabe and classic game copier that is in the downright
>rotten position of being able to use the name of the best computer game of
>all time.
>
>I hope that clears things up for many of you. Don't be worried. Call to
>Power isn't Civ 3, but merely another company's copy of Civ2 and Age of
>Empires.
>
>Jon
Preach on, Brother Jon! Adding nonsense like "eco-terrorists" and >shudder<
"lawyers" is no way to attempt to improve upon the greatest game ever. Since
when did adding lawyers to ANYTHING make it better? Anyways, we should all shun
this game like the dog (and sacrilege) it will be.
Pat
When I am king you will be first against the wall
With your opinion which is of no consequence at all.
Ian Wu
>
> Ian Wu wrote:
> >
> > Christoph Nahr wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 05 Sep 1998 23:04:19 -0500, Ian Wu <wuz...@idt.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >"Corporate raider" units that suck money from an enemy city?
> > > >"Lawyer" units that stop enemy production?
> > >
> > > Yes, isn't that great? Just like in real life!
> > >
> > > >I know it's just a game, but when a unit's function is completely
> > > >unrelated to it's true function in reality, it becomes very
> > > >silly. Especially in games like CIV, where a great part of the appeal
> > > >was its attempt to be realistic.
> > >
> > > Completely unrelated to reality? What are you talking about? These
> > > raiders and lawyers are way more realistic than phalanxes sinking a
> > > battleship...
> >
> > I guess I missed it when the US send lawyers to the USSR to stop them
> > from producing nuclear warheads.
>
> didn't we? Essentially?
> --
Except of course there is *already* a diplomat unit in the original CIV.
And no, our diplomats couldn't arbitrarily stop them from making
bombs.
David Pipes
>
> Christoph Nahr wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 05 Sep 1998 23:04:19 -0500, Ian Wu <wuz...@idt.net> wrote:
> >
> > >"Corporate raider" units that suck money from an enemy city?
> > >"Lawyer" units that stop enemy production?
> >
> > Yes, isn't that great? Just like in real life!
> >
> > >I know it's just a game, but when a unit's function is completely
> > >unrelated to it's true function in reality, it becomes very
> > >silly. Especially in games like CIV, where a great part of the appeal
> > >was its attempt to be realistic.
> >
> > Completely unrelated to reality? What are you talking about? These
> > raiders and lawyers are way more realistic than phalanxes sinking a
> > battleship...
>
> I guess I missed it when the US send lawyers to the USSR to stop them
> from producing nuclear warheads.
You mean many diplomats are *not* lawyers? We did this with START,
didn't we? Essentially?
--
----------------------------------------
David Pipes
Remove P from return address to reply.
----------------------------------------
Nachtergal Philippe
>
> What Activision was banking on has paid off *ten-fold*, apparently. They
> were banking that by using the name "Civilization" in their name, hundreds
> of thousands of gamers would be lured to their game based on the name. By
> looking at the number of you were sucked in, their plan was a great success.
> Civilization: Call to Power is NOT A CIV GAME!! You remember Avalon Hill's
> "Civilization" board game from the 80's, as well as their "Advanced
> Civilization" computer game from just 2-3 years ago, right? This is the same
> thing. Activision bought out Avalon Hill and just last year, was in hot
> legal battles with Microprose over the real ownership of the name
> "Civilization." Surely you all remember this. Out of this legal circus came
> Microprose with full ownership of the name, but Activision was allowed (by
> "licensing" the name) to continue with their current project (a sequel to
> Advanced Civilization), calling it Civilization: Call to Power.
>
> Jon
The board game was out far before Microprose Civ's ever existed.
They couldn't really call Adv. Civ anything else than Adv. Civ.
P.
Mad Hatter
Ian Wu wrote:
> David Pipes wrote:
> >
> > Ian Wu wrote:
> > >
> > > Christoph Nahr wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 05 Sep 1998 23:04:19 -0500, Ian Wu <wuz...@idt.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >"Corporate raider" units that suck money from an enemy city?
> > > > >"Lawyer" units that stop enemy production?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, isn't that great? Just like in real life!
> > > >
> > > > >I know it's just a game, but when a unit's function is completely
> > > > >unrelated to it's true function in reality, it becomes very
> > > > >silly. Especially in games like CIV, where a great part of the appeal
> > > > >was its attempt to be realistic.
> > > >
> > > > Completely unrelated to reality? What are you talking about? These
> > > > raiders and lawyers are way more realistic than phalanxes sinking a
> > > > battleship...
> > >
> > > I guess I missed it when the US send lawyers to the USSR to stop them
> > > from producing nuclear warheads.
> >
> > You mean many diplomats are *not* lawyers? We did this with START,
> > didn't we? Essentially?
> > --
>
> Except of course there is *already* a diplomat unit in the original CIV.
> And no, our diplomats couldn't arbitrarily stop them from making
Yes. And that diplomat already serves a function. Civ units are there to serve
but one function, not multiple. And Diplomats can't arbitrarily stop them? Huh?
Than explain to me economic sanctions? How about propaganda? All trades of the
diplomat/lawyer. We forced the former USSR into an arms race that bankrupted
their country, while we force Saddam to stop making Bio Weapons through
sanctions/force.
MH
Mad Hatter
Don't be offended here, but some of your facts are a little off base.
Jon Nisbet wrote:
> Ian Wu <wuz...@idt.net> wrote in message 35F209C3...@idt.net...
> >Anybody saw the CIV: Call to Power preview on OGR?
> >
> >I was not impressed.
>
> What Activision was banking on has paid off *ten-fold*, apparently. They
> were banking that by using the name "Civilization" in their name, hundreds
> of thousands of gamers would be lured to their game based on the name. By
> looking at the number of you were sucked in, their plan was a great success.
I like what I see. I'm not SUCKED into the name. I like the idea that it takes
Civ into the possible what-ifs future. Does it have the name, sure? Does it have
the gameplay to back it up? We'll see. Let's not be hasty in reviewing this
title.
> Civilization: Call to Power is NOT A CIV GAME!! You remember Avalon Hill's
> "Civilization" board game from the 80's, as well as their "Advanced
> Civilization" computer game from just 2-3 years ago, right? This is the same
> thing.
Yup. And Microprose's Civ isn't a Civ game either by your logic.
> Activision bought out Avalon Hill and just last year, was in hot
> legal battles with Microprose over the real ownership of the name
> "Civilization."
Whoops. Here we go. Hertland Trefoil, a British game company, created the
original board game version of Civ. Sid Meier loved the game. Microprose got the
rights from them to create a game loosley based on it.
Meanwhile, Avalon Hill acquired the rights to publish the board game version.
Activision received the rights to create a Civ game loosely based on Civ from
Avalon Hill.
It appears Avalon Hill didn't hold the rights over the game the way they thought
they did. They have a small history of this. They created a Dune board game and
were going to rerelease it when they found out they no longer had the licensing
rights.
So, now here comes Hasbro. They are making good cash off of their PC boardgame
conversions. So they want the Civ name. Now remember, Activision got the go
ahead from Avalon Hill, Microprose got the go ahead from Heartland Trefoil.
Hasbro buys the Avalon Hill game company and, within the same week, they also
purchase Microprose. They now own this title with absolutely no legal
entanglements.
> Surely you all remember this. Out of this legal circus came
> Microprose with full ownership of the name, but Activision was allowed (by
> "licensing" the name) to continue with their current project (a sequel to
> Advanced Civilization), calling it Civilization: Call to Power.
Correct.
>
>
> I can easily see, though, how many many people have been duped. The OGR
> previewer was apparently completely duped as well. I hope he realizes his
> error and takes the preview down before thousands more gamers read it and
> become outraged.
>
> BTW, a real (Micrprose-made) Civilization wouldn't have "corporate raiders"
> units, televangelist (with TV's for heads) units, and wouldn't rip off Age
> of Empires' combat model and look. Civilization: Call to Power is simply a
> Civilization wannabe and classic game copier that is in the downright
> rotten position of being able to use the name of the best computer game of
> all time.
Well, I hope for your sake that Hasbro does a much better job with the sequel.
>
>
> I hope that clears things up for many of you. Don't be worried. Call to
> Power isn't Civ 3, but merely another company's copy of Civ2 and Age of
> Empires.
Hm. Not a bad mix for a game.
>
>
> Jon
MH
Ian Wu
>
> Ian Wu wrote:
>
> > > > I guess I missed it when the US send lawyers to the USSR to stop them
> > > > from producing nuclear warheads.
> > >
> > > You mean many diplomats are *not* lawyers? We did this with START,
> > > didn't we? Essentially?
> > > --
> >
> > Except of course there is *already* a diplomat unit in the original CIV.
> > And no, our diplomats couldn't arbitrarily stop them from making
>
> Yes. And that diplomat already serves a function. Civ units are there to serve
> but one function, not multiple. And Diplomats can't arbitrarily stop them? Huh?
> Than explain to me economic sanctions? How about propaganda? All trades of the
> diplomat/lawyer. We forced the former USSR into an arms race that bankrupted
> their country, while we force Saddam to stop making Bio Weapons through
> sanctions/force.
>
> MH
>
Except breaking trade routes is *also* already in another part of the
game.
And the whole CIV game is an "arms race", the functions you discribe are
already incorporated into the game, there is no separate ability on the
part of lawyers to stop other countries' production beyond the methods
that are already in the game.
Peter "Enjolras" Karpas - Activision
>snip
>Civilization: Call to Power is NOT A CIV GAME!! You remember Avalon Hill's
>"Civilization" board game from the 80's, as well as their "Advanced
>Civilization" computer game from just 2-3 years ago, right? This is the
same
>thing.
I guess I should clear this up because there's definitely some
mis-information floating out there.
Civilization: Call to Power is absolutely a Civ game. That is what it means
to be fully licensed. We are making the next generation Civilization
game -- and are working very hard to meet the incredibly high expectations
which come with making the next generation of one of the greatest games of
all time.
To be really clear, Civ:CTP also has absolutely nothing to do with Advanced
Civilization, and was never intended or designed to be a sequel to it.
If you'd like to read more, you can find the full press release in the
Inside Activision section on our website at www.activision.com
Peter
--
Peter "Enjolras" Karpas
Product Manager, Activision, Inc.
http://www.activision.com
Ian Wu
>
> I guess I should clear this up because there's definitely some
> mis-information floating out there.
>
> Civilization: Call to Power is absolutely a Civ game. That is what it means
> to be fully licensed. We are making the next generation Civilization
> game -- and are working very hard to meet the incredibly high expectations
> which come with making the next generation of one of the greatest games of
> all time.
License just means they have the rights to the name. But the game design
itself(all the new stuff) is nothing like the original games' style or
substance.
Whose idea was it to add year 2000-3000 A.D. to the game and add a bunch
of non-sensical units (whose functions have nothing to do with their
functions
in real life) anyway.
What would have been great would be an attempt to make a game that is
even
more historically precise than the previous versions. Diversify natural
resources, more complex economic model, more variety of military units
etc.
I guess I could buy the copyright to the works of Williams Shakespeare
and
then publish my "official" sequel to MacBeth, it would be the same thing
as what Activision is doing.
--
Peter "Enjolras" Karpas - Activision
>"Lawyer" units that stop enemy production?
>unrelated to it's true function in reality, it becomes very
>silly. Especially in games like CIV, where a great part of the appeal
Hi Ian. I thought it might be helpful to you if I re-posted a post I made
after GenCon (don't you love DejaNews sometimes? It makes it so much easier
to find things....). My apologies for re-posting, but a lot of thought went
into that post and it seemed silly to me to re-write it again in a different
way. :-)
The key point that I'd like to explain is that the Unconventional Warfare
units are designed specifically to give players more strategies, more
options, more ways to do things.
I just want to re-assure you that, like the current Civs, our ideas did come
from reality but were extrapolated to fit into the Civ game (much like a 20
year turn was in the current Civ's). For example, the idea of the Corporate
Branch siphoning production out of a city comes directly from the real world
equivalent of large companies setting up sweat-shops in 3rd World
countries -- they get a lot of production for cheap, and that production
goes mainly to the company's country rather than the 3rd World country (this
is purely an economic observation, not a social or political one).
So, following is our key thinking that went into the design of Civilization:
Call to Power.
BEGIN REPOST
When we were handed this gift of being able to make the next generation
Civilization game, our first reaction was pure and utter joy, followed
closely by this huge sense of responsibility. How do you make the next
generation of one of the greatest games of all time -- if not the greatest
game of all time (as some would argue)?
What we did was spend a tremendous amount of time discussing what it was
that made Civilization so amazingly good. And in the end we came down to 2
basic things.
First, the essential fantasy of the game is just so compelling. The idea of
taking your little nomadic settler unit in 4000BC, and from that creating a
huge empire over 6000 years, is just incredibly fun. No other game does
that (most would be lucky to cover a hundred years), and it sets the game
apart in a great way.
Second, the game allows for tons of different strategies. The Civilization
games are arguably the most replayable of all-time. I've discussed Civ with
lots of people, and all of them are convinced that their method ofplaying is
the best -- and none of them have the same method. :-)
So, we decided to max out those two basic things, and then add 3 other
things: 1) great interface, 2) great graphics, and 3) great multiplayer.
We maxed out the essential fantasy of the game by going an additional 1000
years into the future -- Civilization: Call to Power ends in the year
3000AD. The cool thing about this is you get to create your own future. If
in the future your cities are like Blade Runner -- overpopulated, polluted,
and the people are unhappy -- your decisions made it that way. If on the
other hand you have a Star Trek-like future -- egalitarian, the people are
happy, everything is clean -- your decisions also made it that way. We
scoured science fiction to create a bunch of possible futures, and they're
in the game.
We maxed out the strategies in the game by introducing what we call
"Unconventional Warfare", which is the idea that not all wars are fought on
the battlefield. The vast majority of game have purely military units --
attack rating, defense rating, hit points, special "powers". But we know
from the real world that there are many other ways to conduct war --
religious warfare, economic warfare, happiness warfare (Radio Free Europe),
production warfare, biological warfare, etc. These ways of conducting war
are now in the game, and many of them aren't actually diplomatic
declarations of war. The point of the cleric and lawyer units and all the
other unconventional warfare units isn't to be clever -- it's to provide the
player with new strategies, better strategies, more flexibility in weakening
opponents, and, overall, allow for greater creativity and fun in how you
play.
As for interface, graphics, and multiplayer, there's another post later in
this thread that discussed interface in great detail, and I'll try to
respond to that over the next few days (much of what was asked for is
already in the current build of Civ:CTP). Multiplayer was answered well by
Jeff at Firaxis, and of course we're facing the same issues and doing
similar things (as well as some testing out some other things). As for
graphics, we believe they're important for 2 reasons: 1) they help with the
fantasy of the game, and 2) we've tried to make it so that the art direction
follows the design of the game, not the other way around. Meaning, we've
made the look of our units suggests their use -- a defensive unit will LOOK
more defensive, an more offensive unit will have a larger weapon, etc. This
helps you play the game better, as just by look you get an idea of what the
unit's strengths/weaknesses are without having to look it up in a chart.
I hope this answers some questions! My apologies for the long post...
Richard
Ian Wu wrote in message <35F209C3...@idt.net>...
>Anybody saw the CIV: Call to Power preview on OGR?
>"Corporate raider" units that suck money from an enemy city?
>"Lawyer" units that stop enemy production?
>I know it's just a game, but when a unit's function is completely
>unrelated to it's true function in reality, it becomes very
>silly. Especially in games like CIV, where a great part of the appeal
>was its attempt to be realistic. --snip--Hi Ian. I thought it might be helpful to you if I re-posted a post I made
after GenCon (don't you love DejaNews sometimes? It makes it so much easier
to find things....). My apologies for re-posting, but a lot of thought went
into that post and it seemed silly to me to re-write it again in a different
way. :-)The key point that I'd like to explain is that the Unconventional Warfare
units are designed specifically to give players more strategies, more
options, more ways to do things.
I guess the game would be way too difficult to make to have realistic economy, envirnmental, and social models. All that probably takes a lot of real-life research before it can be modelled successfully and implemented into a game. But if it can be done, then we'll have a true Unconventional Warfare.
Dean ODonnell
>
>License just means they have the rights to the name. But the game design
>itself(all the new stuff) is nothing like the original games' style or
>substance.
>Whose idea was it to add year 2000-3000 A.D. to the game and add a bunch
>of non-sensical units (whose functions have nothing to do with their
>functions
>in real life) anyway.
[snip]
>
>I guess I could buy the copyright to the works of Williams Shakespeare
>and
>then publish my "official" sequel to MacBeth, it would be the same thing
>as what Activision is doing.
Actually, you couldn't. Shakespeare's plays are all in the public domain.
You could just go ahead and write the sequel to _Macbeth_ without licensing
a damn thing. Similar things have been done, take, for instance, Tom
Stoppard's _Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead_. Not quite a sequel to
_Hamlet_, but another play whose scenes all take place between the scenes of
Shakespeare's _Hamlet_.
It was quite successful.
Different doesn't mean bad, it just means different.
Dean
David Pipes
>
> Peter \"Enjolras\" Karpas - Activision wrote:
>
> > >Anybody saw the CIV: Call to Power preview on OGR?
> > >"Corporate raider" units that suck money from an enemy city?
> > >"Lawyer" units that stop enemy production?
> > >I know it's just a game, but when a unit's function is completely
> > >unrelated to it's true function in reality, it becomes very
> > >silly. Especially in games like CIV, where a great part of the appeal
> > >was its attempt to be realistic. --snip--
> >
> > Hi Ian. I thought it might be helpful to you if I re-posted a post I made
> > after GenCon (don't you love DejaNews sometimes? It makes it so much easier
> >
> > to find things....). My apologies for re-posting, but a lot of thought went
> >
> > into that post and it seemed silly to me to re-write it again in a different
> >
> > way. :-)
> >
> > The key point that I'd like to explain is that the Unconventional Warfare
> > units are designed specifically to give players more strategies, more
> > options, more ways to do things.
> >
>
> Somehow, buliding a lawyer unit to stop enemy production sounds extremely
> silly. If I want to stop enemy production of nuclear warheads, I should
> sanction supplies like Uranium, sabtoage the country's nuclear industry,
> kidnap their scientists, etc....not build a single lawyer unit to stop enemy
> production. If I want to raid their money, I should estabilish a market in
> that city and earn it, not sending in an arbitury unit "Corporate Raider".
> The same goes for other 'uncoventional warfare units'. The Uncoventional
> Warfare model should be modelled differently instead of making them into an
> arbitury unit.
>
> I guess the game would be way too difficult to make to have realistic
> economy, envirnmental, and social models. All that probably takes a lot of
> real-life research before it can be modelled successfully and implemented into
> a game. But if it can be done, then we'll have a true Unconventional Warfare.
"I saw this great movie last weekend, it was about this really incompetent
lawyer, see, and his company gets so fed up with him they send him on this
deal to the Soviet Union..."
"But that doesn't exist anymore! That's not realistic!"
"Yeah yeah yeah, but look...He gets there, and looks just like this guy who
got elected, but murdered by the Mafia, and..."
"What? Where were the police? How did the lawyer learn Russian? It's totally
bogus! The director should be ashamed!"
"He had Russian grandparents...Anyway, he ends up taking over this guy's role
to cover for the government, and they put him in charge of nuclear weapons
planning! Ha! But he's so incompetent that..."
"OH COME ON! That's SO stupid! How can you even believe it! I'll never
see that movie! It's just NOT REAL!!! It's gotta be REAL!"
"yeah, well, it was fun..."
"OH, WELL I GUESS THAT MAKES IT ALL RIGHT, THEN, HUH? I'm going to send them
a letter, they can't do this, it's BOGUS!!!!"
"Geez, calm down, it just a movie. It's just a movie. It's just a
moooovvvviiieee...."
Damocles
Activision" <civili...@activision.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
>
>The key point that I'd like to explain is that the Unconventional Warfare
>units are designed specifically to give players more strategies, more
>options, more ways to do things.
My problem with this is not so much the unconventional angle of it,
but how cutesy it looks. It gives me a bad feeling, makes me wonder
how much of the game has been given a comic, whiz bang feel to make it
more accessible to the buying public (which never did make the Civ
games mega hits no matter how good they were).
Scotticus
time movies. Top 3 list
1. Princess Bride
2. Braveheart (for the realism in battle)
3. Rosancrantz and Guildenstern are dead
Another excellent 'thinker' film. is 'The Kings Whore' Beautifully done,
don't be put off by the title.
Scotticus. 'Damn you Advance _left_ flank'
P.S. Piss off. I said offtopic in the subject and this thread was dying
anyways...
Dean ODonnell wrote in message ...
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
uttered:
>I like to unconventional warfare idea, but I have to agree with Ian.. Somehow,
>buliding a lawyer unit to stop enemy production sounds extremely silly.
Why? Civ has several abstractions already - you don't seriously
believe that a phalanx unit is a lonely bugger with a pilum?
I will most likely buy Civ:CtP, especially if they include better
scenario editors than the sort-of-working stuff that MPS shipped with
Fantastic Worlds.
But only if it does appear before Alpha Centauri. :-)
--
"I had to upgrade the memory of my 8088 from to 256K to 640K just to play [Demon's Winter]."
- gmad...@usa.net
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen http://www.pvv.org/%7etoriver/
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
uttered:
>They created a Dune board game and
>were going to rerelease it when they found out they no longer had the licensing
>rights.
AH _did_ make a Dune board game - and it was excellent, and even
spawned two expansions (which not all board games do). But apparently
the license elapsed, so no reprints will be forthcoming.
The AH Dune board game is one of the most tresured games of any
serious game collection. Woe unto me for not knowing where my copy is.
:-(
The AH computer "Advanced Civ." was also quite good, apart from an
_insanely_ slow AI when it came to deciding boat purchases.
Chan Hoong Keong
>etc....not build a single lawyer unit to stop enemy production. If I want to
>raid their money, I should estabilish a market in that city and earn it, not
>sending in an arbitury unit "Corporate Raider". The same goes for other
Hmmm, but "Corporate Raider" does exist in real life.
sum...@mediaone.net
the works, nor is it on the drawing board. There is a Civ2 expansion
in the works that was originally sceduled for the middle of next year,
but with the buy-out and the delay in Civgold, you easily expect that
to be pushed to Christmas 99.
>Anybody saw the CIV: Call to Power preview on OGR?
>
>"Corporate raider" units that suck money from an enemy city?
>"Lawyer" units that stop enemy production?
>
>I know it's just a game, but when a unit's function is completely
>unrelated to it's true function in reality, it becomes very
>silly. Especially in games like CIV, where a great part of the appeal
>was its attempt to be realistic.
Ask Gates how many millions he spent on lawyers to fight the
government and then figure what that could have been used to actually
produce something and THEN tell us how lawyers can stop production.
In 3rd world countries, you send your lawyers to bribe the government
and they stop production for you.. Also consider how almost all
productive industries in 3rd world countries are companies purchased
by "Corporate Raiders"(who then ship the profits out of the country.)
>Call me crazy, but I was not one of the people who said after
>playing CIV II, "what would make this game *really* cool is an
>eco-terrorist unit."
If I have any problem with all these units, it's that they have to be
corretly balanced. It seems fairly easy to make one of these
"specials" a real game-breaker.
>What about a more complex economic model?
>What about different types of natural resources that one needs
>to produce and maintain certain units and would require players
>to trade for them.( "I have to be friendly to X because if he
>stops selling me Pretroleum, all my tanks and jet units would
>be useless.")
Try playing "Destiny" from I-magic. More than 100 resource types, 500
different units, several hundred installations, 20 government types,
more than 1000 techs, more than a dozen diplomatic missions, 25
esponiage options, a complicated tax/education system, nuclear
weapons, 10 players, a random-generated map larger than 100 civ 2
maps, a turn-based AND real-time combat system(with tactical
mode)-everything, anything and the kitchen sink twice! Up until
Destiny I was sure that complexity/size made a better game(although I
think it still makes a POTENTIALLY better game.) Point being that
complexity/depth doenst always equal playabiltiy/fun.
>I was hoping those kind of elements would make it into the next
>version of CIV. But alas...
Dennis Andrew Blazewicz
[snip]
: Eco terrorists and lawyer units just makes it sound like Civ2 call to
: power is like Buggs Bunny meats Ghandi! You can't (or shouldn't) mix
Kinky. Necrophilia and beastiality all in one :)
Dennis
--
Support Freedom on the Internet! http://eff.org
'68 Nova SS - 327 CID - TH350 - High Stall - Edelbrock Intake
'88 Sunbird - 2.0L OHC - 3T40 - 14x6 '85 Pontiac 6000 Alloys
IRC Operator: irc.total.net (EFNet) Nickname: Astinu