|
Home |
View Poll Results: Your Civ4 forecast | |||
Civ4 will rule, more than all it's predecessors (at that time) | 4 | 14.29% | |
Civ4 will be just as good as it's predecessors (at that time) | 18 | 64.29% | |
Civ4 won't be as good as it's predecessor(s) | 5 | 17.86% | |
Civ4 will be a big flop! | 1 | 3.57% | |
Voters: 28. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
14-08-2005, 09:24 | #21 | ||||||||||||||||
King
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Germany.
Posts: 1,746
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Here is one (of many) example to show you just how careless Firaxis is about programming and how bad they are at it: When you install Civ3, you are asked where you want the Civ3 folder in the start menu. However, whatever you write there, it always goes in \Start Menu\Infogrames\ . This even has little to do with actual programming, especially since there is the "Windows Installer" which makes it easier to integrate your own installing routine. And they still mess it up? Why do they even ask for a start menu folder when they disregard it? Even if you are not a programmer, this is like making a presentation and having a major spelling mistake on your frontpage. You havn't even started that game and there is the first bug!!! Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
All in all I agree with most of your construction points but think you should also see the Civ series from other people's perspective as well. And sure, I realize that mine is biased as well as I sometimes see it from a fanatic's pov. Anyways, if Civ2 had only 2 of the following; borders, culture, armies, decent means of defense - I'd still be playing that. |
||||||||||||||||
14-08-2005, 15:54 | #22 |
Emperor
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,946
|
Since I don't like Snitz's quotes when you reply...
- Re Diplomats : In Civ3 you can steal techs through a special screen, don't you like that too ? I can understand the use of a special unit, but it'd be like a unit that would destroy a city's wall or something like that. Even bribing could be nice. But diplomats in Civ2 and their enhanced versions the spies were SO powerful (sometimes I would buy many cities for little money until the AI was smart enough to revolt to democracy), with so many options in ONE unit, that sometimes I'd build only that and... - Re Caravans : Well, you agree they were too powerful. In Civ3 they were replaced by a diplomacy screen where you could set up trades and by leaders that could rush wonders. What do you prefer ? I think it was stupid to have units to just set up a trade route, not to run it, and I prefer rare units to randomly pop up to rush wonders than units that you could build when you want to rush those wonders (in fact it was like building a wonder with a few cities, that was so easy !). - Re Supermarkets and highways : I liked them. You're right, probably something to think about for later stages of the game and railroads. - Re Tech tree : Sometimes in Civ2 it would go like this (I'll take a false example because I can't exactly recall, and I didn't patch anything, I used the French version box that included Civ2 and the 2 expansion CDs). At some point in the game I would be asked to choose between Writing, Horseback Riding and Monarchy. I'd choose Monarchy and once I got it, only Writing would be offered, and I wouldn't be able to choose to research Horseback Riding for some reason. I would get pissed by that. In Civ3 it can't happen : you have the tech tree in front of you, a well drawn tech tree, so it's the best one so far. - Re Terraforming : Disagree about its reality, you can turn marsh and jungle into plains or grasslands, but not plains into desert or mountains into hills ! Not on such a large scale anyway. In gameplay, it tends to turn the landscape into a uniform layout and I find it boring. Civ3's nukes (which I have never seen so far) can turn lakes into desert, lol ! You can see some examples of such changes in the world, but on a very low level (Aral Sea...). - Re Corruption : Yes that is my opinion (like the other points). Civ may turn into a game where expansionism isn't the key, and that will be good, and Civ4 may be a great leap towards this actually. But we were talking about Civ2, where it was better indeed. - Re Larger maps : I think that standard map sizes and numbers of turns are balanced regarding what's happening in the game. If the game is built so that a smaller map and a lower number of turns are needed, then fine. Nothing prevents you to go into the editor and play on a 500x500 map. Good point about chess. I was just trying to say that I don't think that the more the better. Same for options. - Re Wonder movies and city view : Mmmh I said that the city view only was useless. Even if the wonder movies aren't that needed anyway. But really, you liked to watch those movies a lot, didn't you ? How many times did you interrupt your game to stare at your city ? Me : once maybe. I also have a biaised view, as I played this game a lot. As a general statement I'd say : - I favour gameplay over realistic elements anytime. - I try to meet realistic elements when gameplay doesn't suffer from it. - A game won't necessarily get better if you add more units, features and stuff, it could get worse.
__________________
Sent from my Debian |
14-08-2005, 17:31 | #23 | ||||||||
King
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Germany.
Posts: 1,746
|
Alright, last time:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Example (making it up as I type): Before any trade between two civs, the parties have to move a caravan each to one of the other civs' city (in addition or as a replacement to the road). If a caravan is captured, the enemy could maybe join it with certain bonuses. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1) I said I agree about the mountain/hill aspect, no need to bring it up again. 2) Maybe you should talk to Killer about this. Not on a large scale? You know how many millions of square miles are turned into desert EACH YEAR? Or fields into plains? Well, I don't, but I know it's a lot and if you insist (and be annoying) I WILL find out. I can assure you it is A LOT! And as I said before, it can be reversed without any high tech, also on a grand scale. All it takes is some man power to plant some appropriate plants (bushes iirc) to stop the earth from eroding, then making the earth more fertile again. 3) Who is talking about lakes? But sure, it is possible, now that you mention it. [] The reason why we don't see it in the real world is that thankfully so far we have not seen any more nukes set off in fertile areas. But if you look at the predictions of a modern nuke war, Civ is actually UNDERSTATING the whole issue. 4) You like spitting hairs, don't you? On the one hand you accept limited realism, on the other you complain about lakes drying out because of nukes. Dude, if the Civ-Map would be anything realistic, it would have to be 50000*50000 tiles. Quote:
Quote:
Oh, and one last thing (which I know I shouldn't even mention but can't help it (will also add it to my list)): I like the Civ3 health bar better than the one in Civ2. BUT: Despite many people complaining about the "spear killing the tank", I do think it is all that unrealistic (as iirc I also mentioned when we chatted). On the contrary, I like to think that the "1st Spearman Battalion" that I build 3000BC learns a trick or two in the couple of thousand years since it's existance. Just look at the middle-east conflict where even people living under the poorest cirumstances manage to get their hands on enough explosives to blow up military targets. Why shouldn't my elite Spearman come up with something that, with some luck (and maybe a great leader???), can take out a unit of tanks. It's not like it doesn't happen in the real world. |
||||||||
14-08-2005, 17:46 | #24 |
Nebuchadnezzar II
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Glover Park
Posts: 4,459
|
There is only one bad thing about Civ2 (except for poor graphics even for that time when the game was released they were poor quality; still better than Civ1 though): ICS. ICS kills the game, you win so easily on any level against the AI, it was absolutely not challenging. Civ3 is not extremely challenging either but it is way more challenging. However, AI is also extremely dumb but to win a game, a player has to apply some more intelligent methods. In Civ2 there was nothing challenging, just ICS and ICS.
__________________
Cujusvis hominis est errare; nullius, nisi insipientis in errore perseverare Ciceron (Marcus Tullius) |
14-08-2005, 19:10 | #25 | |
King
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Germany.
Posts: 1,746
|
Quote:
|
|
14-08-2005, 20:14 | #26 |
Emperor
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,946
|
So after a few MPs with Markstar, I won't answer to his post, because I know it won't lead to some agreement or clear difference. But I now know more about why some people think Civ2 was a better game (with regards to the time both games were created !). I prefer Civ3.
What REALLY concerns me though (like most of you), and so that we're back on topic, is what Civ4 will be. I hope that, whatever the means, Civ4 will make people forget about Civ1, 2 and 3 altogether. Every category Markstar mentioned should get better than in either previous version. And it's possible. Don't say it's not until we're proven wrong. ICS : How did this concept help playing so good in Civ2 ? Just curious. Is it different and so less effective in Civ3 ? If yes, what different factors than from Civ2 make it so ? Have we already heared some stuff from Civ4 that will kill ICS once for all ? Is the removal of corruption one of this stuff ? So many questions, I should be shot to death.
__________________
Sent from my Debian |
14-08-2005, 20:20 | #27 |
Nebuchadnezzar II
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Glover Park
Posts: 4,459
|
Nothing special, just build ICS build and granaries in a few cities. Then settle everything you can. Then build whatever you want. Preferably revolting to Democracy somewhere on the way to get rid of waste. Make the AIs declare on you (the senate will not make peace then) and kill them all. But last time I played Civ2 was 7 years ago iirc.
And I have not played multiplayer in Civ2. I think I had some "deodorant" version which was not working in MP.
__________________
Cujusvis hominis est errare; nullius, nisi insipientis in errore perseverare Ciceron (Marcus Tullius) |
14-08-2005, 20:46 | #28 | |
King
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Germany.
Posts: 1,746
|
Quote:
About ICS: Good questions. Imho one reason that it's not that powerful in Civ3 is that settlers now need 2 citizens which make it more important to have a working system. Plus, in Civ2 ALL your units were upgraded AUTOMATICALLY WITHOUT ANY COSTS!!! Thus, if you had many cities early on which all produced cheap units which then were upgraded, you had a very powerful army. In Civ3 it doesn't work (that well) anymore since you can't afford to upgrade all the warriors you produced. However, ICS is not dead and can still be a good option, eg to push the # of allowed units for Republic and/or to build some cheap workers. For example, in HOF games (at least in PTW), you'd build one city for every 6 grass. That way, you get to size 11 while only having happy people and specialists => optimal score. This of course is better than in Civ1 where I would sometimes just build 30 cities directly next to each other to allow sea units to travel through. |
|
14-08-2005, 21:05 | #29 | |||
Emperor
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,946
|
OK, thanks to both of you, I understand better.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Sent from my Debian |
|||
15-08-2005, 00:12 | #30 | |
King
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Germany.
Posts: 1,746
|
Quote:
|
|