http://pc.ign.com/articles/567/567694p1.html?fromint=1
Okay, I just realized that I've got to have this game. :)
Near the top of my PC list, I think... higher than such games as Rome: Total War, definitely. Why? Hmm... Sid Meier, strategy game, pirates... does it get much better than that?
I mean, I'd been following it some because it's Sid Meier, but I never played the original one so I didn't care quite as much as I would about a new Civilization. But really, the game just looks so awesome. A must have for anyone who likes games. With pirates. :)
My freind played the original on his Commondore! He loved it!
You can do anything you want and even choose who you work for ,You could do a job for spain and then turn on them and help the english!You can eventually comand hole fleets!
What you basically did was sail around go into port get missions either from criminals or goverments , Collect bounties and find lost treasure, Side in wars.
Board and capture enemy vessels also have some of its crew join your merry band.You can even do kidnaping and hold ransoms!
Sid Meier is a fucking genius! I love his games!
I cant wait for Civilization 4!
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/chil...index.html
I think impressive games went under! The good news is alot of its former progamers formed a new group which made the game above.
Its practically a sequeil to Pharaoh ,A game which I loved alot! It was far superior to ceasar III.
This game looks alot better, Its 3D you can see your cities and its people from the ground, It has alot of new ideas and game mechanics.
It would be great if they made another game like this based in Rome and bring the long awaited sequeil to Ceasar III.
Maybe they could make a game that builds middle age europe!
Yeah, Impressions died back when the last remnants of Sierra were killed, a month or two ago. I think I made a post about it. But Tilted Mill is the survivors of their 'city-building-series' team, who by the end was their good team anyway (the other guys finished with the quite mediocre Lords of the Realm III), so it's not so bad... like Black Isle and its children at Obsidian and Troika, though, it's still sad when a good developer goes under.
But as a division of Sierra, a company which has been closing studios for five years, I was expecting it to happen one of these days...
But this thread should be about Sid Meier, not Impressions... okay, they are both PC strategy game developers, yeah... Sid is better though. :)
I was dissapointed by Civilization III, but I still trust Sid. I don't know if Civ 4 will satisfy me either, though, as it was the guy who left (Brian Reynolds, of late the developer of 'Rise of Nations') who did my two favorites -- Civ II and Alpha Centauri -- and not Sid or ... eh, the other guy whose name I forget... But Pirates! is a different kind of game, so I'd expecting very good things (I also loved Gettysburg!, which also was a different kind of strategy game (really wargame)) was i and it looks like it matches them. It was high time that a new Pirates! came out, and it's great to see it not only be done by the original designer but for it to be a great game. :)
What exactly did you hate about CIV3?
I admit I didnt really truly enjoy the game untill I got the exspansion "conquests".
Still I would have liked a few extra things, Didnt CIV2 have a futuristic age?
I remeber the box of CIV2 had a man with what looked like somthing out of starwars on it.
In CiV3 I have only reached the modern age once and the game ended two turns later,I was the dominant world power and I controled 60% of the planet and was the most technologically advanced.Yet getting to the modern age before the game officialy ends is very dificult and almost impossible.
I wish you could have unlimited turns and force you to win outside of just highest total scores or to the very least let you set the time limit higher then 1000 turns because it is too short the game ends around 2025 why cant you go into 2400 or start off earlier ?(do they? I have checked I cant seem to be abled to get more then 1000 turns per game max)
Another thing, It bugs me too see synthetic refined resources pop up like natural ones.
Also be cool if you could sell or buy units to other civilizations,Now they could add a special deplomatic agreement like free trade , If you have enough gold you could buy a Aircraft carrier , Tank ect.. At cost but you could get it faster then building it yourself , Now you would have to be the same age it would be exspensive and you would need a freetrade agreement and you couldnt get it untill the modern age,Which also could allow the allies to directly share exotic goods and automatic mutual protections pact and a boost in commerce and culture. How many times would have liked a nice dependable freind who wouldnt stab you in the back and you could act like a dual power anglo/ america like today.
Sid Meier was involved in all the games If I am right?
My only experience with Sid Meier is Civilization 3 conquests and Civilization 1 the original , I had trouble getting into the first one , I was a kid then and alot of its features were confusing and some of it was whacky.CiV 3 is a much easier game to start to master (not brainless though) it has alot better functionality.
Civ II does not have "a guy who looks like something from starwars" on it. That was probably Civilization: Call to Power or Call to Power II, games made by ActiVision that have nothing to do with Sid Meier or Firaxis or Microprose and are not nearly as good as the real games that were made by the real designers of Civ (the story of that is not worth telling in full, but Microprose struggled after Sid left and Activision got the Civ liscense and perhaps the company. They made those two mediocre games. Eventually they reconciled with Sid to get Civ III off the ground.). Civilization II came out in 1996 and has a much more stylish box than that stupid thing.
http://www.mobygames.com/game/covers/gam...gameId,15/
I might have to admit that the first game has a better box, though. Simple, yet well designed... showing aspects of the game... great wording used... it's an example of a very good box. Civ II also has a great box (I love the Da Vinci influence!), but I think this one is better.
http://www.mobygames.com/game/covers/gam...ameId,585/
Civ III's box, at least, does a decent job of comparing with the first two games. It's third, but in keeping with the series' style and a nice box.
http://www.mobygames.com/images/covers/l...049-00.jpg
Sid directly made Civilization. Brian Reynolds was the primary designer of II (still at Microprose) and then Alpha Centauri (at Firaxis). And then he left Firaxis and Jeff Briggs (the "third guy" at Firaxis) became the main designer of Civilization III. Sid did have a role in the last three games of this type from them, but he only was the main designer of the first one.
Of his games, I have Civilization II, Civilization II: Conflicts in Civilization, Civ II: Fantastic Worlds, Gettysburg!, and Civilization III. I've also played Alpha Centauri, the Alpha Centauri expansion, and Civilization I. (Oh, and weren't you saying you loved Pirates! years back? That's a Sid Meier game! I haven't played it though...) Civilization II isn't just my favorite Sid game, it's one of my favorite games of all time. I know my PC list keeps shifting, but really, thinking about it it's hard to justify putting Civ II below third... perhaps fourth (if I say that Torment is third after SC and WCIII), but it's close. I just think that Civ II is such a brilliant game... there are a lot of games I can say are good, but there are very few for which I can truly say that I cannot think of any relevant flaws that count as things that matter in any way for the game. Civ II is one of those games. None of the "flaws" I could think of matter at all, really. It's about as close to perfection as games can get. Which means that Civ III was, in my opinion, an impossible task as they had to match two of the best games ever (a lot of people think Civ I was better. Perhaps it's my relative lack of experience, but I've always liked Civ II better... though the first one is still stellar...), and even the best of designers have trouble when tasked with such a challenge.
What is wrong with Civ III? Well, first, I don't have the expansions. I should get Conquests, as it would definitely help the game (adding some civs I like a lot, etc), but the core is the same... I know that a part of it is simply that I am very used to how Civ II works and I have not taken the time to fully adjust to Civ III. See, I actually *like* how Civ II runs in Windows (that is in a window with the windows menu bars, etc; this isn't in Civ II: Test of Time, but let us never speak of that game again). I like the look. I like the interface. I know the hotkeys. And the game system. And they changed so much. Artillery can't kill units, irrigation has to start next to rivers, having to have resources to get future units that you can't see until you get the relevant tech (a clever idea but annoying if you're lacking a vital one), the new interface (the little buttons and stuff), the lack of a Cheat menu, the lack of the awesome (imo anyway) Wonder movies, the lack of the funny High Council... how they mess with some units (like putting Chariots as the basic riding unit and Horsemen as a level above them), etc...
Yes, it does new things. The Culture element is cool. How city boundaries expand with their size and culture is a great new aspect, as is being able to capture cities with culture. Some of the modifications to the unit stats and the tech tree are good. But really, most of the 'improvements' add nothing. Going to fullscreen adds nothing to Civ II. As I've said actually in some ways it hurts it because it makes navigating the menus and seeing all of the relevant data a little bit harder or slower in some cases. Likewise, the new graphics look great but add no actual gameplay features. I actually find myself wanting to play Civ II the few times I actually played Civ III for more than a little while... call me whatever you wish but that game's charm and style is still the best, imo. Oh yeah, on that same note, adding all new unit graphics with more detail, more sound, and animations (instead of just sliding) also makes it flashier but adds nothing to the game.
Now, the response is: of course they had to improve the graphics and go fullscreen, it is expected! Probably true. And then the response is: Of course they had to add things to the game, no one would want Civ III to just be Civ II with a new coat of paint! Look how Test of Time was savaged! And this is also true. But forgive me if, based on what I have seen at least, I just like the original game more. :)
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/civi...index.html
Screenshots. Future games can add more features, but they can't really make themselves better games than this.
A Black Falcon Wrote:Civ II does not have "a guy who looks like something from starwars" on it. That was probably Civilization: Call to Power or Call to Power II, games made by ActiVision that have nothing to do with Sid Meier or Firaxis or Microprose and are not nearly as good as the real games that were made by the real designers of Civ (the story of that is not worth telling in full, but Microprose struggled after Sid left and Activision got the Civ liscense and perhaps the company. They made those two mediocre games. Eventually they reconciled with Sid to get Civ III off the ground.). Civilization II came out in 1996 and has a much more stylish box than that stupid thing.
http://www.mobygames.com/game/covers/gam...gameId,15/
I might have to admit that the first game has a better box, though. Simple, yet well designed... showing aspects of the game... great wording used... it's an example of a very good box. Civ II also has a great box (I love the Da Vinci influence!), but I think this one is better.
http://www.mobygames.com/game/covers/gam...ameId,585/
Civ III's box, at least, does a decent job of comparing with the first two games. It's third, but in keeping with the series' style and a nice box.
http://www.mobygames.com/images/covers/l...049-00.jpg
Sid directly made Civilization. Brian Reynolds was the primary designer of II (still at Microprose) and then Alpha Centauri (at Firaxis). And then he left Firaxis and Jeff Briggs (the "third guy" at Firaxis) became the main designer of Civilization III. Sid did have a role in the last three games of this type from them, but he only was the main designer of the first one.
Of his games, I have Civilization II, Civilization II: Conflicts in Civilization, Civ II: Fantastic Worlds, Gettysburg!, and Civilization III. I've also played Alpha Centauri, the Alpha Centauri expansion, and Civilization I. (Oh, and weren't you saying you loved Pirates! years back? That's a Sid Meier game! I haven't played it though...) Civilization II isn't just my favorite Sid game, it's one of my favorite games of all time. I know my PC list keeps shifting, but really, thinking about it it's hard to justify putting Civ II below third... perhaps fourth (if I say that Torment is third after SC and WCIII), but it's close. I just think that Civ II is such a brilliant game... there are a lot of games I can say are good, but there are very few for which I can truly say that I cannot think of any relevant flaws that count as things that matter in any way for the game. Civ II is one of those games. None of the "flaws" I could think of matter at all, really. It's about as close to perfection as games can get. Which means that Civ III was, in my opinion, an impossible task as they had to match two of the best games ever (a lot of people think Civ I was better. Perhaps it's my relative lack of experience, but I've always liked Civ II better... though the first one is still stellar...), and even the best of designers have trouble when tasked with such a challenge.
What is wrong with Civ III? Well, first, I don't have the expansions. I should get Conquests, as it would definitely help the game (adding some civs I like a lot, etc), but the core is the same... I know that a part of it is simply that I am very used to how Civ II works and I have not taken the time to fully adjust to Civ III. See, I actually *like* how Civ II runs in Windows (that is in a window with the windows menu bars, etc; this isn't in Civ II: Test of Time, but let us never speak of that game again). I like the look. I like the interface. I know the hotkeys. And the game system. And they changed so much. Artillery can't kill units, irrigation has to start next to rivers, having to have resources to get future units that you can't see until you get the relevant tech (a clever idea but annoying if you're lacking a vital one), the new interface (the little buttons and stuff), the lack of a Cheat menu, the lack of the awesome (imo anyway) Wonder movies, the lack of the funny High Council... how they mess with some units (like putting Chariots as the basic riding unit and Horsemen as a level above them), etc...
Yes, it does new things. The Culture element is cool. How city boundaries expand with their size and culture is a great new aspect, as is being able to capture cities with culture. Some of the modifications to the unit stats and the tech tree are good. But really, most of the 'improvements' add nothing. Going to fullscreen adds nothing to Civ II. As I've said actually in some ways it hurts it because it makes navigating the menus and seeing all of the relevant data a little bit harder or slower in some cases. Likewise, the new graphics look great but add no actual gameplay features. I actually find myself wanting to play Civ II the few times I actually played Civ III for more than a little while... call me whatever you wish but that game's charm and style is still the best, imo. Oh yeah, on that same note, adding all new unit graphics with more detail, more sound, and animations (instead of just sliding) also makes it flashier but adds nothing to the game.
Now, the response is: of course they had to improve the graphics and go fullscreen, it is expected! Probably true. And then the response is: Of course they had to add things to the game, no one would want Civ III to just be Civ II with a new coat of paint! Look how Test of Time was savaged! And this is also true. But forgive me if, based on what I have seen at least, I just like the original game more. :)
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/civi...index.html
Screenshots. Future games can add more features, but they can't really make themselves better games than this.
The Monuments have movies , But I dont know if it is what you wanted?
I agree artilery is crap in CIVIII ,But I was abled to enjoy the game without it, Though aircraft bombers were fun and effective.
My complaint is that some of the start locations are unfair and the resource system isnt always on your side.
But on that note CiVIII did improve the AI ,Thats atleast what they say they did.
As for the Irrigation I think its more realistic in CIVIII ,But later on in the industrial age you can research a way to allow you to irrigate without having to do that. I guess you have been spoiled by the old way, But there is a way to compensate for that , You go next to the river or source of water and irrigate everywhere spread it around and eventually you can make a irrigating network that can connect with your cities.
What helps Conquests is the special campaigns, You got the nepoleonic war in europe you can pick between various nations, England,France,Prussia,Portugal,spain,Austria,Russia,Holand, Naples(italy),ottoman Empire. This special campaign has unique exclusive units that can only be played in it.
Then the cruisades and middle aged europe.
Meso american campaigns, The most interesting since you can do human sacrifice and have a buttload of unique units and even researches.
WWII Pasific front, Play as either the Japanese ,USA,Australia (commonwealth) . The game starts after the attack on Pearl harbor.
Conquests has changed some of the CIV3 controls and added new ones , If you have trouble with CiVIII it has a in game encyclopedia, Its almost invalueble.It has a hotkey glossary.
What I liked is I could change some game features, I was abled to rename the greeks "Trojans" and Alexander to Alexandros.
As for cheats , I am glad it doesnt have it otherwise Id start using it and never really master the game.
The few civilization they havent included , Isreal , Assyria,Pheonicians,A few more european countries like the Polish and Slovs, The Hun in asia.
I am surprised Assyria isnt in it, They were a powerful nation that had conquered egypt , Ninevah was it capital and it was well known for its love of hunting.
Quote:As for the Irrigation I think its more realistic in CIVIII ,But later on in the industrial age you can research a way to allow you to irrigate without having to do that. I guess you have been spoiled by the old way, But there is a way to compensate for that , You go next to the river or source of water and irrigate everywhere spread it around and eventually you can make a irrigating network that can connect with your cities.
Most of the time it's not so bad, but when your starting city is surrounded by mountains and there are no rivers there... well, you might as well start over...
Quote:But on that note CiVIII did improve the AI ,Thats atleast what they say they did.
It's not bad in the previous games either, I'd say.
Quote:The Monuments have movies , But I dont know if it is what you wanted?
They basically removed the video content. Civ II has animated heralds (on the diplomatic screen), a video High Council where the five people tell you what they think you should do (they're funny too... :)), and a movie whenever you successfully complete a Wonder. Civ III just has static images and text for Wonders, diplomacy, and the opinions of your councillors. It does still have an intro movie (which is neat but not as good as the Civ II one) and a win movie for the space race (which is pretty cool, just like the Civ II one was), but that's it for them...
Oh yeah, and Civ II also has more (I believe) and better music.
Quote:I agree artilery is crap in CIVIII ,But I was abled to enjoy the game without it, Though aircraft bombers were fun and effective.
Artillery was great in II... maybe too great, they thought, but I wouldn't say so. If you could attack artillery with any contemporary unit it'd probably lose... they don't defend well. :)
Quote:As for cheats , I am glad it doesnt have it otherwise Id start using it and never really master the game.
The Cheat and Editor (if you have the second expansion, Forgotten Worlds) menus were more than your average cheat stuff. First, it was a menu right there on the screen. Now, there is a cost -- use it and your score has a big red CHEATER label on it on the high score table. What is it most useful for? Not really for me but for scenario designers. It let you, right in the game, do a huge amount of map and game manipulation... creating cities and units, terrain too I think, changing alliances, etc... you can do so much with that to make scenarios. Basically, the map editor made maps and then you did the scenario design ingame with those menus. Cool.
Yeah, the added campaigns are one of the big reasons I want Conquests -- I liked some of the missing ones! However, even renaming doesn't fix one flaw: you can't change the leader's gender. In Civ II you could choose male or female (with a default name) for each civ. I guess they didn't want to bother to make a portrait for both genders for each civilization...
Campaigns. That's also missing from normal Civ III. I know basic Civ II pretty much doesn't have them either, but each of the two expansions added 10 campaigns and there were a lot of awesome ones among them... I definitely missed them from Civ III. That's the other big reason that that would be worth getting. The multiplayer? I never played Civ II Gold Multiplayer Edition (civ ii + both expansions + win95 + multiplay) online, so that doesn't matter much.
Quote:http://pc.ign.com/articles/567/567694p1.html?fromint=1
Okay, I just realized that I've got to have this game.
Near the top of my PC list, I think... higher than such games as Rome: Total War, definitely. Why? Hmm... Sid Meier, strategy game, pirates... does it get much better than that?
I mean, I'd been following it some because it's Sid Meier, but I never played the original one so I didn't care quite as much as I would about a new Civilization. But really, the game just looks so awesome. A must have for anyone who likes games. With pirates.
Thank you, Mr. Non-Information. You could have at least said what the game was called in the thread name...or first post...or second post...*continues on from there*
I do say the name. I don't capitalize it or use punctuation (or add the subtitle), but I definitely say the name in both my first and second posts. As you'd know if you'd clicked the link to the review. :)
ABF, I love you like a brother but you suck at making threads. Really, how hard is it to make the thread called "Sid Meier's Pirates!" or say in your first post "Okay, I just realized that I've got to have Sid Meier's Pirates"?
The thread was titled "..."...
...
Well, I must assume that he only has such vague titles because that's the only way (he thinks) people will view the threads about games (he thinks) only he is interested in. He's at least sure to get a post about how vague the thread title is. You know, it's like when a pet that's being ignored by it's owner starts doing bad things because at least it gets the attention of the owner yelling at it.
Because I like making threads with vague titles. Live with it. It's kind of funny. :)
It's not becasue of that, DJ. It's because I think that when I provide a link that it takes five seconds to center-click on and open in a new tab (:)) people should be able to do that... it's a very simple thing...
So because I think it's funny and because I want people to actually (gasp!) *CLICK* the link.
A Black Falcon Wrote:Most of the time it's not so bad, but when your starting city is surrounded by mountains and there are no rivers there... well, you might as well start over...
It's not bad in the previous games either, I'd say.
They basically removed the video content. Civ II has animated heralds (on the diplomatic screen), a video High Council where the five people tell you what they think you should do (they're funny too... :)), and a movie whenever you successfully complete a Wonder. Civ III just has static images and text for Wonders, diplomacy, and the opinions of your councillors. It does still have an intro movie (which is neat but not as good as the Civ II one) and a win movie for the space race (which is pretty cool, just like the Civ II one was), but that's it for them...
Oh yeah, and Civ II also has more (I believe) and better music.
Artillery was great in II... maybe too great, they thought, but I wouldn't say so. If you could attack artillery with any contemporary unit it'd probably lose... they don't defend well. :)
The Cheat and Editor (if you have the second expansion, Forgotten Worlds) menus were more than your average cheat stuff. First, it was a menu right there on the screen. Now, there is a cost -- use it and your score has a big red CHEATER label on it on the high score table. What is it most useful for? Not really for me but for scenario designers. It let you, right in the game, do a huge amount of map and game manipulation... creating cities and units, terrain too I think, changing alliances, etc... you can do so much with that to make scenarios. Basically, the map editor made maps and then you did the scenario design ingame with those menus. Cool.
Yeah, the added campaigns are one of the big reasons I want Conquests -- I liked some of the missing ones! However, even renaming doesn't fix one flaw: you can't change the leader's gender. In Civ II you could choose male or female (with a default name) for each civ. I guess they didn't want to bother to make a portrait for both genders for each civilization...
Campaigns. That's also missing from normal Civ III. I know basic Civ II pretty much doesn't have them either, but each of the two expansions added 10 campaigns and there were a lot of awesome ones among them... I definitely missed them from Civ III. That's the other big reason that that would be worth getting. The multiplayer? I never played Civ II Gold Multiplayer Edition (civ ii + both expansions + win95 + multiplay) online, so that doesn't matter much.
Well they should have added a option to dig a resservoir for irrigation! Thats happen to me a few times but I just explored till I found one planted a city started to get workers to link the waters , Atleast the areas near mountains have more fertile grasslands.Unless your stuck in a tundra which would suck , At that point you either find nice land to settle or restart from scratch.
Like I said the start up thing needs to be fixed.
Really all they need is a early ancient times research that allows you to get a resservior, Then it wouldnt hurt so bad.
Conquests has a new Intro movie , Starts off with a Samurai and then switches to a Roman legionaire finally changes again to american GI in Japan firing away his flame thrower. Speaking of which I havent seen any flame throwers yet?
I never got the space victory yet, Since I have only been in the modern age for two turns and then the game ended, I still won though.
Any suggestions to improve the amount of time it takes to boost scientific research?
Music well your right , Conquests has added a new song , Its nice stringed folk music gets you into the pioneer spirit. But you can only hear it in certain campaigns.
As for changing gender you can do it but the avitar doesnt change , personally I remeber that CIV1 had the two avitars for man or women.
I would have liked it, Since Id probaily play Russia more if it werent for that ugly woman, Peter the great or Lenin Stalin would have been cool.
England and egypt as well , Elizabeth I is a ugly bitch , King Henry or Richard would have been nice.
Cleopatra isnt too bad , But Id like to see Ramsees or Khufu.
To be honnest I can see both sides on Artilery , but right now it could use a buff.
What Sid Said in a interview is that they made the AI remeber your abuses and dishonnoring your treaties, Asking for free passage but use it as a way for a sneek attack so fourth, You can do it once but not twice.The other civilizations that are in contact with your victim take note as well.
There is a map editor and campaign editor but not in game.
The Cinematics are not being put into games as much anymore,Look At blizzard the original starcraft had FMV all over its campaigns but in brood war now then only have the intro and episode endings, War3 III TFT Has a Intro and a ending FMV but its even less then usual.
To me CiV 4 should be a mix between 3 and 2 too please both the new and old fans.
Quote:It's kind of funny.
No it isn't. It sucks. You suck. This thread sucks. I'm out of here.
It's just stupid that you won't even bother to click a link when it's right there. If ASM can, you can too.
And besides, anyone who cared about the subject would have known what game I was talking about without having to click the link (Sid Meier. Pirates. Hmm, what does 1+1 equal? Two, perhaps?). You did not so you obviously do not, so just don't post at all.
Quote:Well they should have added a option to dig a resservoir for irrigation! Thats happen to me a few times but I just explored till I found one planted a city started to get workers to link the waters , Atleast the areas near mountains have more fertile grasslands.Unless your stuck in a tundra which would suck , At that point you either find nice land to settle or restart from scratch.
Like I said the start up thing needs to be fixed.
Really all they need is a early ancient times research that allows you to get a resservior, Then it wouldnt hurt so bad.
Some way of making it easier... making sure rivers are always within decent reach of your starting town really is needed as long as you have to go to one. Most of the time it's okay, but not always...
Quote:Conquests has a new Intro movie , Starts off with a Samurai and then switches to a Roman legionaire finally changes again to american GI in Japan firing away his flame thrower. Speaking of which I havent seen any flame throwers yet?
All games have intro movies, so of course Civ III would have one... intresting that they changed it for the second expo, though. Didn't do that in Civ II.
Quote:I never got the space victory yet, Since I have only been in the modern age for two turns and then the game ended, I still won though.
Any suggestions to improve the amount of time it takes to boost scientific research?
I haven't either. Just go into the movies folder of the art folder and watch it... that is, as long you have the Bink player (Civ II also had a open file tree like that with everything accessible)... it's pretty cool.
Quote:Music well your right , Conquests has added a new song , Its nice stringed folk music gets you into the pioneer spirit. But you can only hear it in certain campaigns.
I'm not sure about the quantity thing, actually. I think Civ III actually has more. But it's not nearly as good, so that doesn't matter much... it's just 'there'. Civ II's is also somewhat ambient, but it's better music...
Oh, with Civ II it's got some tracks with the original game and then each of the expansion CDs added about the same amount more music. It's Redbook audio too -- runs in a CD player. 9 tracks for the classic, then 8 in the first expansion and 6 in the second. Only one problem: for some bizarre reason the Gold edition drops most of it. It's perfect otherwise, but all it's got are two of the original tracks (the 'win' and 'loss' ones) and then the six from Fantastic Worlds... utterly bizarre, but it's why I have Civ II fully copied to my HDD and I use the Fantastic Worlds CD to play it. Only disk with all the music.
Quote:As for changing gender you can do it but the avitar doesnt change , personally I remeber that CIV1 had the two avitars for man or women.
I would have liked it, Since Id probaily play Russia more if it werent for that ugly woman, Peter the great or Lenin Stalin would have been cool.
England and egypt as well , Elizabeth I is a ugly bitch , King Henry or Richard would have been nice.
Cleopatra isnt too bad , But Id like to see Ramsees or Khufu.
It definitely should be like Civ I or II where you can choose your gender and name both. It's stupid to be stuck with that one if you want to play as someone else... saves them time, but surprisingly lazy for a big game like this.
Quote:To be honnest I can see both sides on Artilery , but right now it could use a buff.
It should at least be able to kill things.
Quote:What Sid Said in a interview is that they made the AI remeber your abuses and dishonnoring your treaties, Asking for free passage but use it as a way for a sneek attack so fourth, You can do it once but not twice.The other civilizations that are in contact with your victim take note as well.
They still do annoying things like building cities RIGHT outside of your influence range on the edges of your continent, though... And I know I heard all about the great new diplomacy system in Civ III, but maybe I haven't played it enough but I fail to see the great improvement. Sure, in some ways it lets you do more (like being able to offer a specific offer for some specific request with resources and stuff), but the simpler Civ II system works well enough... yes, I guess Civ III is an improvement, but it's not as big as it was claimed, I think, and like other aspects it takes quite a bit of getting used to.
On the subject of 'getting used to', I still frequently seem to accidentally choose technologies... that box where you choose them has an annoying tendency to choose them when you want to open the civilopedia window, it seems.
Quote:There is a map editor and campaign editor but not in game.
But the map editor has the stupid error of not having a minimap! Inexplicable...
Quote:The Cinematics are not being put into games as much anymore,Look At blizzard the original starcraft had FMV all over its campaigns but in brood war now then only have the intro and episode endings, War3 III TFT Has a Intro and a ending FMV but its even less then usual.
It takes longer to make CG movies now so games have less of them (see SC vs WC3), but they definitely have them. What has gone out is FMV -- having live actors on video in games. The High Council was live actors, so I'm not surprised that they dropped it as that... but they have new councillors so I think that they should have had a High Council you could call that would have videos and speech about what they want and stuff! I liked it, and it was simpler than going to all their screens to look up what they wanted... also they responded to eachother to say what they thought of the other's ideas (like Economy and Science don't want you rasing the luxury rate while Luxury complains about it if it's low, Military wants troops while Diplomacy wants alliances, etc)
The Heralds (animated CG figures representing the nation that sent them) went because they cut the diplomacy screen from fullscreen. Too bad, as they weren't replaced with anything (there was already a picture of the leader of the other nation as well).
As for the Wonder Movies, I don't know why they removed them but they were great and helped make the wonders more worth all that time it takes to make them, so removing those was really dissapointing. I really liked them!
A Black Falcon Wrote:Some way of making it easier... making sure rivers are always within decent reach of your starting town really is needed as long as you have to go to one. Most of the time it's okay, but not always...
All games have intro movies, so of course Civ III would have one... intresting that they changed it for the second expo, though. Didn't do that in Civ II.
I haven't either. Just go into the movies folder of the art folder and watch it... that is, as long you have the Bink player (Civ II also had a open file tree like that with everything accessible)... it's pretty cool.
I'm not sure about the quantity thing, actually. I think Civ III actually has more. But it's not nearly as good, so that doesn't matter much... it's just 'there'. Civ II's is also somewhat ambient, but it's better music...
Oh, with Civ II it's got some tracks with the original game and then each of the expansion CDs added about the same amount more music. It's Redbook audio too -- runs in a CD player. 9 tracks for the classic, then 8 in the first expansion and 6 in the second. Only one problem: for some bizarre reason the Gold edition drops most of it. It's perfect otherwise, but all it's got are two of the original tracks (the 'win' and 'loss' ones) and then the six from Fantastic Worlds... utterly bizarre, but it's why I have Civ II fully copied to my HDD and I use the Fantastic Worlds CD to play it. Only disk with all the music.
It definitely should be like Civ I or II where you can choose your gender and name both. It's stupid to be stuck with that one if you want to play as someone else... saves them time, but surprisingly lazy for a big game like this.
It should at least be able to kill things.
They still do annoying things like building cities RIGHT outside of your influence range on the edges of your continent, though... And I know I heard all about the great new diplomacy system in Civ III, but maybe I haven't played it enough but I fail to see the great improvement. Sure, in some ways it lets you do more (like being able to offer a specific offer for some specific request with resources and stuff), but the simpler Civ II system works well enough... yes, I guess Civ III is an improvement, but it's not as big as it was claimed, I think, and like other aspects it takes quite a bit of getting used to.
On the subject of 'getting used to', I still frequently seem to accidentally choose technologies... that box where you choose them has an annoying tendency to choose them when you want to open the civilopedia window, it seems.
But the map editor has the stupid error of not having a minimap! Inexplicable...
It takes longer to make CG movies now so games have less of them (see SC vs WC3), but they definitely have them. What has gone out is FMV -- having live actors on video in games. The High Council was live actors, so I'm not surprised that they dropped it as that... but they have new councillors so I think that they should have had a High Council you could call that would have videos and speech about what they want and stuff! I liked it, and it was simpler than going to all their screens to look up what they wanted... also they responded to eachother to say what they thought of the other's ideas (like Economy and Science don't want you rasing the luxury rate while Luxury complains about it if it's low, Military wants troops while Diplomacy wants alliances, etc)
The Heralds (animated CG figures representing the nation that sent them) went because they cut the diplomacy screen from fullscreen. Too bad, as they weren't replaced with anything (there was already a picture of the leader of the other nation as well).
As for the Wonder Movies, I don't know why they removed them but they were great and helped make the wonders more worth all that time it takes to make them, so removing those was really dissapointing. I really liked them!
To me they need a new exspansion to add they stuff they didnt put in.
I remeber that High council thing , If they got into a fight you click a button and shout order order! I guess it would have taken alot of time to do and didnt really help the player much.
The luxury advisor isnt in it anymore , its now domestic advisor its a mix between economic and Luxury.
The Trade advisor I have no idea why I need it, Since the foreign advisor is the one doing all the trade agreements, The Trade advisor just tells you what you have and what he thinks you should be getting or weither a town is connected or not.
To me they should add a Inteligence Advisor , Its annoying that I always have to go the capital city to get into it,Having it as a advisor saves time and could offer more.It could warn you about sercurity risks and internal sercurity status, Tell you about foreign plots, Tell you were enemy esponage has taken place , Also gives the options of your own esponiage and sabotage missions.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2003/12/08/...85198.html
Civilization IV and Pirates II is in the works!
I think serious they should allow the fans to give ideas and imput into the game.
Make a list of things you would like to see.
1.Futuristic Age!
Id love to see cloning and eugenics genetic egineering, You could have Super Soldiers.
A technology that can allow you to make floating cities on the ocean.
You could bump up the alpha centauri victory to this age.
2. Inteligence Advisor.
3.Allow you to pick your start location, If you wanted to remain isolated you could be on a more distant island or grouped on a continent.Also choose a random location.
4.Neutral babarian towns you can either conquere or trade with , Etruscans for example. You could deploy a emissary and teach them your language and culture and try to asimulate them build a connecting road and then some extra gold and even exotic goods can be added to your coffers,Eventually you control their city.
5. Have coalition alliances like Nato were you all agree to defend and protect each other from nonmember states , The founder can choose what types of goverments are permited , If you want to be exclusive for just developed countries then only Democracies and Republics are permited. You could form a communist or Faucist league for rogue states.
6. Free trade , The civilizations agree to exchange all technology and maps , "Can only be done in coalition status like the Nato idea".
7.Another way of playing is having yourself male or female as a unit exchange for marriages with other civilizations monarchs, You can produce heirs , If you and all your heirs die you lose the game, You can acquire a princess or prince and produce a heir and if you call off the enemy civilizations monarch and its dynasty you can place your heir as its new head of state and claim the civilization.
8.A more sensible and balanced resource system.
Delete two of those posts, ASM. :)
Quote:I remeber that High council thing , If they got into a fight you click a button and shout order order! I guess it would have taken alot of time to do and didnt really help the player much.
It's not a massive help I guess but Civ II doesn't have the same kind of advisor menus with their views laid out there... each advisor's screen is for the things that advisor does, not really their opinion. So you go to the Council for that. Yes, it means that they have a limited number of things they can say (since it's video), but it only really needs the general stuff -- make more alliances! Build trade routes! Upgrade your defences! Etc.
Yeah, I remember that Civ III changes the advisor roster. That's okay, I think the Civ II one wasn't perfect... Military, Science, Diplomacy, and Trade all make sense, but Luxury? It was really funny (as the guy's an Elvis impersonator), but the practical use is limited...
But Diplomacy isn't Trade, they are different... yes some of Trade is trading with other nations, but it's also about trade within your own -- connecting your cities with trade routes. And Trade reminds you about building Trade-related buildings and stuff that Diplomacy would not do. So no, I would not say that Diplomacy mostly overlaps Trade.
As for an Intelligence advisor, that'd be a good idea. It's definitely something the game could use, now that you mention it...
Quote:Civilization IV and Pirates II is in the works!
I think serious they should allow the fans to give ideas and imput into the game.
Make a list of things you would like to see.
Civ IV has been a badly kept secret for some time now... good to hear that it's confirmed.
As for your suggestions. I disagree about a futuristic age. Civ has always been about tracking real history, not making it up. That is the realm of science fiction... play Alpha Centauri if you want futuristic. But Civ is about real history, so no, it shouldn't invent things that don't exist yet.
Start Location... hmm, that'd be a pretty cool option. I guess they want it random so you have to deal with various terrain types and starting locations (and because the map is generated randomly), but it might be cool to be able to choose some general thing like Seaside or Plain or something.
Neutral towns... not really needed. There are already barbarian villages that attack you and it's meant to be that the other players are your opponents. Unless you're playing on a really huge map, that's plenty...
An alliance system with free trade could be a good idea. You can already make alliances, however -- how would this one really be different? Because it's a cooalition? Civ seems to usually like big differences between its diplomatic choices and this might be too similar to normal Alliances to be considered.
Quote:7.Another way of playing is having yourself male or female as a unit exchange for marriages with other civilizations monarchs, You can produce heirs , If you and all your heirs die you lose the game, You can acquire a princess or prince and produce a heir and if you call off the enemy civilizations monarch and its dynasty you can place your heir as its new head of state and claim the civilization.
Sounds like you like the Total War games. :)
Quote:And besides, anyone who cared about the subject would have known what game I was talking about without having to click the link (Sid Meier. Pirates. Hmm, what does 1+1 equal? Two, perhaps?).
I'm sure their are some people who might want to get this game, but haven't heard of it yet. Besides, it's good policy to actually explain what you're talking about instead of just assuming that people will know what you're talking about.
I'll just repeat, if ASM can do it you can too. :)
Well actually the thread name doesn't reveal what the thread is about.
And when you consider my main jest at you was directed at how your thread names give no information whatsoever, this matters because? :D
Quote:The first post does.
Not really. It brings up Sid Meier and, as a side note, passingly mentions that pirates are somehow involved, but never connects the two to form a game title.
Actually it doesn't matter now, because I fixed the first post of this thread.
I fixed it back. I want it the way it was. If you're too stupid to click a link it's your fault not mine.
And the thread has really become about Civilization, you know, as no one here has played Pirates!. :)
Yes, wanting people to actually have a decent base of knowledge before talking about things (that is, reading the review of the game before discussing it) is REALLY weird. ... yeah...
A Black Falcon Wrote:I fixed it back. I want it the way it was. If you're too stupid to click a link it's your fault not mine.
And the thread has really become about Civilization, you know, as no one here has played Pirates!. :)
Threads usually go off topic but atleast its Sid Meier related!
As for the thread title! Why not have mystery on a occasion!
The only way you could have any taste of pirates is if you owned a commondore 64 at one time.
Quote:It's not a massive help I guess but Civ II doesn't have the same kind of advisor menus with their views laid out there... each advisor's screen is for the things that advisor does, not really their opinion. So you go to the Council for that. Yes, it means that they have a limited number of things they can say (since it's video), but it only really needs the general stuff -- make more alliances! Build trade routes! Upgrade your defences! Etc.
Yeah, I remember that Civ III changes the advisor roster. That's okay, I think the Civ II one wasn't perfect... Military, Science, Diplomacy, and Trade all make sense, but Luxury? It was really funny (as the guy's an Elvis impersonator), but the practical use is limited...
But Diplomacy isn't Trade, they are different... yes some of Trade is trading with other nations, but it's also about trade within your own -- connecting your cities with trade routes. And Trade reminds you about building Trade-related buildings and stuff that Diplomacy would not do. So no, I would not say that Diplomacy mostly overlaps Trade.
As for an Intelligence advisor, that'd be a good idea. It's definitely something the game could use, now that you mention it...
Now that you mention it , I think it was CiVII and not I , Because I do remeber the cheesy Elvis luxury advisor.
They could do that , Have animated heads instead of video recordings, I can imagine if you had a inteligence advisor he might accuse the other advisors of being traitors and spies for not agreeing with him.
They could make more useful if you had the military or defense advisor tell you off for attacking or getting involved with a dangerous more powerful enemy or cheer you on for teaching them a lesson. Their behavor changes pending what goverment type you have.If you were a faucist they all start off with "Hail"! All of them will be more evil and power hungry.
Quote:Civ IV has been a badly kept secret for some time now... good to hear that it's confirmed.
As for your suggestions. I disagree about a futuristic age. Civ has always been about tracking real history, not making it up. That is the realm of science fiction... play Alpha Centauri if you want futuristic. But Civ is about real history, so no, it shouldn't invent things that don't exist yet.
Start Location... hmm, that'd be a pretty cool option. I guess they want it random so you have to deal with various terrain types and starting locations (and because the map is generated randomly), but it might be cool to be able to choose some general thing like Seaside or Plain or something.
Neutral towns... not really needed. There are already barbarian villages that attack you and it's meant to be that the other players are your opponents. Unless you're playing on a really huge map, that's plenty...
An alliance system with free trade could be a good idea. You can already make alliances, however -- how would this one really be different? Because it's a cooalition? Civ seems to usually like big differences between its diplomatic choices and this might be too similar to normal Alliances to be considered.
1. Real history? A ship to alpha centauri and a cure for cancer! Two fictional non history ideas tossed in, Plus some of the races never historically become advance on their own untill they were conquered and assimulated , the Irroqiois and the Zulu for example, They were thousands of years behind technologically but in CiV you can see them in the middle ages and up and even become top dog.
A futuristic age wouldnt be like alpha centauri , for one its not on alpha centauri. The Futuristic age would be our near future, We know nanotech is coming we know cloning is coming because it exists already , genetic egineering isnt that far off. The futuristic age would not start to become sci fi untill near the end of it, There is tech that exist now but wont be common untill 10 years like Fly bywire missles or stealth boats , Alot of knew types of guns and weapons. Clean energy sources like cold fusion and hydrogen fuel cells stuff thats in the works but isnt far off.
This could be exspansion material.
Quote:Neutral towns... not really needed. There are already barbarian villages that attack you and it's meant to be that the other players are your opponents. Unless you're playing on a really huge map, that's plenty...
An alliance system with free trade could be a good idea. You can already make alliances, however -- how would this one really be different? Because it's a cooalition? Civ seems to usually like big differences between its diplomatic choices and this might be too similar to normal Alliances to be considered.
1.
Barbarian villages are just easter eggs , You walk on them you either fight or collect somthing. My idea is just a step up from that, They wouldnt be a your opponents, They would be neutral attack everybody or allign with who ever meets with them first, You wouldnt go into your foreign advisor and make deals with them. You just click on the neutral town send a emissary at a cost of gold , After a certain amount of turns the emissary will teach them your language and culture a window will pop up giving a few choices, If they are impressed by you they will offer to trade , If you attacked them in the past or they have attacked you they might require a gift to improve their opinion of you, Once they allow you to trade you build a road, They get to share your exotic goods like any city that you would control and you get theirs or they might donate a technology, A little bit of commerce is created, Eventually they might offer to join you completely.
Another idea to go with it is that if one of your or opponents cities become to unhappy after a amount of time they might revolt kill any units you have inside the town and declare independance and become a neutral town only if their isnt a neighboring opponent with a high influeincial culture to join with. If that happens your just send troops to recapture it or try to undo the damage by treating it like the above neutral barbarians.
2. Whats different is that before you might make a allie with two groups , The Incas and the aztec , They both like you but hate each other , So you might have your allies or freindly neighbor fight amongst themselves. The Coalition bassically convinces them to join forces together as a group instead of just individual relationships with yourself but not each other.
They way it is in CiV3 you make a "military alliance agiast another group" but it only last a certain of time , once your mutual protections pack runs out your no longer together and they become rivals, The Coalition is a more perminant establishment. There is a saying "The enemy of my enemy is still an enemy", Your allie my just be a lesser evil you teamed up with to defeat a worser one it doesnt mean your gonna stay freinds once its over, Kind of like the soviet union in WW2 as soon the nazis were beaten they turned agaist us.
Quote:Threads usually go off topic but atleast its Sid Meier related!
As for the thread title! Why not have mystery on a occasion!
The only way you could have any taste of pirates is if you owned a commondore 64 at one time.
Actually, Pirates! was also released on PC later. Pirates! Gold certainly was on PC.
And yes, there's nothing wrong with a mystery or going off-topic, especially when the topic is quite similar.
Quote:Now that you mention it , I think it was CiVII and not I , Because I do remeber the cheesy Elvis luxury advisor.
Cheesy but funny... but as I said his practical use is limited. Still, worth having him for the humor quotient. :) The Roman Elvis is probably funniest...
Quote:They could do that , Have animated heads instead of video recordings, I can imagine if you had a inteligence advisor he might accuse the other advisors of being traitors and spies for not agreeing with him.
They could make more useful if you had the military or defense advisor tell you off for attacking or getting involved with a dangerous more powerful enemy or cheer you on for teaching them a lesson. Their behavor changes pending what goverment type you have.If you were a faucist they all start off with "Hail"! All of them will be more evil and power hungry.
Yes, exactly. I recognize that FMV is dead, but CG isn't, and that would be great... having the different councillors actually interact with eachother is great.
And yes, having some more variety and detail in what they say would be good too. It might be easier as all they'd have to have is a talking head (some might require unique animations, but not all of the time) and a voiceover instead of a full person... and having more detail/variety could be good, though it's not that bad in Civ II. Maybe the voices could be more general for some things but they could have a text summation that would give more details (like specifics of certain enemies)? I don't know, I'm sure that if they tried they could get it to work well. Oh, and having them change behavior for government type as well as for age you are in is a great idea.
Quote:1. Real history? A ship to alpha centauri and a cure for cancer! Two fictional non history ideas tossed in, Plus some of the races never historically become advance on their own untill they were conquered and assimulated , the Irroqiois and the Zulu for example, They were thousands of years behind technologically but in CiV you can see them in the middle ages and up and even become top dog.
A futuristic age wouldnt be like alpha centauri , for one its not on alpha centauri. The Futuristic age would be our near future, We know nanotech is coming we know cloning is coming because it exists already , genetic egineering isnt that far off. The futuristic age would not start to become sci fi untill near the end of it, There is tech that exist now but wont be common untill 10 years like Fly bywire missles or stealth boats , Alot of knew types of guns and weapons. Clean energy sources like cold fusion and hydrogen fuel cells stuff thats in the works but isnt far off.
This could be exspansion material.
Original Civ II was historical, except for the spaceship (we can cure a lot of kinds of cancer now you know). The first expansion, Conflicts in Civilization, was mostly historical though it had a couple of fictional ones (World War 1979 (global thermonuclear war! Fun for the whole family! (I love this scenario... instant action with every possible weapon... :))) and Alien Invasion). The second expansion, however, Fantastic Worlds, was all invented -- The World of Jules Verne, Mars, Midgard, some based on classic Microprose games (X-Com, Master of Orion Jr., Master of Magic Jr.), etc. Each scenario genearally uses the same unit and building templates as the main game, but it renames them and adds new pictures. This is why FW doesn't have the herald or wonder movies on the disk -- they would not fit these scenarios.
When Civ III didn't have any scenarios I was dissapointed. Not totally so, as I remembered that original Civ II only had two scenarios and they were not well thought out (technology acquisation speed or names or anything was not changed so you could have guns by the end of the Rise of Rome scenario), but somewhat. The fact that the expansions add some is one reason to get them, I'd say. Oh, how many get added? Civ II had a total of 20 official scenarios included in the two expansions and they also included 16 fan-made ones (8 per pack).
Anyway, I think that they should stick with things we can do now. You are right that Civ II's spaceship isn't currently possible; perhaps that's why the Civ III one isn't so specific about going to Alpha Centauri and you win when it LAUNCHES instead of when it arrives?
That is to say, no futuristic age in the basic game. For that either make a futuristic-based expansion or a Alpha Centauri II (for far future). While it could be fun, it's somewhat against the idea of the game of Civilization.
Quote:1.
Barbarian villages are just easter eggs , You walk on them you either fight or collect somthing. My idea is just a step up from that, They wouldnt be a your opponents, (etc)
True, as it is barbarian villages are just things that spawn enemies. But my point is that with the sizes of most of the maps in Civ, you can only really support so many nations. How do you differentiate these from your seven main opponents? I don't really see a point to adding new "half-nations" to the game.
Quote:Another idea to go with it is that if one of your or opponents cities become to unhappy after a amount of time they might revolt kill any units you have inside the town and declare independance and become a neutral town only if their isnt a neighboring opponent with a high influeincial culture to join with. If that happens your just send troops to recapture it or try to undo the damage by treating it like the above neutral barbarians.
This is a good idea, for extremely unhappy or conquered cities (cities should remember who their nationality is -- if they weren't conquered too long ago they should definitely try this if there are issues or the other nation is close to retaking it).
Quote:2. Whats different is that before you might make a allie with two groups , The Incas and the aztec , They both like you but hate each other , So you might have your allies or freindly neighbor fight amongst themselves. The Coalition bassically convinces them to join forces together as a group instead of just individual relationships with yourself but not each other.
They way it is in CiV3 you make a "military alliance agiast another group" but it only last a certain of time , once your mutual protections pack runs out your no longer together and they become rivals, The Coalition is a more perminant establishment. There is a saying "The enemy of my enemy is still an enemy", Your allie my just be a lesser evil you teamed up with to defeat a worser one it doesnt mean your gonna stay freinds once its over, Kind of like the soviet union in WW2 as soon the nazis were beaten they turned agaist us.
But Civ isn't a never-ending thing like the real world, and only one player can win. So permanant alliances might actually work against you as you want some kind of method to get out of them and win the game without killing your diplomatic rating with everyone at once... between that and the fact that this just doesn't seem THAT different from a normal alliance, I'd say no. (as for the Soviets in WWII, I'd say that that would fit within a normal treaty... an alliance that served its purpose and then ended.)
To be honnest it really sounds like Civ3 is just a shawdow of what CIV2 had , first of all why didnt it include alot of the stuff CIV2 had in the original game? Like feudalism and Faucism why wait untill conquests to include somthing that should have been in it from the start.We have already named a list of new improvements they have never implemented that they could.
Quote:
But Civ isn't a never-ending thing like the real world, and only one player can win. So permanant alliances might actually work against you as you want some kind of method to get out of them and win the game without killing your diplomatic rating with everyone at once... between that and the fact that this just doesn't seem THAT different from a normal alliance, I'd say no. (as for the Soviets in WWII, I'd say that that would fit within a normal treaty... an alliance that served its purpose and then ended.)
If you ever played in multiplayer it would allow for team games , In single player you would still win and all you really have to do is make sure your the alpha male or top of the pack, If you feel like turning on your former team mates you can do so. I am sure you could make situations or behavors in the AI that could cause the coalition too fall apart.
The Coalition would if lets you played the America , It would be american allied coalition it would count as you.
What You could do just for one main reason to kill a powerful enemy, If you make warpacts it would be great if those Joining with you wouldnt fight with each and concentrate on killing the target.Rather then the current system.
You could also have coalition vs coalition which could happen, In WW2 it was Faucist coalition vs Freedom Coalition , You had Nazi Germany, faucist italy, hungary and Japan Vs America , British Commonwealth (canada,Australia,South Africa ect..) Soviet Union.
Really that could allow a world war senario.
If they add alien invasions that wouldnt be such a bad idea.
As for my Neutral Minor nations idea comes from another less apreciated Microprose game startrek birth of the federation which is alot like Orion and CiV , You had minor races you either conquered or convinced to Join the federation , Each one added their own special tech that made improvements. You had 70 different races including the Vulcans ,Andorians ,Bajorians. Then you had the empires Klingions,Cardassians,feringi,Romulians and of course the Federation. All the races had a very unique behavor Some races had more unique prefferences towards certain major groups, Nausicans hated the federation and would be hard to convince to join , The Bajorans hated the Cardassians to the point they would attack the card planets right from the start and were incredibly paranoid in building orbital defenses. Cardassians would always stab you in the back and could never be trusted more so then the Romulians which were more quiet and Isolative. The Klingions would be agressive and warlike but once they give you their word they honnor it to the letter, The feringis were greeded and loved to pillage but they kept to the contract and were the third most trust worthy group.
Going back to your arguement as why having Minor races couldnt work on small maps , Guess what like in BOTF , The bigger the map the more the races the lesser the map the fewer there is.
If you were playing Egypt the "sea people" or "nubians" might be the guys to be next door. I noticed alot of the barbarians already have historical names like the Etruscans and North men ect..
The way it is those who are big explorers on big continents can get free tech by just ploping along barbarian villages , Having the way I suggested atleast would force you to earn it slow you down from doing that and give the opponents or yourself a fare chance to try to sway that group the otherway.
Some groups will favor certain races , Plus your goverment type may also effect your chances , They might like the freedom of a republic or the cheiftain could like the idea of becoming a Lord under your rule in a monarchy.
the Neutrals would probaily just be 1 city two at the most, Were talking about huge empires.
Another nice idea could be hiring Mercenaries from the neutral races ,Get a Etruscan barbarian,Nubian warrior ,Sea People vessels, Tibetan warrior Monk, Olmec head hunter,Bedouin Snake charmer.
Quote:So either talk about Civilization or go away. You and GR both.
Because you want me to go away, I'm going to stay right here. *stays right here*
Quote:Because you want me to go away, I'm going to stay right here. *stays right here*
Then be a constructive part of the discussion. :)
Great Rumbler Wrote:Because you want me to go away, I'm going to stay right here. *stays right here*
*Opens Airlock GR blows into space*
I can really see your so bored to tears GR that you resort to stabing ABF to amuse your feeble mind....
:shake:
Back to Civilization or anything Sid meier related.
Wouldnt Religion be a nice addition to CIV? I waisnt wanted to make my own religion or cult.
Quote:Then be a constructive part of the discussion.
GR: I remember last time we tried to have a discussion about Civ. *remembers last time*
ABF: *also remembers last time* Oh yeah. So why don't you leave then?
GR: This chair's comfortable though...
Quote:I can really see your so bored to tears GR that you resort to stabing ABF to amuse your feeble mind....
Feeble? That's not what...THIS says! *hold of ACT results* Do you see what it says!! *waves ACT results around* DO YOU?! Ah, but I digress, annoying ABF is fun because he's such a weird person. Besides, I'm trying to educate ABF on how to make proper threads...and annoy people. Like I do all the time.
...
...
...
...
This thread's boring. I'm leaving. *leaves*
I guess you wanted me to say" Praise the Lord he is gone"! Then move back in just to iritate us did you? I know you too well GR , Sure somtimes I make no sense and you make no sense but it doesnt mean I got no sense.Confused?
When my mind was crystal clear I used to be a master pranker, I used to wait for people put on scary movies dress up like the screamer run in and threaten to kill them and lMAO taunt and harrase.One time I signaled my freind in basement by flushing the Toilet to cut the power once I finnished putting on the costume.
That scared the shit out his sister and his freinds.
Quote:I guess you wanted me to say" Praise the Lord he is gone"! Then move back in just to iritate us did you? I know you too well GR , Sure somtimes I make no sense and you make no sense but it doesnt mean I got no sense.Confused?
...
...
...
...
...What? *leaves again* For real this time!
Quote:To be honnest it really sounds like Civ3 is just a shawdow of what CIV2 had , first of all why didnt it include alot of the stuff CIV2 had in the original game? Like feudalism and Faucism why wait untill conquests to include somthing that should have been in it from the start.We have already named a list of new improvements they have never implemented that they could.
This is true in some regards and not in others. For things that Civ III does better... here are a few. Difficulty (Civ III is harder and less predictable), Diplomacy (the trading system and new diplomacy engine does allow for more choices), the fact that having artillery not kill things is in many cases more realistic, national borders, culture, etc. So in many cases it's more about what you prefer... I'd certainly say that both games have a lot of good features. Yes, I prefer Civ II definitely, but Civ III has a few nice things... primarially with the culture that expands your borders. That's quite nice. Oh, and so is having a coherent national territory...
Quote:Another nice idea could be hiring Mercenaries from the neutral races ,Get a Etruscan barbarian,Nubian warrior ,Sea People vessels, Tibetan warrior Monk, Olmec head hunter,Bedouin Snake charmer.
Could be a good idea, but then you argue 'why can't I conquer their territory and get production of those units myself'... :)
Quote:If you ever played in multiplayer it would allow for team games , In single player you would still win and all you really have to do is make sure your the alpha male or top of the pack, If you feel like turning on your former team mates you can do so. I am sure you could make situations or behavors in the AI that could cause the coalition too fall apart.
The Coalition would if lets you played the America , It would be american allied coalition it would count as you.
What You could do just for one main reason to kill a powerful enemy, If you make warpacts it would be great if those Joining with you wouldnt fight with each and concentrate on killing the target.Rather then the current system.
You could also have coalition vs coalition which could happen, In WW2 it was Faucist coalition vs Freedom Coalition , You had Nazi Germany, faucist italy, hungary and Japan Vs America , British Commonwealth (canada,Australia,South Africa ect..) Soviet Union.
But how is this different from setting up a network of alliances? It really doesn't seem like it is to a very large degree. Just an alliance with one side as a central unifying force... not enough for me to say that it should go into the game.
It is interesting to hear that allies can win as a team in multiplay though... I didn't know that.
Quote:Going back to your arguement as why having Minor races couldnt work on small maps , Guess what like in BOTF , The bigger the map the more the races the lesser the map the fewer there is.
If you were playing Egypt the "sea people" or "nubians" might be the guys to be next door. I noticed alot of the barbarians already have historical names like the Etruscans and North men ect..
The way it is those who are big explorers on big continents can get free tech by just ploping along barbarian villages , Having the way I suggested atleast would force you to earn it slow you down from doing that and give the opponents or yourself a fare chance to try to sway that group the otherway.
Some groups will favor certain races , Plus your goverment type may also effect your chances , They might like the freedom of a republic or the cheiftain could like the idea of becoming a Lord under your rule in a monarchy.
the Neutrals would probaily just be 1 city two at the most, Were talking about huge empires.
This could work... why not make the barbarians more of a real side? As it is they're so simple just attackers with bases. Which is not horrible but as the series progresses some more detail could be good. So implementing some aspects of more complexity for barbarians might work well. It'd be tougher to do something like you describe in BotF though because of how many nations and tribes there are, but they could have something with each tribe having differing levels of affinity to each possible player nation... complex but doable. So some tribes would more naturally fall into your sphere of influence and probably eventually turn into your own cities (before that trading and stuff), while others would resist as classic barbarian towns.
The number of such tribes should be controlled by the 'Barbarian Activity' slider, I think.
What do I want to see from Civ IV... hmm, the High Council in video form that interact with eachother, Wonder movies, a restricted Wonder list (seven per period is perfect. Perhaps if you still want Minor Wonders have an additional seven of them.), a better game interface (Civ III's isn't as good as Civ II's), a minimap in the map editor, scenarios from the start, a much better resource system, no way to not have any decent access to a river or lake from your starting town (for irrigation)... hmm... Oh, I also prefer Civ II's combat system. I like health bars over hit points.
Here's a hilarious smilie blatantly stolen from civfanatics.com. :)
Quote:Ah, but I digress, annoying ABF is fun because he's such a weird person.
Precisely!
Quote:Because you want me to go away, I'm going to stay right here. *stays right here*
Haha, good idea!
Quote:This thread's boring. I'm leaving. *leaves*
... well that was quick.
I had Civ 1...it was fun, I guess. Sorry, that's all I have to add.
...
...
...
...
...
*cough*Simcity > Civilization*cough*
A Black Falcon Wrote:Could be a good idea, but then you argue 'why can't I conquer their territory and get production of those units myself'... :)
This could work... why not make the barbarians more of a real side? As it is they're so simple just attackers with bases. Which is not horrible but as the series progresses some more detail could be good. So implementing some aspects of more complexity for barbarians might work well. It'd be tougher to do something like you describe in BotF though because of how many nations and tribes there are, but they could have something with each tribe having differing levels of affinity to each possible player nation... complex but doable. So some tribes would more naturally fall into your sphere of influence and probably eventually turn into your own cities (before that trading and stuff), while others would resist as classic barbarian towns.
The number of such tribes should be controlled by the 'Barbarian Activity' slider, I think.
What do I want to see from Civ IV... hmm, the High Council in video form that interact with eachother, Wonder movies, a restricted Wonder list (seven per period is perfect. Perhaps if you still want Minor Wonders have an additional seven of them.), a better game interface (Civ III's isn't as good as Civ II's), a minimap in the map editor, scenarios from the start, a much better resource system, no way to not have any decent access to a river or lake from your starting town (for irrigation)... hmm... Oh, I also prefer Civ II's combat system. I like health bars over hit points.
1. If you conquere the Barbarian settlement , You wont get anything from its people , No Tech and no maps , No Gifts. Since you have just agressively annexed the city you just eliminated all males of fighting age so no special units. The only reason you should conquere them is if they are too savage and hostile to be reasoned with or too deny a rival world power.
A simple way of implementing it is following what CIV 3 added already with cultural straits , If you havent noticed when you pick your race they have a staus like Scientific ,industrial ,Militaristic,Religious,Exspansionist,Agricultural,Sea faring. Already each Civilization in the third game has two of the above types , The Barbarians would be the same , Warlike Barbarians might respect a warrior nation more then farmers and priests same goes with the rest.I can already see the Sea People as exspansionist sea faring people,As long as one strait is common with your civ and the barbarians you could be abled to trade and intergrate with them if not, They will mock you or be disinterested.
As for Wonders Big wonder more dramatic movies , Small minor ones you get the drift.
In conquests some of the wonders can give you exclusive rights to create a special unit , The Statue of Zeus lets you have Ancient Cavalry and You get Cruisaders for another one later on.
Quote:Yeah, minor wonders might just deserve a static picture like Civ III has... they aren't Great Wonders of the World, after all. But the major ones should. Oh, and exclusive units from wonders? Neat, it's a decent extension of what wonders have done before...
As for Barbarians, of course you don't get maps or tech. There are a lot of them so if you got tech from them it'd be horribly unbalancing... I would not want to see that. Gold and occasional units are fine... and probably more accurate, too... It's wiping out villages of barbarians and scattering the survivors... now, I will say one thing -- these should stop in the later times. Once it's the modern age, there is little excuse to say where barbarians would be coming from... but even if the world was fully explored in premodern times because of the technology differences it'd be definitely possible to have barbarians. But a stop to randomly spawning barbarians at some point would be good, if it's not in the game already... it's clear that you wish they had more of a role in the game, but think about this. Suppose that they make them a stronger part of the game. You'll probably ask for more... so why not just go all the way and say where this line leads: you want more opponenets in the game and eight isn't enough. Maybe that isn't a complete picture of your opinion, but if you implement everything you say the line between barbarian and civilizations would be quite blurred indeed... and the point of having the civilizations seperate is to note how they are different (and they are, in real history too! Perhaps tribes are undervalued here, but the game is about lasting culture and that comes from civilizations, not barbarian tribes). Also, cities for barbarians wouldn't make as much sense. Most of them didn't really HAVE big cities, just scattered tribes... which is the point of all the small villages and randomly generated barbarians... and also a lot of them would not use diplomatic channels. Look at history! Barbarian invasions into civilized lands happened constantly. If anything the biggest problem in the game isn't not giving them enough diplomatic options, it's not making them powerful enough to take over cities... because in real history that happened all the time (and then they would get assimilated into the population of the region, generally, making a somewhat different but still mostly based on the past civilization culture)
Along those lines though, there should be trade with barbarians (this is a definite historical fact) and perhaps in later times some simple kinds of peace treaties... though they should break them all the time in most cases, I think (and if they don't you can, which would impact your international diplomatic rating a whole lot less than breaking a treaty with a real nation).
__________________
In History many of the barbarians become advance modern civilizations, Like our ancestry from germanic or gealic tribes. Sorry I just love Barbarians.
In CivIII I just dislike the fact the computer or yourself can just send a few axemen or whatever around the place and try snag every village you can find and get tech and bonuses right off the bat without having to earn anything, Those who do have generally a larger technological edge which is hard to catch up too.I think it would be more fare to force them to atleast earn it and prevent instant tech and give other Civs more time to try to take it rather then first come first serve.
What I suggested waisnt a city but just a big settlement , They could attack and harrase like they already do , But atleast you would be abled to bribe them if you cant combat them at the imediate time , Maybe they could allow them to capture cities from you.Then you have too negotiate for them to return it or just beat them out ,Have them take slaves or raid your city run off with food out of the grannary which would cause your populations to temporaily starve.
The difference with Minor races , Is that they dont progress or really acomplish anything on their own, They are just animals you can make into pets and teach tricks. You wouldnt see very many if any in the later ages since they would all be assimulated wiped out or conquered. having minor races join you would add too your game standings. I dont think they would distract you from real opponets to much , Like in BOTF They never really exspand past were they are first put on the map.
If you were very advance they might see you as gods and automatically do your every bidding.I bet you would have to be in the industrial age and have big bombs and fancy magical like powers atleast in the eyes of the primitives, I dont think their tech and merc would really matter at that point so its less of a bonus later on.
As I can remeber Barbarians desapear once no civilization on that continent or peace of land is below the industrial age.
I wrote a nice response (two days ago) and it said it posted but TC was broken and it didn't appear and now it seems I'll have to redo it... :(
TC messes up all the time.
Well GR actually this version has rarely ever glitched at all. The only errors it used to have for a LONG while were just the server going down temporarily.
Now there's this weird glitch within the actual system itself... That's something we haven't seen in this new system. It does take me back though...
It's really annoying when it wipes out relatively long posts...
Anyway, making barbarians more relevant and being able to set up alliances and treaties and stuff (bribe tribes to do things against your enemies, etc) would be good. Barbarians in history were a whole lot stronger and more important than they are in this game. Now, it presents problems because of how in real history tribes developed over time while in Civ you can't do that because to compete you must be there from the start, but still, they could have a larger role... perhaps let them invade your territories, take over your cities (upon which time they would either go into anarchy or into barbarian control), and in time assimilate the barbarians into your culture, strengthening it... this would require stronger barbarians, of course, but it'd be neat. And if you want you could lower their strength with the barbarian frequency slider that's already there.
As for the late game, having them be so impressed with your technology that they follow you doesn't seem like it's either particularly historically accurate or a good idea. More accurate would be you just wiping them out... by that point in the game anyway there usually aren't that many barbarians left to bother you so it's less of a problem. But definitely their usefulness should peak and then decline and then by the later game they wouldn't have much use except to destroy or assimilate.
First info about Civ IV!
Quote:In the January 2005 issue of PC GAMER, the cover has a story of "The Top 10 Games of 2005" with Sid Meier's Civilization IV being the 1st bulletpoint! Inside there is a whole page of Civ4 info AND four screenshots. This is the first time we see screenshots from Civ4!
Below are some of the more interesting stuff from the article:
* Development is being headed by creator Sid Meier himself.
* Civ IV has been written entirely from scratch.
* The 3D engine will allow you to zoom smoothly from a global view all the way down to a single city.
* Individual units will gain experience and acquire new upgrades such as bonuses against specific enemy types and the ability to use enemy roads.
* No more spearmen defeating tanks.
* The tech tree has been changed to allow radically different research paths to the same high-level technologies, so you won’t have to follow a strict research path to be competitive later in the game.
* The game is written using flexible XML data files and the Python scripting language so that modders will have no trouble at all creating their own personalized worlds, units, technologies, and historical events. Advanced modders will even be able to control the AI.
* Civ4 has been designed from the outset to include the multiplayer mode. You will be able to team up in co-op mode against the AI or other teams of players, and a random-map generator ensures an equal start.
http://www.civfanatics.com/
do you get the screenshots before they removed them?