22nd November 2004, 1:49 PM
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.
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:
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.