22nd November 2004, 4:52 PM
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. :)