 |
|
Ision
|
|
The C3C scenarios are getting all the talk and I do understand why. I believe they are a great 'twist' on the standard 'all ages' Civ game. While I am looking foward to playing the C3C scenarios, I have no doubt that my first love will always be a full scale 'from 4000 bc to the end of time' game.
My concern is that the game company has focused so much on the scenarios at the expense of any improvement for the 'classic' civ game.
Has there been any improvement to the classic game? I have not read any post that indicates any changes to the AI, tech tree, unit strengths, ect.... Please don't tell me that C3C is identical to PTW in the 'classic' game in all aspects except the addition of a few new Civs.....
Am I off on this one?
Sincerely,
Ision
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
 |
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:31
|
|
It won't be identical for the classic game. Firaxis realise that Civ old-timers still want the 4000 BC till 2000 AD game. This is why all the new feautures that are in C3C also apply to the single player game. That is, new resources, units, civs, governments, Wonders, and all the other stuff, will also work for the "classic" game.
The scenarios are also supposed to add some appeal to the non-hardcore civ gamers, who can be heard claiming that Civ is a great concept, but games are too long.
As far as the AI goes. This is, of course, my favorite area for improvement - and it has been said that Soren will work on further tweaks. I have heard unconfirmed news, too, that the AI will be adapted to play a somewhat decent game at Regicide.
So worry not... you will see all kinds of improvements.
Hope this helps.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
|
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:31
|
|
Well, usually, you're dominant in the Industrial Age. Either doomed or dominant.
I do usually find myself in the situation when I'm the most powerful, and one country is pretty close to me. For the fun of it, though, I may try to ally with everyone against that other country, and wipe it... but even though Tanks, Bombers and others are fun, economically, not going to war is a better choice.
Just use maths. The upkeep you pay for an offensive military is one. The time that your core cities spend producing military during the war is two. Potential issues with happiness are three. Any productive tiles or cities you lose are four. And the benefits are fewer.
I have found that going defensive in Industrial pays off more. That is, make sure that my cities are defended with Infantry, but only have very little attacking forces. A few Cavalry or Tanks later, and a bit of Artillery... but only enough to drive the invaders from my land. And I would end up with most cities having every improvement...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:31
|
|
Actually speaking of Wars in the Industrial and Modern Ages-What if you've claimed LOTS of territory, but you find yourself with no coal, no oil no rubber or even-NO URANIUM!!!! Worse still, what if your neighbours have it?! Plus, when I was playing the game (before my computer crashed), I used to set the disappearance for late-game resources slightly higher than normal so that, even if you got them, you might not have them for long-giving a great impetus for war! Anyway I don't mind late-game wars myself, even if there are no resources involved!!!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-10-2003 14:10
.
|