 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
No, I did not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Honestly, I maybe spiced it a tad, but either here or at civfantics a firaxian was talking about this concept. Sounded like a trial balloon to me. I can't place the thread just now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002
time: 17:33
|
|
Yeah. No way in hell that this would happen. Even if hell froze over this wouldn't happen.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:33
|
|
Jimmytrick, you've misconstrued Jesse's words.
He isn't talking about mission based civ, though a modder could do that if he wanted. He's not turning this into warcraft or something, build five cities in this scenario then move onto a larger map.
He's talking about increasing the map size (or map awareness would be more appropriate) through time, or what ever parameter is in place (era, tech, etc). I for one love this idea (and said so in that thread posted above) To me this would give a much more interesting experience, and more realistic. No more 4000bc warrior travelling around the globe. did people in, say, Germany know of people in India in 3000BC? Well, I have no clue, but I doubt it. They knew of their immediate neighbors and some others. In a game like this, you would start in, say, Kansas (random Rock Chalk selection), build cities there, conquer an enemy or two, then expand into, say, Colorado and Nebraska etc. all the while being able to move further and further out from your cities. Eventually you could see all of N. America and S. America, and then finally the world.
I think this would be implemented similar to the ToT multimaps,ie you can play the old standard civ XXXxXXX map or you can play the ever expanding universe.
So I think you're horribly misconstruing Jesse's post by calling it "mission-based", though he does acknowledge what modders could do with this.
Like I said in that thread, when I think of my ideal civ game in bed at night (!) I think of something similar to this.
I see this as evolving civ from an game where you have a bunch of individual cities, nearly autonomous units, to where you start off as a city state, like Ur or whatever, and through time you develop into a nation like what we have today.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:33
|
|
Don't get me wrong all, but the more I think of this, the better I can imagine that it would be a viable concept. That's me "rambling", so don't take it too serious, it's just an idea, which is far from being thoroughly reasoned:
Imagine, in the early game you are given only a very rough roster of, say, 40x40. You are able to explore, to grab land and place very rough tile improvements. In this phase, you found the centers of your provinces, or let's say in terms of the US, your states. The city radii ("state areas") will get borders, the location of which you can determine. Then, at some point in the game, the granularity doubles. Each tile is split in four (2x2), making it a 80x80 map. Your cities and first tile improvements remain, but the regions they cover double in size (or in terms of area, grow fourfold). Now, you can found smaller, secondary cities between the primaries, say, the centers of your "counties" in terms of the US. Your tile improvement capabilities will refine; what once was a pure irrigation (emphasizing food) or mining (emphasizing production), can now be changed in +2 food, +2 production, or +1 food, +3 production, etc. The trade network also has to be further developed. May be at some point, the granularity doubles again, to 160x160. You get the idea. Could work.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
It's sounds like a mission based game to me. Anyhow, it clearly isn't civ. Civ is 4X and if you limit the exploration and expansion aspect artificially you can only move one way...towards linear gaming. I'll point out that Civ3 was and is infinitely more linear than previous editions of Civ. I for one detest this idea and really will not buy that sort of product.
This is clearly mission based whatever else you want to call it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimmytrick
It's sounds like a mission based game to me. Anyhow, it clearly isn't civ. Civ is 4X and if you limit the exploration and expansion aspect artificially you can only move one way...towards linear gaming. I'll point out that Civ3 was and is infinitely more linear than previous editions of Civ. I for one detest this idea and really will not buy that sort of product.
This is clearly mission based whatever else you want to call it. |
I call it hyperbole
you need to reread that thread.
If that's mission based, then all civ is mission based. Build cities, discover advances, go to war, etc. Its the same game but on a much grander scale. More realistic in my opinion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JesseSmith
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by WarpStorm
That's probably Jesse rambling rather than a definitive statement about Civ4 features. |
Quite right Warpstorm
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-01-2004 08:45
Rumor floats that Civ4 will be a mission based game, starting with limited maps to complete, with larger maps available, then rinse and repeat. This is awful, it is not Civ and we ought to let them know right now that if they want to do that sort of game, fine, just do it as a spinoff and do not crap up any small chance that we might get a quality Civ4 product.
Steven
|