 |
|
furrykef
|
|
How come nobody can spell "Centauri" anymore? :P
- Kef
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Best of all games of all genres of all times=SMAC
Other than sex of course.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Plotinus
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by vmxa1
Yes we could prove read, but that does not alway s happen.
|
Actually it took me some time to realise that you meant "proof-read" there, which is time I wouldn't have wasted if you had, in fact, proof-read... Bad spelling or poor grammar makes for confusing or unclear posts, and it's simply inexcusably unless you have dyslexia or are posting in a foreign language or something. This isn't a chat room where speed overrules accuracy, you know. People shouldn't be so sloppy about making their meanings clear.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gen.Dragolen
|
|
Well, it's been interesting reading what everyone else thinks of the other Sid TBS games, not just CivIII. I've also played since Civ I, and have dabled with CTP2 and most of the RTS games too. So far, I'm really wishing I had someone who was interested in playing some of the old board games like 3rd Reich or Panzer General. Less agravating, simpler and alot more fun.
Despite protests to the contrary, I still think that the combat system in C3 is a fatal flaw, since I see too many outcomes that are way past the improbable end of the bell curve. It just gets boring seeing a lowly 3hp Warrior or archer on the defensive take out an experienced stronger unit that took a long time to build, all without suffering a single hit point in damage. And then they finally die leaving a second attacking unit mortally wounded with 1 hp left. Like I want to rely on building 3 attacking units to kill one defender. I'd rather succeed because I built a better unit, or had a good leader like a Hanibal or Alexander at the head of the army, and had found a flaw in the defenses.
For a game that is not supposed to be a pure wargame, but a builder's game, the evidence shows it is nothing but an over simplified wargame since 90% of it is based on the outcome of combat.
With improbable combat results, it's nearly impossible to do anything except build more and more units. Like it takes any strategic genius to win if you can only throw units at target until you beat them. Even in the heavily modded scenarios that came with C3C, I find that all the casualties take the fun out of it.
There is no real political element to the game, since the AI sees you either as inferior or as the target of their hostility. Buildings can take a thousand years to complete, and have no significant impact on the developement of the society.
Without the basic details that make a wargame realistic, any Civ game will never be anything more than a pretty version of Risk. And I played enough of that as a child. Essentially C3 is C1 with better graphics.
What I had hoped for was a decent historical simulation of how civilizations evolved. That way I could make changes to see what would happen. Part of the reason any of us are here is because it is a very hard thing to keep armies in the field. It is far easier for an empire to negotiate trade and threaten the use of force than to put boots or hooves on the ground. And even then, empires have a habit of collapsing and then a new hybrid culture takes root and flourishes.
I do have one thing to be thankfull for with Civ III - modding. From Warpstorm's Watercolour terrain to aaglo's units, the creativity makes it worth keeping on the hard drive. Without the editor, I would have bogart'd this game a long time ago.
D.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
okblacke
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gen.Dragolen
Despite protests to the contrary, I still think that the combat system in C3 is a fatal flaw, since I see too many outcomes that are way past the improbable end of the bell curve.
|
That sounds...improbable.
quote:
Like I want to rely on building 3 attacking units to kill one defender. I'd rather succeed because I built a better unit, or had a good leader like a Hanibal or Alexander at the head of the army, and had found a flaw in the defenses. |
That's tactical. Civ is strategic. You don't get to be Hannibal or Alexander, really. You get to be the U.S. Department of Defense: If you want assured victory, you have to outproduce.
quote:
For a game that is not supposed to be a pure wargame, but a builder's game, the evidence shows it is nothing but an over simplified wargame since 90% of it is based on the outcome of combat. |
You and I have seen different evidence. The primary factor from what I've seen is REXing. I've had many games where combat was trivial, and a few games where I was never engaged in combat at all. Some where nobody engaged in combat for centuries.
quote:
Like it takes any strategic genius to win if you can only throw units at target until you beat them. |
Right. The primary strategy is in being able to produce more units.
That's cause, you know, it's not a war game.
quote:
There is no real political element to the game, since the AI sees you either as inferior or as the target of their hostility. |
Or superior. In the few games I had where there was century after century of peace, it was because I was so far ahead of everyone else, they were afraid to fight.
quote:
Buildings can take a thousand years to complete, and have no significant impact on the developement of the society. |
Significant?
quote:
Without the basic details that make a wargame realistic, |
We can assume that will never happen. The burden in terms of programming would be huge, even if you could figure out how to make a generalized war game that spanned 6,000 years that people were actually able to play.
quote:
any Civ game will never be anything more than a pretty version of Risk. And I played enough of that as a child. |
Deep Red ("Monopoly Tycoon") did a splendid version of computer Risk ("Risk II") which contained some interesting rules variations.
quote:
Essentially C3 is C1 with better graphics. |
Essentially? Yes, I guess, in essence. It's not revolutionary.
Though, for myself, as a Nethack player and fan of text adventures, I have no need of graphics. But Civ I lacks borders, culture, and anything like the AI in Civ III.
quote:
What I had hoped for was a decent historical simulation of how civilizations evolved. |
One of the reasons I like game forums is that they get me thinking. I spent some time recently designing a game that, I thought, could model the rise and fall of civilizations.
I've sort of come to the conclusion that such a game would be very boring for the player. At best, it could be a kind of "The Sims" type game, though at the macro level rather than the individual.
Historically, all great civilizations fall from the inside. When the barbarians came knocking at the Romans gates, they were already a hollow shell.
This is probably not inevitable, but it's happened in every civilizaiton to date.
Some have commented that while some leaders are good at handling domestic affairs, others are better with foreign matters, and few or none are good at both. So, too, with players: Those likely to be interested in managing domestic affairs (SimCity, Sims) are probably going to be annoyed by international affairs (Civ, MOO) and vice-versa.
quote:
That way I could make changes to see what would happen. |
So, you want a game that allows you to maintain the acqueduct while demanding you supply the logistics that keep your armies supplied? And it should extend 6,000 years?
quote:
Part of the reason any of us are here is because it is a very hard thing to keep armies in the field. |
Here on Apolyton or here on earth?
quote:
It is far easier for an empire to negotiate trade and threaten the use of force than to put boots or hooves on the ground. And even then, empires have a habit of collapsing and then a new hybrid culture takes root and flourishes. |
Right. Now package that in tasty game form and you got something. Not Civ, but something.
quote:
I do have one thing to be thankfull for with Civ III - modding. |
Amen.
quote:
I would have bogart'd this game a long time ago. |
Huh. I thought "bogart" meant to hog or keep for one's self.
[ok]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
annoyed
|
|
kohan should have been the ideal rts game, because of formations, except it turns out formations do not matter because units can overlap and be mushed together into one big ball of battle. I really would love rts if they did not all turn into a huge clickfest, but unfortunately I do not think current AI can handle the subtlety of formations and defensive warfare, so any game that includes these options are doomed to multi-player.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caesar2760
|
|
Ohio...
Nov 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
I've heard remarkably little comment about what is quite likely the best RTS ever: EU II. It's simply remarkable, amazingly challenging, constantly interesting, and full of the kind of baroque "realism" that makes me just squirm with delight. When the discussion forums for your game continually have debates over the true meaning of inflation, the relative power of galleys and galleons, and the proper ratio of cavalry to infantry to cannon, given any number of seemingly minute details, you know you've done something right.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-03-2004 11:58
|