11-05-2005 10:06									#31
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Shogun Gunner You are bound to get some responses for this comment! Many people equate workers and caravans with micromanagement. Me personally, I think both add character to the game.

I'm fine with workers -- they add something to the game, I agree.


But I deplore the inclusion of caravans. They were just ridiculous, IMO.

	11-05-2005 10:07									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Adagio Workers adds something to the game, while caravans only adds annoyance

wow -- same thoughts I posted but just didn't notice before posting

	11-05-2005 10:35									#33
	Remove this text

Workers are so typically civ! Please don't remove them.
But make it possible to automate them at least as good as in cIIIv, or even better!

Perhaps workers shouldn't cost one population point. I mean, why should a spearman not cost a city a population point, while a worker has to? That a settler costs a city 1 population point is logically, since a bunch of people leaves the city to found a new one.

	11-05-2005 11:57									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

The reason that workers cost a population point is that they are so versatile, being capable of a multitude of different tasks that improve the infrastructure of your civilization.

I know that doesn't fit with your logic in that workers do not leave to found a new city, but at least in Civ III, they can leave to found a new colony.

	11-05-2005 13:15									#35
	Increase Your PM Length

I wonder what people have against merchant caravans?
It is not as if they haven't been a part of history...

They have more right to be in the game that workers, which
are too fiddly and use up extra computer power to automate.

Combine settlers and workers as one, I say!

Though, with the game being simplified -
We might see workers and caravans going!

But I will stay hopeful - I want my merchants!

	11-05-2005 16:18									#36
	Suffering from ads?

Mr. Fun reminds me that the colony concept should be improved. Perhaps giving a colony a radius like a city square, but with no opportunity to expand it as no city infrastructure can be built....somehow the colony should be eligible to become a city...

	11-05-2005 17:23									#37
	Tired of ads?

I agree - A colony should be more of an importance!

	11-05-2005 20:38									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Caravans:
Galactic Civilization has somethign we could call "caravans" and it works very well without the annoyance (and they said they inspire themselves of some other games' innovations). Well implemented trade could be great if well done, so we'll see

But I'd like to know: will it be possible to attack them and take the bounty?

	11-05-2005 21:13									#39
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by curtsibling I wonder what people have against merchant caravans? It is not as if they haven't been a part of history... They have more right to be in the game that workers, which are too fiddly and use up extra computer power to automate. Combine settlers and workers as one, I say! Though, with the game being simplified - We might see workers and caravans going! But I will stay hopeful - I want my merchants!

I'm all for realism as long as its reasonably balance with playability and fun factor.


And I say that caravans, while they would add to realism, is something that takes away the fun.

	11-05-2005 21:14									#40
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Shogun Gunner Mr. Fun reminds me that the colony concept should be improved. Perhaps giving a colony a radius like a city square, but with no opportunity to expand it as no city infrastructure can be built....somehow the colony should be eligible to become a city...

Or how about the more developed/mature a colony becomes, there becomes a small chance that it could revolt and become an independent small state.

	11-05-2005 23:46									#41
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by MrFun I'm all for realism as long as its reasonably balance with playability and fun factor. And I say that caravans, while they would add to realism, is something that takes away the fun.

It depends on how they're implemented. In the past versions of Civ, there were three problems with caravans that I can recall.

1) Poor pathfinding when using 'goto'.

2) No stacked movement. When you wanted to send a stack of caravans to the same city, you'd have to move each one at a time.

3) The time required to check supply/demand. In Civ 2, when a caravan was built, you'd have to choose what good it carried. Then to maximize your profit, you'd have to check which cities demanded that good. From those cities you'd pick the one that would give the biggest trade-per-turn bonus. This involved a lot of micromanagement, and was a big pain.

Now, problems 1 & 2 no longer exist as of Civ 3. Problem 3 could be removed through better implementation. Hopefully, the idea of city-to-city trade will be totally revamped.

	12-05-2005 00:26									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I believe it will be a good game but am not sure it will be "civ":

Removing fixed governements offers a lot of opportunities BUT means that all the things that are keyed to governements now, like tile bonuses/penalties, rush-builds, military police, unit support, war weariness will have to be addressed in other ways

Combat will be completely different. Also the comments about reducing micromanagement, not using large stacks and the focus on unit promotions imply far fewer units in a civs military

Tile improvements highlighted so far which seem to link to specific resources, like wineries, imply fewer, larger improvements (and so less micromanagement)

Comments about everything being visible on the main map andless micromanagement, imply removing the city screens and how do you reassign city workers?

It looks to me as though it will have a lot of "civ" heritage, out of the box it may not feel like "civ"

	12-05-2005 00:35									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Myrddin Removing fixed governements offers a lot of opportunities BUT means that all the things that are keyed to governements now, like tile bonuses/penalties, rush-builds, military police, unit support, war weariness will have to be addressed in other ways

Remember that advanced Civ3 players often consider more than one government change a waste of time. And even if another change is made, some (of the already few) governments just suck, and you never use them. This makes the choices the game presents pretty boring, basically stripping it of one of its depths.

I think most people who have played SMAC will tell you the flexible choices are much more fun. They allow you to produce mixes the designers did not even imagine (like a democracy running planned economics, not free market ) while keeping the possibility for very different government forms to evolve. In SMAC, policy choices stay interesting throughout the game, and a short switch is something that does happen. This adds considerable depth to the game.

	12-05-2005 00:49									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Xorbon It depends on how they're implemented. In the past versions of Civ, there were three problems with caravans that I can recall. 1) Poor pathfinding when using 'goto'. 2) No stacked movement. When you wanted to send a stack of caravans to the same city, you'd have to move each one at a time. 3) The time required to check supply/demand. In Civ 2, when a caravan was built, you'd have to choose what good it carried. Then to maximize your profit, you'd have to check which cities demanded that good. From those cities you'd pick the one that would give the biggest trade-per-turn bonus. This involved a lot of micromanagement, and was a big pain. Now, problems 1 & 2 no longer exist as of Civ 3. Problem 3 could be removed through better implementation. Hopefully, the idea of city-to-city trade will be totally revamped.

Actually, I don't think even problem three exists in Civilization III. It's not that big of a deal for me to check which civilization demands which goods, because I don't have to check city-by-city -- the information pertains more broadly to each civilization, simplifying keeping track of demand.

	12-05-2005 00:50									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Modo44 Remember that advanced Civ3 players often consider more than one government change a waste of time. And even if another change is made, some (of the already few) governments just suck, and you never use them. This makes the choices the game presents pretty boring, basically stripping it of one of its depths.

I feel the same way. When I play a game of Civilization III, I ALWAYS go through the same government transition route in this order:

depotism

monarchy

republic

democracy

	12-05-2005 01:17									#46
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Myrddin: If civ doesn't evolve, it will become an antiquity. It's already well on it's way. The only thing that can save the franchise from slowly fading away and die, is drastic change, while at the same time keep the good elements and imporve others. Just as it seems Firaxis will do with cIV.

	12-05-2005 01:37									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Agreed Nickolai

I think that the changes may appear more drastic than many people on this site are expecting

	12-05-2005 01:40									#48
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Myrddin Removing fixed governements offers a lot of opportunities BUT means that all the things that are keyed to governements now, like tile bonuses/penalties, rush-builds, military police, unit support, war weariness will have to be addressed in other ways

Ever played SMAC? If not, then try it. The way governments are implemented in that game is

As already mentioned it's kinda boring the way governments are done in Civ games where you in most games has planned exactly what government you want at what point in the game, while in SMAC you make small choices when needed

	12-05-2005 02:13									#49
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I'm for change; BUT suspect that a lot of others will be saying 'its not civ anymore' when more information is released

	12-05-2005 02:43									#50
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I don't care what it's like as long as it comes with a Hammurabi action figure.

	12-05-2005 02:54									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by MrFun Actually, I don't think even problem three exists in Civilization III. It's not that big of a deal for me to check which civilization demands which goods, because I don't have to check city-by-city -- the information pertains more broadly to each civilization, simplifying keeping track of demand.

Problem 3 isn't a problem in Civ 3 because there are no caravans.

I was just bringing up that one annoying aspect of Civ 2. The 'city-to-city' trade system of Civ 2 was as annoying, IMO, as 'whack-a-mole' pollution.

Hopefully, caravans will work way differently than in Civ 2.

	12-05-2005 04:28									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Xorbon, I would not be worried too much about that, considering the amount of rant which came on the subject

	12-05-2005 05:03									#53
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Xorbon Problem 3 isn't a problem in Civ 3 because there are no caravans. I was just bringing up that one annoying aspect of Civ 2. The 'city-to-city' trade system of Civ 2 was as annoying, IMO, as 'whack-a-mole' pollution. Hopefully, caravans will work way differently than in Civ 2.

I wasn't making that statement as if there were caravans in Civ 3.

I mean, they could have made it tedious by requiring us to check every city for demand of particular goods even without caravans -- but they didn't.

	12-05-2005 10:08									#54
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Did Civ II have a trade system? Honestly, I never used caravans, aside from rushing wonders. I wouldn't mind if they bring them in with combination with the civ-wide trade network of Civ III though. Maybe you'll need caravans to link up with other civ's trade networks?

	12-05-2005 12:09									#55
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

It's not civ anymore?????
Define civ. Of course it's civ. It never was civ because of the things you said.

Civ is civ because you rule and expand a nation from 4000BC to the day of today. You invent technology, build armies, talk with your neighbours, fight wars, trade and expand your nation. Not the way you do it makes civ civ, it's the fact that you can do it which makes civ civ. And of course the fact that it's turn based.

	12-05-2005 15:52									#56
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy It's not civ anymore????? Define civ. Of course it's civ. It never was civ because of the things you said. Civ is civ because you rule and expand a nation from 4000BC to the day of today. You invent technology, build armies, talk with your neighbours, fight wars, trade and expand your nation. Not the way you do it makes civ civ, it's the fact that you can do it which makes civ civ. And of course the fact that it's turn based.

So CtP 1 and 2 are civ by those definitions.

	12-05-2005 16:07									#57
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Of course that are. Now, whether they are good or not is a different thing.

	12-05-2005 16:09									#58
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Maquiladora So CtP 1 and 2 are civ by those definitions.

yes indeed. I think there's almost no-one around here why denies that.

	12-05-2005 16:20									#59
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy yes indeed. I think there's almost no-one around here why denies that.

I do.

	12-05-2005 16:46									#60
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Maquiladora I do.

That's what I said: "almost no one"