 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Adm.Naismith
|
 |
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
time: 06:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
quote:
But my point is that the different traits in Civ3 don't really make that much difference. Do you really play that much different with an militaristic/industrious Civ compared to a religious/scientific etc etc. |
Yes. There is a world of difference in playstyle between, say, Babylon and Scandinavia. |
Well, I must politely disagree 
May be is my fault, because I'm not so a good player, but a good strategist IMHO was Velociryx, and he skinned alive the limited strategic choice you can have in a plain Civ III game. SMAC forced really different playstyle, as I remember, and Vel showed some knowledge about it: he wrote a handbook about it 
Ask him for reference, if you please.
That's not to say SMAC was better than Civ III, OT at this point, only to agree with Bogdanovist that too many civs were mostly good for ahestetic reasons, and for the "ehi sweet, look, there is our nation too!" marketing effect.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
 |
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:33
|
|
Exactly, the Civ 3 civs weren't that different, compared to SMAC at least. What's the point of having many more anyway, especially if the traits repeated themselves for different civs in Civ3? Quality matters, not quantity. We should have the ability to have many civs at once in the game, but I assume we can play with all 18 Civs in Civ4, which will be way enough.
In Civ3, the Unique Unit along with traits sure could make a difference, for instance, the Persian Immortals were so good that they were asking for you to get Iron ASAP and make an Immortal rush to run over your neighbours. But these differences still aren't as large. In SMAC, Spartans should beeline for rover & weapons tech, enhance morale modifiers, and run everyone over with a vastly superior force, Morganites need to establish a core number of their smaller bases soon, switch to Free Market and prepare to use their money, while the University should expand quickly to make use of the science bonus in each city and thus quickly gain the tech lead.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
AeonOfTime
|
 |
Overclocking DOSBox
Nov 2000
time: 06:33
|
|
quote:
@ew0054: only going to have 18 civilizations *cut* Do the math *cut* Hardly worth it *cut* Just don't get sucked in! |
I started saving money each month for buying civ4 when there were starting to be rumours about it, just in case. By the time it comes out, I'll be able to buy the game along with some nice munchables for maximum enjoyability - and as I won't stop saving money in anticipation for the expansions, I'll be able to get those along with some more nice munchables. So much for getting rid of the cost factor...
...and right on to the 'evil game companies want to suck our blood' thing: have you considered that 'bleeding your wallet dry' by giving Firaxis 'more' money by buying the game the way you are supposed to buy it, you are supporting the development of the subsequent Civ instalments? Hell, I'm so happy they are making Civ4 a reality...
...and there is even more to ponder: all right, many game companies follow the 'release base version followed by X expansion sets' economic strategy, but there are actually those that do this because they NEED TO. Civ isn't the most profitable game in the gaming scene - the fanbase may be near to fanaticism, but you don't have the same fanbase than, let's say, The Sims. So in a sense, you could try to use this argument to cool down your insurgence as Firaxis are not doing it for the same reasons...
...but that's not all yet! Let's say Firaxis decides to make an epic Civ4 with all planned expansion packs directly on release. That would be no small investment, as it would mean adding a little less than one year of development. That's quite a huge investment - and nothing guarantees that the game will be sold better enough to cover the additional costs by having 200 civs in it instead of 18.
Actually, by releasing a base version, you can limit the damage if the community does not like the new version - so it is actually also about SURVIVAL. And if the game sells well, you know the community will want new stuff to play with, and you can make money by providing the additional fun. Sounds pretty okay to me, as long as I have fun - that's what makes games worthwile, and I'm damn well going to support that...
...nuff said.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
|
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:33
|
|
quote:
...and there is even more to ponder: all right, many game companies follow the 'release base version followed by X expansion sets' economic strategy, but there are actually those that do this because they NEED TO. Civ isn't the most profitable game in the gaming scene - the fanbase may be near to fanaticism, but you don't have the same fanbase than, let's say, The Sims. So in a sense, you could try to use this argument to cool down your insurgence as Firaxis are not doing it for the same reasons... |
Civ is now more mainstream, Civ3 sold over a million copies, but it's still relatively a niche game, when you compare it to some other big coming releases, such as Age of Empires 3 or F.E.A.R. Civ4 can't hope to compete with AoE3 in the number of copies sold, and the expansion is good for the profit it provides Firaxis. However, no decent company will avoid some good feautures in a game only to add them to the expansion.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
KyuuA4
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
I bought:
civilization: $5
civilization 2: $50
civilization2 MPG: $40
civilization2 tot: $40
civilization 3: $50
civilization 3 PtW: $40
civilization C3C: $40
--------------------------
total: $265
hours played:
civilization: 500?
civilization 2: 1000?
civilization 3: 400?
-----------------------------
total: 3800
265 / 3800 = $0.12 per hour
man, that's really cheap! |
Actually... you could have calculated this way:
Amount spent on games:
$265
*Amount y'could've earned at minimum wage INSTEAD of playing:
3800 hours played x minimum wage (5.15 per hour) == $19570
*NOTE: Assuming one would be crazy enough to work that much EXTRA.
===
Total Amt. that could have still been in the pocket:
$19835
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ew0054
|
|
I am interested in making a real world Earth model, complete with as many cities (accurate to city populations using the formula (((size*(size+1))/2)*10000) + (1000 * food))), which I extrapolated while playing. I have created an Excel sheet which shows the calculations for city sizes up to 63 (20 million people). If anyone is interested in it, I have it at http://www.erniewerbel.com/civ3pop.xls
My point is that I would like to see heaps of civs, to create as unique, and realistic game world as possible. I start in the modern era, use months as the unit of time, and set the starting date to whatever month/year it is now. I often use the Iriquios for Australia (since American rule the US continent), and I put Carthage for Canada (just a substitution), and do similar stuff. Where I don't have a modern civlization to implement where it is needed, I use one of the long-gong ancient ones to substitute it.
Also, they better have Aluminum in Civ4! Aluminum rules and I didn't see it on their list. I think it's one of the most important resources of the modern era and I really hope they keep it. I like the ideas of other commodities like tropical fruit, and making all resources tradable is awesome. Glass would be an interesting one; a luxury perhaps. Did I see silicon on that list? I forget. I can think of a hundred more.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ew0054
|
|
That is a good point. I'm looking into the realism aspect though. Consider this next idea, and I'm sure I'll get people agreeing with me on this cause I feel it makes perfect sense.
In Civ3, you could make a map of only grassland with NO strategic resources, yet still be able to advance to the modern era. Sure, you can't build spaceships without aluminum and what not, but you could get the technology to.
I think that's wrong. If there were no iron, how could we as humans have learned Iron Working? Now I don't think the resources should appear before the tech that needs them is discovered either.
Here's what I do think would strinke a balance for this. You can research to Iron Working, for example. This makes Iron appear. BUT, in order to advance BEYOND Iron Working (to the techs that branch off it), you need to HAVE Iron.
Wouldn't that make more sense? Think about it. Resoucrces had to be available in order for engineers and scientists to develop prototypes of later inventions such as the automobile and cannons. How could this have been possible without already having the resource?
I think that in Civ3, just having the tech represents having access to everything the tech needs. I think that's a bit flawed.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
KyuuA4
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by AeonOfTime
In a civ3 game lately, I was eagerly awaiting aluminium to be able to built modern armor, only to find out that there was absolutely no aluminium on the map. Needless to say, that was an interesting endgame... |
Now, how the heck did that happen? I mean... not ever?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-06-2005 12:11
. Oh the horror...
|