17-06-2005 07:58									#91
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Doesn't it say somewhere in the helpfile I believe that there will be by default, two of a resource per civilization on the map?

I think I remember reading that "Each civilization has access to two of the resource"

	17-06-2005 21:47									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I don't have a problem with expansion packs. The Civ3 Play The World - I had a problem with. Actually it was the lack of multiplayer included in Civ3 that bothered me. Expansions are usually good things. Of course they are planning Civ4 expansions. Why wouldn't they?

Maybe there will be a "Civ4 - Play the Globe" expansion where we can play on a true 3D globe instead of a tube.

Just wait until Civ4 Complete. Then you won't feel ripped off.

Wait until it's in the $10 bin and you can feel like you are sticking it to the man!

Capitalism is good. Expansions are good.

	18-06-2005 04:35									#93
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Just wait until Civ4 Complete. Then you won't feel ripped off.

Wait until it's in the $10 bin and you can feel like you are sticking it to the man!


I couldn't agree with your more on that one! Hehe.





Maybe there will be a "Civ4 - Play the Globe" expansion where we can play on a true 3D globe instead of a tube.


I would imagine this game could be like Tetrisphere for Nintendo 64, in which a flat playing area was mapped onto a globe. It should look like that when you zoom out fully, being able to see about half of the world.

	18-06-2005 05:51									#94
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

First - I think we should get both coconuts and bamboo as resources. If you get both, and the great leader "the Professor" - you can build any unit. (There, I've gone and spoilt a great Easter Egg).


Second - and more on point - there are several games where I have advocated expansion packs to add features that I think could take the game to a new level, and possibly reinvigorate it in the market. One is Paradox's Victoria - good game (IMHO) that didn't sell well and has a few flaws and potential changes that could make it great. I'd pay for that.

Third - What I'd really like to see in expansion packs is potential plug-ins. An expansion pack that provided stacked combat (a la CTP - heresy, I know) is one I might buy. (And, yes, I know how hard it would be to do that in a game not designed for it from scratch, and balance it, and include it in the AI.......)

	20-06-2005 13:51									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Dr Zoidberg Shogun, since you built a play room for yourself in the basement, wouldn´t it be a shame to not play the smoking hot Civ4?

and send a photo again...

X-mas is just +/-6 months away for me


I know what I want

	20-06-2005 14:13									#96
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

That room of the Gunner's is awesome indeed

	20-06-2005 17:32									#97
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Changmai Beagle Third - What I'd really like to see in expansion packs is potential plug-ins. An expansion pack that provided stacked combat (a la CTP - heresy, I know) is one I might buy. (And, yes, I know how hard it would be to do that in a game not designed for it from scratch, and balance it, and include it in the AI.......)

Huh! I doubt this will be in any expansion pack. Personally, I feel it should be in the release. Doesn't have to be the default option, but maybe a selectable option?

But I suppose, who'd play with stacked combat on if it was available, or would everyone still play the normal 1-on-1?

Dale

	20-06-2005 18:21									#98
	Increase the size of your Attachments

There have been great debates on the subject of stacked combat. IIRC, more voted for stacked combat, however, clearly a poll on Apolyton is not statistically sound. Additionally, the implementation of such a feature would be critical to success of the game. I doubt that both options would be included. Since combat is an important part of the game, that essentially create two versions of the game.

Not exactly an optional feature....it has to be one way or the other. From the released screen shots, it looks like we are still with 1 on 1 combat.

	20-06-2005 18:45									#99
	Tired of ads?

Thankfully. The CTP2 implementation was one of the major drawbacks of that game IMHO. So much problems with it...

	20-06-2005 19:55									#100
	Remove this text

quote: Thankfully. The CTP2 implementation was one of the major drawbacks of that game IMHO. So much problems with it...

Like what?

	20-06-2005 20:23									#101
	Tired of ads?

It was pretty bad implemented. It required much more MM than it should, and sometimes I had to empty all units and then add the ones I wanted to have it work as it should. CTP2 is a good game to a degree, it reminds me of Civ2, with a few major differences in game mechanics here and there. But some things, as this, makes the game much worse and less fun than it should have been.

	20-06-2005 22:53									#102
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Nikolai It was pretty bad implemented. It required much more MM than it should, and sometimes I had to empty all units and then add the ones I wanted to have it work as it should. CTP2 is a good game to a degree, it reminds me of Civ2, with a few major differences in game mechanics here and there. But some things, as this, makes the game much worse and less fun than it should have been.

I disagree to a certain extent.

O.k., the interface was not optimal, but after having got used to it (which took just one or two games) it was an easy going to adjust your little army to the next task.

I will admit that the AI didn't cope with it very good, but hey, in Civ it even doesn't handle the 1-1 combat good.

As far as I see it, CTP1/2 successfully adressed a lot of "problems" of the Civ franchise. Not that it would have been perfect.
Nevertheless, adopting some of its features and aligning them to what makes Civ so interesting and (hopefully) unique would benefit Civ4.

	21-06-2005 00:43									#103
	Got spare money?

I will also agree that sometimes it was a pain to create stacks you wanted, and there were, in fact, much worse problems with the CtP2 combat system, but overall, I prefer it by far simply because it gives more sensible combat results. 5 Knights attacking a Pikeman kill him outright, which is how it should be.

	21-06-2005 01:38									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Solver 5 Knights attacking a Pikeman kill him outright, which is how it should be.

And some of them should die in the process, a Pikeman being what he is (Knight-killer, when on defense). This is different to Civ how exactly (no, I do not know CtP)?

	21-06-2005 03:14									#105
	Support Apolyton

5 Knights to one Pikeman shouldn't have losses, realistically. In Civ3, it can well cost you 3 Knights, and the ridicilous part is that Knight #1 attacks, as Knights #2-#5 stand by and do nothing, and then Knight #2 attacks...

	21-06-2005 03:30									#106
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Solver 5 Knights to one Pikeman shouldn't have losses, realistically. In Civ3, it can well cost you 3 Knights, and the ridicilous part is that Knight #1 attacks, as Knights #2-#5 stand by and do nothing, and then Knight #2 attacks...

And that's what shits me about 1-on-1 combat. It's unrealistic. Imagine how many more losses the US would've had if they sent one landing craft to Omaha beach instead of 200?

	21-06-2005 03:40									#107
	Put an end to popups!

a 'unit' in cIV doesn't represent a single platoon IMO.
A tile in cIV is quite a bit bigger then a meagre beach between two rock outcrops.
A turn in cIV does represent more then a single day's battle.

	21-06-2005 04:13									#108
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by GeoModder a 'unit' in cIV doesn't represent a single platoon IMO. A tile in cIV is quite a bit bigger then a meagre beach between two rock outcrops. A turn in cIV does represent more then a single day's battle.

I agree!

In my opin, I don't think a "unit" in Civ1-2-3 was ever intended to be a single guy. (Except maybe a Carrier or BB.). A "Knight" isn't 1 guy on a horse, he represents what, a whole round table full of the guys. And 1 pikeman is a whole rank of 'em. And 1 transport is a 40 LCM's and LST's loaded with troops and tanks...

I am ready for something different with Civ combat, and that means I don't favor stacked combat...

	21-06-2005 05:40									#109
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by GeoModder a 'unit' in cIV doesn't represent a single platoon IMO. A tile in cIV is quite a bit bigger then a meagre beach between two rock outcrops. A turn in cIV does represent more then a single day's battle.

I never said it did. I see each unit as a "Corp" size. But I still see it as a bit silly that you can't do combined arms attacks and are limited to 1-on-1 unit attacks.

	21-06-2005 08:10									#110
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Changmai Beagle I think we should get both coconuts and bamboo as resources. If you get both, and the great leader "the Professor" - you can build any unit.

You also get two additional specialist classes - "Ginger" who improves the attitude of 1 citizen and "Marianne" who improves 2 citizens (I like the wholesome farm-girl in short-shorts image), with a bonus of all male citizens happy if you have both "Ginger" and " Marianne" specialists in the same city (don't say that that image never crossed your mind!).
Having both coconuts and bamboo makes you vulnerable to the random event "three-hour tour" which causes all of your ships not in port to be lost.
Also, if an opponent also has coconuts and bamboo, he can plant a spy "Gilligan" who destroys all units built by "the Professor".

	21-06-2005 11:29									#111
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

said coconuts carried by two African swallows?

	23-06-2005 17:01									#112
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

What? No,no...carried by 2 European swallows...watch out for that rabbit tho...

	23-06-2005 18:57									#113
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker If I actually counted them, I would cry.

Hours on Poly are hours well spent, I tell thee!

quote: Originally posted by Dale And that's what shits me about 1-on-1 combat. It's unrealistic. Imagine how many more losses the US would've had if they sent one landing craft to Omaha beach instead of 200?

What if Arnie, Segal, Stallone and Bruce Willis are on that landing craft?

	23-06-2005 19:17									#114
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Dale Imagine how many more losses the US would've had if they sent one landing craft to Omaha beach instead of 200?

By the Civ3 mechanics? If all went on the same turn, only one after another? Less losses. Instead of all attackers getting hit by defensive fire, only a few would receive it. The rest could then charge away without being damaged first!

Stacking has the downside of overcoming every obstacle, and that is not realistic either. There are numerous examples in human history where small forces prevailed against big ones. If you allow stacking for attack without limit, you get the unstoppable machine, rolling over everything. In my opinion this is even worse than the inconsistence of 1 on 1 battles.

	24-06-2005 18:56									#115
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by curtsibling What if Arnie, Segal, Stallone and Bruce Willis are on that landing craft?

It'd cost more to send those four than it would to send an entire army.

	24-06-2005 20:24									#116
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Modo44 By the Civ3 mechanics? If all went on the same turn, only one after another? Less losses. Instead of all attackers getting hit by defensive fire, only a few would receive it. The rest could then charge away without being damaged first!

Hmmm...don't buy that statement.

If the Allies had sent units in one at a time, they would have been easily mowed down, as there would not be any distractions for the Germans that would occur if units were attacking simultaneously.

Unit A marches on the beach and is promtly hit by an overwhelming barrage of German fire - and is wiped off the face of the earth. So the Allies send in unit B - Rinse and repeat.

The only way the Nazis lose is if they expend too much ammo and then run out. Sorry, don't see the Germans as that stupid...

My friend and I plan to beat you up with tire irons. So who do you concentrate on - him or I? While you are concentrating on stopping me, he slips in from the back and nails you.

That type of dynamic does not happen in a 1-vs-1 combat model. And there is more historical precident for a combined combat approach that is better represented by stacked combat than the single combat model of civ3.

	24-06-2005 20:32									#117
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Skanky Burns It'd cost more to send those four than it would to send an entire army.

But what a cheesy movie it would make.

Chuck Norris could play the part of Eisenhower!