 |
| |
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:37
|
|
Oh, and just a quick summary of what I feel is the most important info:
1) Siege weapons (catapults, cannons and artillery) will do collateral damage, making it possible for them to damage anywhere up to 6 units in a stack.
2) Units can both be moved and attack-automatically-as a stack, with each unit selecting its best opponent in the opposite stack.
3) The focus of the game will now be on fewer, more specialised cities as a way to victory, rather than expansion being the only way to victory.
4) No shield carry over between projects, though you do get a cash refund depending on how long you have been building for before swapping.
5) Though men are a representation of a unit's health, a single unit can sustain anywhere up to 100 points of damage.
6) The amount of damage a unit dishes out-each hit-is based on its strength.
7) Greater variety in tasks in the early game, and much less micromanagement in the later game.
Hope this helps. There is a lot more info than just this, but this was the stuff I really felt stood out!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Peter Triggs
|
|
Gone Fishin, Canada
Jan 2000
time: 05:37
|
|
Well, with all these people they've got doing the beta testing, it does appear that they're paying a lot of attention to feedback from the fans.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:37
|
|
You know Dale, I also hope that it is stack combat a la CTP 1 and 2, but even if it is just automated one on one, this will still be a huge step forward IMO!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vince278
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
1) Siege weapons (catapults, cannons and artillery) will do collateral damage, making it possible for them to damage anywhere up to 6 units in a stack. |
Sounds cool however I was under the impression it would affect all units in a stack (to discourage those Stacks of Death). By saying up to 6 it sounds like only 1 to 6 units.
quote:
Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
2) Units can both be moved and attack-automatically-as a stack, with each unit selecting its best opponent in the opposite stack. |
Wonder how that will play out.
quote:
Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
3) The focus of the game will now be on fewer, more specialised cities as a way to victory, rather than expansion being the only way to victory. |
I wonder what victory condition, if any, would benefit from city specialization.
quote:
Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
4) No shield carry over between projects, though you do get a cash refund depending on how long you have been building for before swapping. |
Sounds somewhat more realistic but I don't think it will matter much in the way I play.
quote:
Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
6) The amount of damage a unit dishes out-each hit-is based on its strength. |
Keeping in mind that attack and defense is now one number. I thought this was rather limiting but we'll see how it goes.
quote:
Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
7) Greater variety in tasks in the early game, and much less micromanagement in the later game.
|
I like but attempts in other games (like MOO3) to lessen micromanagement were far from adequete.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Modo44
|
 |
in western Poland
Jul 2004
time: 06:37
|
|
ICS = Infinite City Sprawl (or Spacing). It means placing cities extremely close together. A strategy the AI does not know and can never cope with. It's power was toned down in Civ3 compared to Civ2, but it remained very potent. Judging by the screenies so far, we might see it die in CIV. But I would not bet on it just yet...
quote:
Originally posted by binTravkin
Yes, it is unrealistic, but it takes away from gameplay to not have it.
Don't you see it?
All games are unrealistic to an extent and realism does not always lead to good gameplay.
If it did we wouldn't be playing games, but playing life! |
Same old, same old. I understand you, I just happen to disagree on the level of simplification I am willing to take. I find it good that shields do not just carry over between builds, as that would make the game too dumb. To me, making this aspect of the game too simple would take from gameplay, not making it more sophisticated.. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yin26
|
 |
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:37
|
|
DeathByTheSword: Sorry -- Inifinite City Sleaze is the act of placing as many cities around the map as you possibly can because this gives you an enonomy of scale advantage over a player who doesn't do this...so in its worst (most powerful form) you are spending a great deal of your game time simply flooding the map with cities. Again, a player need not do this, but if it's clearly the best way to work the game mechanics in your favor, then some of the other nicer parts of the game lose out.
Settler diarrhea, by the way, is a term I used to describe how in Civ 3 the CPU would also do ICS to such a degree that he squeezed out a seeminly endless stream of these dirty things...all over your land, his land, the computer monitor, the ceilings, etc. (sorry for the image!). But in a world that at least recognized the power of ICS, this made some sense and could often at least impede the player's build up on the early game, which made for some tense (and bizarre) moments.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-07-2005 06:23
nobody fell over that one? That sure is a big change... But a welcome one if I think about it: when someone completes the pyramids, all the other civs building them won't be able to switch to other wonders and finish them before you can build them 
|