 |
|
Volstag
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace
In Civ4, a player should not HAVE to make 10-15 cities on a standard-sized map just to win the game on a decent difficulty level.
Ya ought to be able to win with Venice, and a few far-flung colonies like Rodos, Candia, and Corfu...now that would really be neat. |
Are you saying 10-15 cities is too many, or too few to "win the game on a decent difficulty level"? It's possible to win with one city in Civ III, fives cities, ten cities, 25 cities, 100 cities, etc. What exactly are you arguing for?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Volstag
|
|
quote:
Still would be nice to se in a Civ game that building a Switzerland civ or an European Union is possible without a Chinese o USA or ____ (put any Civ empire here) ____ feel the urge to burn them to the ground as the more efficient path to the victory. |
Again, as before, it's possible to win with one city, or ten cities, or several hundred cities w/ or w/o military conflict. What exactly are you asking for? Whether the player feels the urge to "burn them to the ground" is... well... up to the player. How is that the fault of Civ III (or Civ IV)?
-V
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Volstag
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dis
Actually I do have games crash on me. I'm curious how often games crash on Mac users. Do Mac users have games that don't have any bugs? If so, then I might consider switching. |
I can't comment about the inherent stability of Mac games, but I can tell you that there's a definite paucity of titles to choose from.
As an aside: if Mac games are more stable / less buggy, it's probably because they've been on the PC market for several months already.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Darkstar
|
 |
Huntsville, AL, USA
May 1999
time: 23:37
|
|
Some people think their ugly baby is the prettiest human ever born, as well.
MoO3 is not a very good space sim. It isn't a good space sim. It's is, in fact, a bad space sim, made worse due to the click heavy user interface.
MoO is not a difficult game. Explore, colonize, reseach, fight, win. GalCiv is a "MoO" kind of game. It's the basic 4x in space. MoO3 is not a good 4x game. If Civ3 had been MoO3d, not one of us would have returned to Civ, looking for Civ4. Seriously.
There is a kind of person that will like MoO3. But they are very rare. MoO3 is mostly a click endlessly through spreadsheets sort of game, without the fun of being able to make most of your changes meaningful.
MoO4 will, hopefully return to MoO's roots, and be a fairly typical 4x in space. One without the worst user interface someone ever managed to get to compile.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adm.Naismith
|
 |
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
time: 06:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Volstag
Again, as before, it's possible to win with one city, or ten cities, or several hundred cities w/ or w/o military conflict. What exactly are you asking for? Whether the player feels the urge to "burn them to the ground" is... well... up to the player. How is that the fault of Civ III (or Civ IV)?
-V |
No, I'm referring to the fact that in Civ III one game tactic (that for brief I'll explain as "expanding as much as possible and crush any enemy Civ) is *always* a quicker path to the victory than any others, AFAIK.
Players better than me wrote here on Apolyton years ago how they tried to examine the game different victory condition (dominance, culture, space race, etc.): as long as they tried, you still have to "keep an arm tied at your back" to let the game keep up 'till any victory that's not by world domination / world conquer.
E.g. if you are advancended enough to win by "Wonders number", you are surely with a Civ developed and strong enough to win quickly by the use of weapons. By comparison, SMAC let you more freedom, and this Civ III limit was discovered as fast as strategist as Vel tried enough the game, IIRC.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adm.Naismith
|
|
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
time: 06:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Darkstar
The fact is that its a lot easier to get support from the Evilest Empire then from any other commercial vendor we've ever dealt with.
|
Sorry, I explained myself badly: I was speaking about support from developers of a program (a game) to the customers (e.g. making new patches).
Support from a OS vendor/maker is a different subject, IMHO, and you should also consider the geographical location into the equation: here in Italy some OS are not supported as well as in USA, AFAIK.
quote:
Originally posted by Darkstar
From a serious business point of view, that's what matters. In business, everyone is evil, despite the spinning otherwise.
|
I'm not starting a "OS support flame war". Evilness was not mentioned by me. Technical difference in OS are obvius to technician, but I'm not here to teach any lesson to anyone, so I'll spare this part 
quote:
Originally posted by Darkstar
As for "some platforms are better then others"... not true. You can crush any OS with just a bug or two.
|
Sorry, I disagree about this.  Crushing the whole OS (not the application itself) can't be done by most application in any real robust environment (again, I'm not starting any flame, so I'll let any commercial name out of the post - this is not a commercial advertisment  ). My collegues don't wrote games, but they know quite well the difference in keeping up and running different servers with demanding apps - using different OS.
Anyway, as in Ford legend about black "T model" cars, I suppose we'll have Civ IV running over any OS as long as it's Windows XP, at least for the start, so my post is irrilevant
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Darkstar
|
|
Huntsville, AL, USA
May 1999
time: 23:37
|
|
It doesn't take much to crush Micro$oft, M@C, UN*X, LIN*X, SUN, Oracle, etc etc etc. Unless it's a trimmed, well designed, embedded OS, I've probably killed it with just a few lines of code, at one time or another in my career.
It's just as easy to get support in Italy from M$ as it is in the US. Not true of many other vendors we've dealt with.
People can think all they like that there is significant technical differences in OSes that make one superior to another. But that isn't true. It only takes a few lines of code to kill any major OS. That's why you have to be careful about what you allow to run on your important machines.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adm.Naismith
|
|
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
time: 06:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Darkstar
It doesn't take much to crush Micro$oft, M@C, UN*X, LIN*X, SUN, Oracle, etc etc etc. Unless it's a trimmed, well designed, embedded OS, I've probably killed it with just a few lines of code, at one time or another in my career.
It's just as easy to get support in Italy from M$ as it is in the US. Not true of many other vendors we've dealt with.
People can think all they like that there is significant technical differences in OSes that make one superior to another. But that isn't true. It only takes a few lines of code to kill any major OS. That's why you have to be careful about what you allow to run on your important machines. |
I'm nitpicking here, but I wrote my post speaking about bugs, or accidental wrong code that (in some case) can crash the system.
You are speaking of a determined programmer that deliberatly try to avoid OS protection to crash the machine.
Same things that to compare a window accidentaly broken by a (strong) wind and a window broken by a thief, IMHO. Not fair. 
You are also reducing OS robustness to the ability to resist to a deliberate attack. I'm sure you agree there are a lot more points to define a good OS. In fact, the perfect OS probably can't exist in general terms, if not in really small and defined boundaries (the embedded version you mentioned, maybe).
That said, have you really tried to obtain technical assistance here in Italy? (Again, I'm not speaking about MS, but MS included). 
Well, I'm really going off topic, so please forgive me if I'll accept any your reply with my respect, but I think is better to stop my rant here and go back to the game. A game we sure hope to enjoy without any crash.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Darkstar
|
|
Huntsville, AL, USA
May 1999
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adm.Naismith I'm nitpicking here, but I wrote my post speaking about bugs, or accidental wrong code that (in some case) can crash the system.
You are speaking of a determined programmer that deliberatly try to avoid OS protection to crash the machine.
Same things that to compare a window accidentaly broken by a (strong) wind and a window broken by a thief, IMHO. Not fair.
You are also reducing OS robustness to the ability to resist to a deliberate attack. I'm sure you agree there are a lot more points to define a good OS. In fact, the perfect OS probably can't exist in general terms, if not in really small and defined boundaries (the embedded version you mentioned, maybe).
That said, have you really tried to obtain technical assistance here in Italy? (Again, I'm not speaking about MS, but MS included).
Well, I'm really going off topic, so please forgive me if I'll accept any your reply with my respect, but I think is better to stop my rant here and go back to the game. A game we sure hope to enjoy without any crash. |
No. I mean just a few accidental lines can crush any of those OSes. I've done it on all those platforms. It doesn't take much to kill any OS, if people are silly enough to run your development code on their hardened test systems. One little compilable typo is all that it takes, sometimes.
I meant that it's harder to crush a dedicated, embedded OS because it does less. Of course, they will still have their own holes--- everything of any significant code mass will have serious holes and vulnerabilities/delicacies, by virtue of its framing, compilation, or just program designer presumptions.
I've never physically worked in Italy, nor tried to get tech support for a team member in Italy. But I have in other places. M$ has done a better job of being able to provide support globally then other vendors we've dealt with. That isn't to say that they made us happy and managed to fix (or instruct us how to fix) all of our issues. But they put an effort into trying, regardless of our location. Unlike SUN, Oracle or Apple, to name just a few of our major vendors that we've needed support from.
But that's OT.
As for Civ4, we are getting closer and closer to finding out just how much fun it will be for ourselves. Only a few weeks away from it shipping to shelves, since it's been bumped up to Oct 31/Nov 1 now. Who would imagine this wonder would come out of Hot Coffee?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Swissy
|
 |
Chicago,IL,USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:37
|
|
My worse fear has happened, a game released beacuse the publisher needs the finacial bump, not that the game is anywhere near ready. My new greatest fear is that many feature we expect to be in the game will be pushed off to X-packs.
Looks like TTI is no better than Atari when it comes to the civ franchise. Looks like we have been sold another bill of goods.
Last edited by Swissy on 10-09-2005 at 03:50
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Russian_King
|
|
Australia, Perth
Dec 2002
time: 13:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
My computer, even though it meets all requirements, is extremely slow and crashes occasionally while I play Sims 2.
I really hope Civ 4 doesn't do this |
LOL!! i live in australia, and being an expensive land for technology, i bought a P4 3.2GHz, 512 ram, 9800XT and a good motherboard for
900 dollars!! u dont need to change ur monitor, dont need a new keyboard or mouse!, just the comp, come on!!! comps are dirt cheap these days, i don wana hear another complaint about a bad machine!
negative thing about civ4... hmmm
the combat system is different, but i dont think its so much improved, as a matter of fact, a unit's defense and attack values shouldnt be determined by the actual values, but all forces should be combined into armies, and each fight will be a short 1 minte RTS bout between 2 armies (or more, depending on how many are selected to attack and how many are on the defending square)
i think the WORST thing about civ2/3 was attacking the same position with one unit at a time over and over and over and over and over and over and over again ridiculous! so that is my worst fear.. while the combat system changes, itll still be the same repetitive crap
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Darkstar
|
|
Huntsville, AL, USA
May 1999
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Swissy
My worse fear has happened, a game released beacuse the publisher needs the finacial bump, not that the game is anywhere near ready. My new greatest fear is that many feature we expect to be in the game will be pushed off to X-packs.
Looks like TTI is no better than Atari when it comes to the civ franchise. Looks like we have been sold another bill of goods. |
Well, remember, that the MP has been being played for over a year. That means that at least a good bit of the game should be decent/polished. The parts that we have been told that were being concentrated on were the graphics and the AI. Now, the graphics can be patched later. No biggie there. But the AI? If it was left for last, it's going to suck. But then, the AI in Civ has always sucked, so that isn't really a change, is it?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Darkstar
|
|
Huntsville, AL, USA
May 1999
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drakan
A dumbed-down version of Civ III.
"Ooohh, fans are whinning on pollution, corruption, worker movements, micromanagement ... you name it. Let's go simplify everything and automate it in Civ IV. They'll only have to go as far as hitting the space bar every turn ..." |
There are always a faction in these sorts of games that actually want that sort of thing, and ask for it. The GalCiv devs got the same kind of requests for GalCiv2, which lead them to ask the GC2 Beta forum if they should provide for that capability. We said no, of course. But then, if you are in on the Beta of a complex TBS game, you probably aren't into just hitting the space bar and watching the pretty colors.
BTW, Sid isn't against the concept. You can actually do that in SMAC (by automating everything). Indeed, by just doing the big stuff, and only controlling "important" units in SMAC and automating everything else, you can play a fast game of SMAC (ie, just 2 hours from start to win). Actually, that is a fun way to pass the time, as you feel more like the big boss in charge, rather then the only single brain involved.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-08-2005 15:25
|