 |
|
The General
|
|
Well it does. Greenland is probably the best starting point(its all grassland!) All the north american coast is covered with forest.. some civs cant even survive at their starting point! (russia for example)
Anyone planning on coming out w/ an improved version?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
well the problem I have is they don't have their time perios right. Yes America did have large forests on the east coast back in the day. But the middle east (and egypt) doesn't reflect earlier earth. it is all desert. They once had good plains areas there and it slowly dried up.
So at the very least they need to sacrifice a little accuracy for playability. remove some forests from east u.s at least.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
Move your Settler west, ASAP, to what looks like the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers. A city there will grow very quickly and put you in good position to clobber the Mexicans early. You'll probably have North America to yourself then. Worked for me at least.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
antmanbrooks
|
|
The World Map is a complete Joke! I mean what is the point playing on a regular sized map that makes the middle east look stupid and crowded as for two of the most important islands in history, the British Isles and Japan(Technically more than two islands but you know what i mean) they are completely useless starting positions! When are the programmers of these games going to realise that a world map needs to be BIG!
For gods sake this really gets on my nerves. I can't say any more than its a joke! Anyone agree or am I talking crap?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
wheathin
|
|
Because many players prefer not to play on a humongous map where it takes forever to cross oceans, you have 100+ cities, and the game drags to a crawl on older machines.
Like me...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
1) the official world map is of the biggest supported size
2) with the bigger fan-created world maps people have reported big delays in the endgame(unless i'm mistaken)...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
antmanbrooks
|
|
Yeah, I agree that the game can slow down a lot, and I'm just very disappointed that the maps they make arn't as good as they should be. The map thing and all civ games has always bugged me. I made a map for CTP that was very big and it played very well with anything from 8 civs to 24 although my machine did suffer with the speed thing, my map was none the less a lot more accurate because of the size. Europe was an absolute hot bed of war and technology, which made it really interesting. The chinese always spread to a huge empire but never got too far ahead. It was just very interesting. It played surprisingly like real history! I for one prefer that sort of thing. Maybe if it was an option? Thats all I ask!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Shooter
|
|
LOL. My game I had on the earth map, I was the Romans. Then I had a few neighbors: The English, Welsh, Assyrian, Russians, and one other. I had met 4 other civs before I settled my second city. The funny thing is, it was the best game ever. Fiercely competitive, until the corrupt save game crash bug claimed it.
*sigh*
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
See, it just goes to show you that this 'tile' use is pointless. I hope Firaxis fix it completely.
english, welsh, british, irish all should be able to become big civilizations as they are today all on the same land.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Shooter
|
|
I disagree, those civs don't even compare to the size of, for example the Chineese or Indian empires, which would shurely grow to huge proportions if you get either of them in the game. Besides, size isn't everything. You don't have to be huge to be successful in the game with the diplomatic and/or trade options.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14. Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|