 |
|
Alex 14
|
 |
Asia Pacific
May 2001 time: 15:14
|
|
Here are the facts about Civ 3, in comparison with Civ 2:
Civ 2: 60 Units
Civ 3: 76 (unconfirmed)
Civ 2: 89 Advances
Civ 3: 82 (unconfirmed)
Civ 2: 36 City Improvments
Civ 3: ???
Civ 2: 28 Wonders
Civ 3: 12 (unconfirmed)
Civ 2: 7 Government Types
Civ 3: 7 (unconfirmed)
Civ 2: 32 Terrain Types
Civ 3: ???
Civ 2: 21 Civs
Civ 3: 16 (confirmed!)
Most of the information is actually currently correct, except Firaxis will proberly change it in the future.
Last edited by Alex 14 on 04-06-2001 at 11:17
|
|
|  |
 |
|
dainbramaged13
|
|
Dumbass
Mar 2000 time: 00:14
|
|
I hope so!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SerapisIV
|
 |
Hartford, CT, USA
Feb 2001 time: 00:14
|
|
quote: Originally posted by SoulAssassin
16 Civ's is retarded... the more the merrier!!!
I'm also very disappointed that the game will not go past the modern age.... soooo gay. |
While I agree on the 16 civs problem, I understand why, assuming that the included civs have a high quality, they require a hell of alot of effort for so few artists who also have to design the terrain, units, adivsors, menus, interface, etc. Thats a hell of a lot of work. If adding more civs means not seeing Civ3 till Summer 2002, it's not worth it to me. Diminishing returns
About the lack of future tech...there've been quite a few threads on this, most I think disagree with you, but I haven't been able to find an archived poll on the subject.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Adm.Naismith
|
 |
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999 time: 06:14
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kc7mxo
Look, I don't play civ for a historical game, if i did i certainly wouldn't let us americans be included as anything. We've existed as a nation and a culture for abrely two hundred years! Good grief. |
You are right, and that's the same reason because I don't want to have Italian as Civ while of course Roman are a must (and I'm italian, while my genealogical root probably aren't Roman at all ).
But of course proper old Civs evolved into modern nations, and today USA are relevant.
I always tried to propose a way to save both point of view: let every Civ change name every time a major game event change its power, e.g. after a main annexion of many cities, or a split of the original empire. Of course it shouldn't happen every next turn, or you'll be bothered endlessy, and any human player should be free to keep the name unchanged for her/his civ.
OTOH, you can now change Roman into Italian as time goes by, or have a USA after a split (secession) from English empire.
Is "catching two birds with a stone" the proper sentence in english, about this proposal?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|