11-07-2001 07:32									#1
	Are the known Civ III features sufficiently satisfying? Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

When Civ III is released, we all hope that there are more features implemented than currently announced. We hope for at least 16 simultaneous Civs being possible. We hope for a really good AI.

Nevertheless, it is possible and highly likely that the following scenario will actually occur:

1. The list of features is limited to those listed in this Civfanatics Civ3 Info Center page.

2. Civfanatics claim of only up to 7 simultaneous Civs in one game is true.

3. The AI is comparable to the SMAC AI (which IMO was decent) but not much better.

If this is the case, will Civ III still be sufficiently satisfying?

Last edited by polypheus on 13-07-2001 at 03:44

	11-07-2001 08:06									#2
	Re: Are the known Civ III features sufficiently satisfying? Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by polypheus 2. Civfanatics claim of only up to 7 simultaneous Civs in one game is true. 3. The AI is comparable to the SMAC AI but not any better.

This kind of stuff is starting to bug me big time.
Until someone from Firaxis confirm only 7 Civs per/game or the AI is stupid let's leave it along. The only facts that we have, are the items that Firaxis has confirm, nothing else.

	11-07-2001 08:18									#3
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

On the Civfanatics website it says that Fundamentalism has been removed because it unbalanced the game. What about Democracy? I would set the Luxury rate at 50% and my population would go through the roof.

	11-07-2001 11:28									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I voted "I would be mostly satisfied but somewhat disappointed", but I am very close to vote "Yes, I would be sufficiently satisfied", as well. The only really important thing left is the ability for mostly map-creators and scenario-designers to (optionally) "punch out" pre-designated potential city-places, for the AI-civs and (optionally) also for the human player. giving the map/scenario-designer optimal control also over the time-related city-placement/expansion, IF he wants that type of control for specific scenario-purpuses. The AI/HP-players can then ONLY found new cities on these pre-designated city-places - no were else.

Alternatively, in generic player-created maps: "ANY AI-civ can start randomly from ANY pre-designated spot, and expand randomly in ANY direction. Theres NO pre-designated AI capitol-city starting-points whatsoever, and also NO pre-designated non-tweakable AI expanding directions/strategies either".

Read more about the idea in http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...t=predesignated and in http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...=predesignated.

	11-07-2001 11:42									#5
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 2. Civfanatics claim of only up to 7 simultaneous Civs in one game is true. 3. The AI is comparable to the SMAC AI but not any better.

If this is case I would be somwhat satisfied because of some good improvement but I would still be mainly dissapointed.

	11-07-2001 15:51									#6
	Increase the size of your Attachments

If the AI is poor then I do not intend to buy the game.

	11-07-2001 23:58									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by joseph1944 This kind of stuff is starting to bug me big time. Until someone from Firaxis confirm only 7 Civs per/game or the AI is stupid let's leave it along. The only facts that we have, are the items that Firaxis has confirm, nothing else.

I certainly hope that some more features are implemented and up to at least 16 simultaneous Civs are allowed. I also hope for an AI much better than the SMAC AI (although that AI was still decent). Until more announcements are made or until the game is shipped we won't know for sure.

However, the situation I proposed is a reasonable "worse-case" scenario. And such a scenario would be exactly what I proposed might happen, namely that the revealed features are all that's going to be in, only 7 Civs max per game and an AI that is at the level of SMAC but not much better.

For me, if such a "worse-case" scenario occurred, I would be mostly satisfied but somewhat disappointed. There are enough improvements and new features that I would still play the game but I was wondering how others would feel under such a scenario.

Right now it looks very evenly split.