 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
izmircali
|
|
Izmir, Turkey
Sep 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by aebbeka
When I played with 16 or so civs in CTP2, (after manually editing some text files...), the whole map (i had it set as big as possible) would be taken after everyone built 2 or 3 cities. All this did was cause instant war.
Is this the case for all of you, or am I doing something wrong???
Adam |
I played a game with 32 awhile back, it ws on the word map I down loaded. I didn't play aggressively. more like trying to keep balance of power in regions. Some civs were small like 3 or 4 but my three big competitors had 20+ cities. I reached 45 fairly fast too. So it should be possible depending on the map.
**************************************
I'm all for 16. More would be nice. 256x256, you can have a good roman empire (historic size) on the world map now! A scenario of just Europe though reminds how big the expanse of European Russia was in some Civ2 Maps.
I hope you can edit it to have civs pop up later, A colonialism scenario with a trigger of an actually American player instead of barbarians would be SWEEEEEEEEEEET.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Provost Harrison
|
 |
The farce is strong with this one.
Feb 2000
time: 05:15
|
|
You lot have got me thinking that this is going to be like my first ever civ experience but better once I get going, a huge world, all those other civs to meet. The one thing that could be handy for larger maps is for units to have increased movement rates, eg, x2, but maintaining the attack parameters the same (eg, a tank may move 6 but will be only able to attack 3 times, ie, 1 movement point will mean movement of 2 squares)
Increased number of civs in the game was a major desire of mine, the number 1. With this in and all the other things implemented into the game, I am quite excited!
 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Clark
Boris is quite correct. This would mean (as with Civ2) that several civs will be randomly placed in a very bad spot (like a single square island) and won't grow.
I also want to add, again, I really don't expect most of you will have the patience to play with 16 civs. It would be tedious than fun, esp. taking into account what faded glory said about it can take 3 minutes per turn. Assuming 5 minutes for your turn, that's 40+ hours FOR ONE SINGLE GAME of Civ. And I really believe that that figure is underestimated. But we'll see. |
I think the initial placement of civs will be much better in Civ3. They've said that the game will be much smarter at placing the civs in more suitable areas for growth. Let's not start putting Civ2 presumptions on Civ3 (something people seem to do a lot...folks, Civ3 is a DIFFERENT GAME).
I will certainly try the 16 cive game, but only on a very large or huge map. I personally don't have the time to play for 6+ hours straight (which is why I don't vare one bit about MP), as I usually only play for 2 hours max on weeknights when I get home from work/the gym/going out/etc. On weekends, I may get some playtime in the mornings, but not likely. I think having 8-10 civs, including my own, will prove to be enough for me. But, like I said, I will gladly give it a try! :-)
OH, and since we don't know how gameplay in Civ3 is going to be just yet, let's not assume that it will be as tedious as Civ2 games could get.
Cheers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Steve Clark
|
 |
Colorado Springs, CO
Oct 1999
time: 22:15
|
|
Boris, you and I have the exact same gametime schedule and while I expect all of my strategy games to take around 30 hours (2 weeks of playing), much more than that would just be a bit much, unless Civ3 can hold that attention after the initial excitement wears off.
I understand what you are saying about the differences. For a spaceship win, I believe the game will go faster. But if you are playing bloodlust or 2/3 of the world for a win, it would take a looong time to find the remaining civs (esp. since more would last into the latter eras). Someone said that it would take 45 turns just to send a battleship around a huge map, in a straight line. So 20 turns just to get a fleet of caravels or battleships half way across a map is the basis for my point on having patience and perhaps be tedious for some. This is not taking into consideration having to move an army, esp. when moving on roads/rails would be somewhat limited (as they should).
No, I really believe at this point that 8-10 civs (as you said) on a normal map would be more than enough, esp. since we will taking more time for diplomacy, culture and resources gathering.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Clark
Boris, you and I have the exact same gametime schedule and while I expect all of my strategy games to take around 30 hours (2 weeks of playing), much more than that would just be a bit much, unless Civ3 can hold that attention after the initial excitement wears off....
No, I really believe at this point that 8-10 civs (as you said) on a normal map would be more than enough, esp. since we will taking more time for diplomacy, culture and resources gathering. |
Don't take this the wrong way...not meant as a slam...but what are you complaining about? No one is going to force you to play with 16 civs on a huge world, so why do you care if some other guys you don't know decide they want to try it? It doesn't in any way effect you, so why keep posting on it? Trying to convert them?
As I've said all along, the customization ability sounds like it will solve a lot of the gripes with the game.
Cheers.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-09-2001 22:19
(if you do)
|