 |
|
Pembleton
|
|
Cyberspace
Apr 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
Does this annoy anyone else? I have started my third game (the first 2 going unfinished) with the French and I have encountered the English AGAIN.
When I played the Indians I was always next to the Chinese. Is there any way I can prevent this other than choosing the civs intentionally and making sure not to pick the English as an AI civ?
Could anyone make a mod that could fix this? Why does it have to be the same civ that I fight first every time?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Malkuth
|
|
Because those are the civs they were by in real life. Too bad though on the Earth Map they didnt put everyone in the Right place.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
General Ludd
|
 |
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
You don't always get grouped with the same culture group, it depends on how you set the game up, if all the civs are random, you do start with your culture group, and almost every time you will get the exact same set of civs playing, if you chose them your self, you will still get stuck with certain civs, even if they are not of your culture group (China, Russia, and America, for example)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
This does NOT happen all the time. I haven't had much time to play, only on my second game, but I'm playing the French on a huge random map with the full compliment of civs. My closest neighbors were the Indians to my north, and the Iroquois to the south. To the west, the ocean; the east, a vast uninhabited (at least initially) jungle. Right next to the Iroquois, boxed off on a peninsula, were the Persians. The Romans were bordered by the Babylonians and the Chinese. The Germans were clear across the one massive continent from me, stuck between the Egyptians and the Americans.
I've also seen the AI fight wars amongst themselves in this game. Virtually everyone ganged up on the Germans, and then turned their attention to the Aztecs (who had major borders with the Russians and the English). The AI was also open to diplomacy in regards to war, as I convinced the world to gang up on the Chinese and Zulu.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yohan
|
|
Jackson, MS
Apr 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
Hmm... I've played 2 games as the Egyptians. Both times the Greeks were up north and the Romans were south. Coincidence?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sevorak
|
|
I agree with Stuie. This not only can, but most certainly will limit replayability. I liked that feeling in Civ2 wondering which enemy civs were where, and they weren't even different back then. Now that they're different, this forced cultural grouping eliminates the "every game is different" feel and limits strategy to just learning how to deal with the civs that you "know" you will be grouped with.
-Sev
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GNGSpam
|
|
Wiggins, MS, US
Oct 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
My last 3 games
Huge Map
Pangea
16 Civs
Im the Aztecs
Im by America, Japan and India
Huge Map
Pangea
16 Civs
Im the Zulus
Im by the Persians and Babylonians
Huge Map
Pangea
16 Civs
Im the English
Im by the Chinese, Japanese, French, Greeks and Egyptians
While the probability seems to be increased that im near certain rivals (England/France) it doesnt seem set in stone.
Also of note. Rome is on the otherside of the map as Greece in the English game as is Germany on the otherside of the map as France and myself. Ironically though, France and Germany DID ally together against me
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LRotan
|
|
I'm going to have to go with the majority here and agree that it puts a massive dent in replayability. There are exceptions to the rule, but not many. For example, my last game as the Americans, I got lucky. I wasn't near *anyone* and I was playing on a standard sized pangea map with little water cover and eight civs. The closest were the Persians and Zulus far to the south. However, I tried a game as the French and the first people I encountered were the Germans. I had scouted my area for prime real estate and was prepare to plop down a city in certain squares, but the germans beat me to it and completely blocked me in on a tiny peninsula. So I started again hoping to get better neighbors. Nope, Germans again. Two more tries and I still got the Germans.
I can't agree enough that this takes all the surprise out of new games. I know who I'm going to encounter and can plan ahead before I make my first city.
LR
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pyrodrew
|
|
1st game I played I was the Americans & my neighbors were Aztecs & Iroquois.
2nd game I played I am the Americans & my neighbors are the Persians, Chinese, & Japanese. All the European Civs are not on the main continent.
So it does seem to *try* to group cultures together ((which SUCKS)), but your culture group is not always grouped 1st. As was the case in my 2nd game, this can lead the player to get different neighbors sometimes... but not often.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gumbytech
|
|
I love the game (assumign some patching) but I am a huge fan of randomization. If you know that there is even a probability of having certain neighbors then your strategy is effected and some of the suspense of exploration is removed.
I have been playing the Romans exclusively (and yes I do dream about gladiators), and I know that I am likely to find the Egyptians to my north, that they are likely to make peace and then soon attack me, that they will continue to send troops to harrass me for hundreds of turns. Therefore, when playing the Romans I beef up my military and go after the Egyptians as soon as I can to eliminate them.
So my point is that this has definately impacted my strategy and taken much of the suspense out of the early stages of the game.
I strongly dislike this.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pyrodrew
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Itīs not about communications as such, but exchanging world maps with everybody is too easy. |
If you have a bigger world map than an AI they will always be willing to trade with you. If your world map is smaller they will not. Same goes for territory map vs. territory map.
quote:
If you know that there is even a probability of having certain neighbors then your strategy is effected and some of the suspense of exploration is removed. |
Agreed. I've mentioned how some things are minor issues, but this is one of the major issues that needs to be addressed in the patch.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
eXploration is a major part of the attraction of the genre. I didn't mind much having com links available for trade in SMAC, it was in keeping with the backdrop of the game...advanced tech and so forth.
But being able to trade communication capibility in Civ is silly and eliminates a key motivation to explore. It is one of many poor design decisions made by the Civ3 team.
It's pretty clear from the uneven combat results that whatever method of random number generation being used is badly flawed. It plainly stinks being set up adjacent to the same Civs game after game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pyrodrew
|
|
The trade of territory maps is fine. This is necessary for trade & respecting borders.
The trade for world maps is the problem. The AI should value it's world map (it's exploration work) much more & guard these secrets. They should not hand out their world maps so easily even if someone's world map is larger than someone else's world map. Specifically because large areas of claimed land is far less valuable then smaller areas of unsettled & unexplored land. Revealing where empty ocean is also not smart. Making someone else waste their time to explore empty ocean is strategically superior.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-11-2001 21:52
|