 |
|
Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto
|
|
Salt Lake City, USA
Oct 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
I would say I want no more then 70% of civ2 units, improvements, etc. in civ3. Dont get me wrong, civ2 was great for its time, but I want civ3 to be much, much more realistic, and I want alot more units.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tical_2000
|
|
Totally agree with Ralf. There was never a real big problem with the Civ2 units & wonders. The problem I think we're all hoping for Civ3 to fix is the idiotic AI as well as adding fresh, new game concepts and features to immerse us more.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
zyxpsilon
|
 |
Laval,Quebec,Canada
Sep 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ralf on 12-16-2000 04:59 PM
Am i the only one in this forum feeling this way?
|
Built upon solid evidence units and authenticity throughout a "general" representativeness of changes and evolution eras... Yes!
Can't certainly dismantle Stealth planes or Crusaders... for examples.
That being said, it is not in the "amount" or "type" of units you must handle but rather, how well balanced and interactived they are brought into play.
There will always be the -missing- key unit, wished for, should be tried, forgot elementary that MUST get a slot in the making of Civ3.
Within >programmable< restrictions, the customisation power and diversification process has to account for; say, the discovery of electricity and the making of light bulbs AND the overwhelming streak of dynamic usage of energy loaded *UNITS*.
I'd swear for 100% keeping of those (already done) Units.
But i won't. 
Give me... a >>SPACE CRAFT<< instead?
But i don't. 
How about another kind'a Submarine? Deep sea able.
YOU are not the only one, Ralf!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
DIABLO, BRO. OF MEPHISTO:
With that that 80% figure i only refered to the amount of units, city-improvements and wonders taken from the old Civ-2 game. I expect however, that Firaxis will enlarge the overal number of available unit-types, city-improvements and wonders, by at least 20%. In practice this means:
- 2/3 old units vs 1/3 new fresh ones
- The same ratio (more or less) goes for city-improvements and wonders.
DARKCLOUD:
I dont mind (and i expect) a graphic facelift (but TOT was unfortunately not a good example, of that). It is the type- and naming convention that i think should remain, mostly the same.
Perhaps it was the latter you refered to, then you wrote "graphics". Well, if so lets hope you are wrong about that. I dont want Samurai instead of Legion, Shrine and bazaar instead of temple and marketplace and Sphinx instead of Pyramids. Again; dont change for the sake of change.
TO ALL OF YOU:
I forgot about the Civ-2 techs:
The Civ-2 tech-tree should be enlarged by 20-25%. Some good rearrangements of course. About 2/3 of this new tech-tree should consist of old familiar Civ-2 techs. The remaining 1/3 should be new fresh ones, give or take.
NO SMAC-style beyond 2040AD techs. Let SMAC be SMAC, and let Civ-3 be Civ-3 - dont mix them togeter in the main game. For futuristic Civ-3play; tailor-cut someting nice with the scenario-editor instead, or play the future scenarios, im sure Firaxis is going to include together with the main game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
airdrik
|
 |
Nampa, ID, USA
Oct 2000
time: 22:12
|
|
I agree. After all, you should be able to change the units/tech tree/terrain/etc. as you please like you can do in civ2. You don't need to worry about working on the look and feel of the game, as of yet. That can be done after the game is out.
What we need to do here is work out all the AI, diplomacy, SE, etc. internal workings of the game. Also, we should work out the unit workshop ideas for if that is included in the game.
The only things that need be changed on the units is to add any flags in the .txt file that would make different units more realistic. And for the terrains, they are fine (unless surprise and ambush are implemented, in which case one value would be added: cover: affects chances that a unit is spotted before a surprise/ambush). The tech tree is fine as is(except for making it bigger).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Deity Dude
|
|
Westland, Michigan
Aug 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
I'm for a better AI as being the primary thrust. Unfortunately, i'm sure it is probably the hardest to accomplish. It doesn't take much to program new units or techs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto
|
|
Salt Lake City, USA
Oct 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
airdrik, what exactly is a 'unit workshop'? I thought it was the same as a 'units editor'. please just give me an idea of what it is like. I would really like to know because I am a MAJOR scenario builder, and love to make new scenarios.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rollo Tomasi
|
|
The Unit Workshop was used in SMAC and was how players created units to manufacture. Instead of technological advances giving new units, they gave new components, such as laser weapons or synthsteel armor. Using these components, you would build your units from scratch, picking out the chassis, weapons, armor, and other attributes for the unit. As airdrik said, this is a very contrversial topic. Some loved the customization it gave; some hated it, mostly for the fact all the units tended to look the same.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-12-2000 02:59
). im expecting much more, but i just hope that the basic parts of civ2 are not changed. e.g. all the old wonders still in there, maybe balanced out a bit, and all the old improvements, units, etc. with a few changes. im expecting lots of new units, improvements, and wonders though.
|