 |
|  |
 |
|
The Andy-Man
|
 |
Tory Party of 'Poly
Jul 2001 time: 05:17
|
|
would people pbject to civ being MUCH longer? ie, 1000turns MINIMUM.
the first yrs of the game being bi-yearly (1 turn = 2yrs) around 1500 1turn = 1yr, and late 19thC 1month = 1turn.
this would then allow for more units in each era, a much slower progression of the game and giving every unit a point to it. i mean, there was more then one kind of tank, so if the game was lengthened you could go through more of the phases of the tank ie, 1stWW tank, 2nd WW2 modern armour (just an example).
also, the maps should be MASSIVE, so big that Huge in Civ3 would be tiny in Civ2. This way room for more cities, plus there will more likely be undiscovered continets to colonize. and with an increased game length, colonization of the new world would be a true era.
so, MANY more turns, more units, more techs, bigger maps. I personaly think this would add alot to the game, now the way it is (and ha been in civs before) you sometimes just pass an age, like you never build knights cos you have discovered cavalry 2 turns later.
and, it may seem like alot of turns, but think how many games of civ you play, and then htink if it had just been one BIG game....
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Scooby_Doo
|
|
Bristol, UK
Feb 2002 time: 05:17
|
|
A good idea i suppose, but wouldn't it take about a decade to finish each game? Think how long the AI turns would take...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
DrFell
|
|
I've never had that problem before. On deity level my swordsmen/immortals/war chariots will often be useful to take out 2 civs, and viable as attack units right through the ancient era and up to halfway through the middle ages (where the chariots get upgraded, and the swordsmen/immortals are replaced).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sean
|
|
Auckland, New Zealand.
Jan 2001 time: 05:17
|
|
I like the idea. But I would also want the number of unit types and improvements too increase expotentially to the number of turns increased. This would allow a deepened game.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Septura X
|
|
NE, USA
Jan 2002 time: 23:17
|
|
I could go for longer games with more units and such. Good idea.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999 time: 05:17
|
|
AM, great idea, I'd certainly buy it. It reminds me of the monster board wargames of the 70s.
Btw, check out the site of The Australian Design Group, or adg. Try a search. Look under the computer game section for World In Flames. There is both a board game and computer game. The comp game has the largest map ever, period.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Yodasplat
|
|
Longer Civ is good! Great idea.
I like to play massive games with all the civs, giant maps and if the games could last longer, stretch for thousands of turns that would be awesome!
I like the epic feel of the game. The bigger and longer it is the more epic it gets IMHO.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Salvor
|
 |
Chicago
Feb 2002 time: 23:17
|
|
What I'd like to see is not a super-humongous single game, but a quality scenario editor. I wouldn't want to sit down and play 1000 or more turns of a single game of Civ3. What's I'd really like to see, though, is a larger variety of units, more specialization, and shorter year-spans on turns in earlier eras for individual scenarios.
With a quality scenario editor, you could set the starting and ending dates, set the number of years per turn, and specialize each unit and civ advance to one that was available in the era you're interested in. You don't have to increase the total, making for hundreds of tech advances and thousands of units, you'd just customize the ones you'd use in each scenario, with the net total number about the same as the original game, and game length sometimes shorter or sometimes nearly the same as a regular game.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17. Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|