 |
| |
|
|
Frugal_Gourmet
|
|
New York City, NY, USA
Jan 1970
time: 00:12
|
|
(Pure conjecture)
I think it would overcomplicate the game and be very un-Sid Meier-like to have multiple versions of the same basic unit (i.e. F-15's/Mig's, Panzers/Abrahms).
Thus, I propose one of three things is going to occur.
1) They're going to ultimately use only one of these graphics for a final version (most likely).
2) The units stats will remain the same statistically (jet fighter/tank), but a different graphic may be used as the civilization becomes more advanced.
3) The unit stats will remain the same statistically, but a different graphic may be used depending on the civilization (tileset) utilizied (i.e. different civs already have different looking cities).
Once again, pure conjecture.
[This message has been edited by Frugal_Gourmet (edited January 08, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frugal_Gourmet
|
|
New York City, NY, USA
Jan 1970
time: 00:12
|
|
Right on, buddy.
Knights in a Western European Civ would be Samurai in an Asian Civ would be something equivalent in a native American Civ, etc....
Just give a little flavor to different civilizations.
Or, they could give each Civ a unique unit/tech. a la Ages of Empires (i.e. Janissaries, Tarkans, Mangudai, Huskarls, Cataphracts, etc.)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The Kaiser
|
|
Stoke-on-Trent, England
Dec 1999
time: 05:12
|
|
I don't think they're different versions of the same unit. The F-15 is a Fighter/Bomber aircraft, but the Mig 29 is just a fighter. The Abram's is a advanced form of tank, one of these could take on 10 PanzerIII's and still win!.
These are seperate units, with very different capabilities. To suggest each Civ has it's own version of a unit doesn't make sense. Where's the Zulu equivalent of a Stealth Bomber? Also, such a game model would require a massive amount of artwork!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frugal_Gourmet
|
|
New York City, NY, USA
Jan 1970
time: 00:12
|
|
Obviously these things only need to be added when units parallel one another historically. For flavor, surely.
And both the Mig and the F-15 are capable strike fighters which -- in a game like Civ -- would perform virtually the same role and appeared at the same time in history.
The Panzer/Abrams update makes me think #2 -- that the graphic may evolve as technology evolves. Otherwise, it would be horrendously beareaucratic and boring to develop a whole new slew of tanks 10 turns after your first collection was built.
Like I said, it would be very un-Sid-like to bog down the game with too many units. Either there will be a way of upgrading/updating units, units will have parallel graphics, or only one of these graphics will be chosen in the final cut.
[This message has been edited by Frugal_Gourmet (edited January 08, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hHydro
|
|
Vancouver, Canada,
Nov 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
Yeah.. I obviously wouldn't suggest that there's a different design for each civ. Just as there were several architecture types in Civ2, such as oriental, greek, and european, there would only need to be several flavors as each unit. Otherwise (as someone else wrote - I forget who) you end up with an unlikely situation like in CTP2 where you are fighting battles in Europe with armies comprised of Confederate Cavalry, Oriental Samurai, and European Musketeers.
In later ages though, as the distances between civilizations become smaller, the differences between units need not be so great, (or need not exist at all).
ie: In 18th/19thc, maybe there are different city types and different 'versions' of riflemen for European and American Civs, however by the modern age, the buildings can all look similiar, and the 'fighter plane' units might also be the same.
After all.. Nowadays, armies look pretty similar the world around. Not ENTIRELY, but enough for game terms.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
Looks good to me.
They seem to be aiming to do the right thing - keep the best of civ1/2 gameplay, selectively add features, especially using SMAC as source, but going at least a bit beyond, and improving graphics (and presumably AI)
Not a Simnation, but not Civ2.5 either.
Oh, and an emphasis on customisability.
I will say nothing about the graphics, in keeping with my earlier promise. All I WILL say is that it is a wise marketing move to shoot for excellent graphics - this is a mass market game, with appeal to the owners of the 4 million copies of civ out there, as well as other who have never played civ. Excellent grpahics will help set it apart from all other TBS games, and hopefully draw people to the genre.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wrong. These animated units are equivilant of Age of Empires (the first one), which can easily run on 100mhz
and 16RAM (I've done it).
Great site, great artwork, I woohoo'd when I heard it was up :]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Leonidas
|
|
Beautiful - just beautiful....
Can't wait to see more of this game.
This is THE strategy game of the year.
------------------
Go tell the Spartans, passerby:
That here, obedient to their laws, we lie.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
btw I love the warrior animation, lol
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fantastic. The site looks great. I love the animation. one comment, the neck under the turret of the panzer is a little too tall. On the panzer III there was a very short neck (I'm looking at a picture of it in the book Military Hardware of WW II, and it look like about 4 to 5 inches tall). On the panzer IV there was none. I also build model for a hobby and I have build several German tanks in 1/35 scale.
The Abrams M1A1 comes with a 120 mm smooth bore and the Panzer III Ausf F came with a 37 mm, Ausf J with a 50 mm, and the Ausf N with a 75 mm. I thing it would take more than 10 to hurt a Abrams.
------------------
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-01-2001 23:12
Ah well.. quality takes time.
|