 |
| |
|
|
Kautilya
|
|
St Louis, MO
Feb 2000
time: 23:12
|
|
"Look at the poll. 92% seem to consider having more than 7 civilizations important. 7% think 8 civilizations (including barbs) is enough and 1% doesn't care.;"
*Sigh* How many times do we have to repeat this? The poll is meaningless like all the polls here because it is a self-selected and not representative sample. Only the people most interested in the issue (who usually want more civs) bother to answer. In any case we can't even say that Apolyton is representative of all Civ players let alone the tens of thousands of non-regular gamers who will likely buy the game.
And let me say that if this feature is relatively easy to incorporate then I am all for it. But if , as a bunch of people here seem to think, it will take a lot of work then I personally don't want it to divert resources from things like AI. Different people will have different value judgements and it's really hard to say what the potential Civ3 community which is much larger than Apolyton thinks about this.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kautilya
|
|
St Louis, MO
Feb 2000
time: 23:12
|
|
"Maybe you are right, but do you actually have any other statistic on what te people want in the game?"
No but the business types at Firaxis probably have a better idea of what the market as a whole wants than either you or me. If they have decided not to implement this feature it's probably because they figure that the overall demand for it isn't worth the cost.
Even apart from the sample-bias issue it's not clear how much the 100 odd respondents in this poll want this feature. Suppose having this comes at the cost of AI or graphics, lots of those respondents might decide that this is less important. A better poll would ask people to rank the features in descending order of importance: ai, graphics, more civs etc. This would give us an idea of how much of a priority this is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chronus
|
|
MARKG QUOTE: "7 + you = 8"
Um ... when I fire up Civ2 and then select "7 Civilizations" (the option with the highest number of civs as far as I can see) then I get my own civ competing against 6 other civs. This final total comes up to 7 ... not 8 ... no? :-p
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Phalanx_TS
|
|
Is the 7 civs confirmed, i thought this would have been something they would let the public choose for themselves. You know, when you start a new game and select how many civs, a max of 7 is just to small.
I'm a scenario man, for civ2 i created a ww1-ww2 mod which had alot of basically everything. Every graphic and tweak possible was implemented into the mod, new sounds, new units, new animations, new cities, new terrain, new wonders. The *only* problem i had was that in didn't truly capture a war like atmosphere, not enough civilizations. 
A rather annoying aspect of civ2, to change governments a civilization had to go through a process of anarchy before forming a new government. In this period of anarchy a city can be bought dirt cheap, 50 gold on occasion. I use to give enemy civs government techs, watch them go into anarchy, then buy half their cities. Will civ3 have this same annoying aspect?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by St Leo on 04-29-2001 09:40 PM
-The Civ2 AI was excellent except for its tendency to gang up on the most powerful player even when it shouldn't.
|
What a sad and pityful statement that is.  It also rather revealing. Do you honestly not feel the slightest need for...
- a more effective & smarter AI-empire defence & attack capability?
- a better AI-diplomacy (= smarter cooperation between civs/AI-civs)?
- a more effective AI city-improvement & city-area development strategy?
- a better use of economical excess (no more dust-collecting AI-wealth)?
- a more effective AI-unit upgrade development (quality before quantity)?
- a better AI-exchange (avoid AI-disadvantageous tech-exchanges vs HP)?
- a more effective AI-land area exploitation within AI-borders?
The AI in Civ-2/SMAC reminds me of a computer car-racing game, where each AI-car drives more secure but always slower, by default. The human player always starts as jumbo-position - but he have always the fastest car, by default. If he is new to the game, he keeps bumbing into fences and slides of the track at first. Its however only a question of time before he learns to master his car, and after that, he keep on overtaking one AI-car after the other. Simply because he drive the fastest car, by default. Its more or less a question of 100% mathematical certainty.
The same can be said about overcoming the AI in present civ-games. For a casual player unfamiliar to civ-series the AI can appear strong at first. And sure: the early stages have some risky & uncertain moments also for seasoned civ-gamers. But as soon as the basic layout of cities had been made, and the consolidating stage have moved on a bit; the question of surviving and actual winning the game, becomes more or less a matter of foreseeing predictability: It becomes a question of 100% mathematical certainty - on way or the other. Just as in above racing-game. The challenge is gone, and one stuck only with some limited curiosity on in which order & how exactly that certain victory is going to establish itself.
I think its time for an upgrade in Civ-3 - dont you guys? I want to feel uncertain as long as possible. I only want to win every second or every third completed game on the higher levels. And when I win, I want to feel that I achieved something difficult. It that to much to ask for?
quote:
...except for its tendency to gang up on the most powerful player even when it shouldn't.
|
The AI-civs in this respect, should behave as they were 3-4 losing human players against one single winning human player in a multiplayer game. As soon as the winning player are just as superior or even more superior then all the other players combined - the losing ones start to form multi-member contain-the-aggression pacts. They temporarily accept that it is in their common interest to "gang-up" as much as possible against that superior bully-boy.
Why should it be different then playing against losing AI-civs? If any single AI-civ instead was the strongest one, and you as a human player + all the remaining weaker AI-civs was soon destined to be crushed - one by one; wouldnt you then want to be able to form pacts with the other soon-to-be-conquered civs? A last desperate effort to "gang-up" and retaliate?
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 30, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jdlessl
|
 |
Jacksonville, USA
Mar 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kautilya on 04-29-2001 03:13 PM
Even apart from the sample-bias issue it's not clear how much the 100 odd respondents in this poll want this feature. Suppose having this comes at the cost of AI or graphics, lots of those respondents might decide that this is less important. A better poll would ask people to rank the features in descending order of importance: ai, graphics, more civs etc. This would give us an idea of how much of a priority this is.
|
AI
As many civs as I want. And I want this very, very, very much.
Eye candy
quote:
Originally posted by Kautilya on 04-29-2001 03:13 PM
The AI-civs in this respect, should behave as they were 3-4 losing human players against one single winning human player in a multiplayer game
|
Hmmm, partly true. With human players, some of us might look at the situation and say, "Wow, even the 4 of us together don't stand a chance in hell of winning, so rather than attack the big guy, I'll ally with him, and thus have a chance of surviving, even as his lowly vassal". We wouldn't always and without fail attack anyone who crosses a 'power threshold', breaking alliances, treaties, pacts, and friendships in doing so.
--
Jared Lessl
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Greg_was_here
|
|
I'll reserve my verdict until I actually see how Firaxis handles the minor civs. Without the minor civs, I would definitely oppose the decision made by Firaxis for limiting the number of civs to 7. I don't believe anything like that AI can't cope more than 7 civs or few more civs will make the AI
cripples. If Firaxis made a decision to limit the number of civs to 7, there must be good convincing reason for it.
I'd like to know how many slots will be given to the minor civs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
|
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jdlessl on 04-30-2001 10:42 AM
"Wow, even the 4 of us together don't stand a chance in hell of winning, so rather than attack the big guy, I'll ally with him, and thus have a chance of surviving, even as his lowly vassal". We wouldn't always and without fail attack anyone who crosses a 'power threshold', breaking alliances, treaties, pacts, and friendships in doing so.
|
It all depends on what type of player the superior one is. Does he appear to be in a conquer-the-world mood, or is it space-travel thats on the agenda? Is his culture wastly superior, and did he initiated the war to begin with? Does he spend time on re-establish happiness in conquered cities? All these things matters.
If he instead is the ruthless Hitler-type in a bloodlust conquer-the-world-mood, with his goal set on "pick on at the time until they all mercilessly crushed" - well, then it would be rather naive to think that one could survive - even if he temporaily offer you to be is so called "ally", or "lowly wassal". The AI must be smart enough to see through these cheap temporary peace-offerings. Compare with Hitler - Appeasement is then not an option.
I say fight to the death!
Join multi-civ pacts and share everything - and fight to the death against the aggressor. 
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 30, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Roman
|
 |
Bratislava, Slovakia
Sep 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 05-01-2001 03:33 AM
Minor Civs, Minor Civs, Minor ****ING Civs
JESUS! I can't believe I wasted my time reading all this crap. Except for a few posts, this thread is an utter waste. Why? Because almost all of you neglect that Firaxis has confirmed that there WILL be minor civs. NO ONE knows how these minor civs will be implimented, so any talk of outrage over 'only' 7 civs is foolish at this point in time.
|
Well Imran, guess I will have to say this again: Despite the extensive previews that have emerged, there has been no mention of minor civs whatsoever. However, there has been mention of barbarians having encampements. This is what the minor civs are, Imran. Of course, if it turned out that I was wrong and there are in fact proper minor civs that can be used as separate nations for scenarios, I would take back all my complaints about the 7 civilization limit  , since minor civs would solve the problem. As things stand now, though, I am rather certain I am correct on the subject of minor civs and so the 7 civilization limit is hurting...
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-04-2001 09:03
limit) the game seems to be heading in the right direction and I am very excited about it.
|