 |
| |
|
|
Stefu
|
 |
CLOWNS WIT DA DOWNS 4 LIFE YO!
Jan 1970
time: 07:12
|
|
*drooldrooldrooldrooldrooldrooldrooldrooldrooldroo
l*
Love the way resources are coming up to be. Those buggers could actually work, I tell you, work! And special units might also not be as bad as first suspected. Still hoping that religion would be in, but it's a long shot, I guess  If not religion, then at least bit more formed enemy cultures - for instance, allow me to decide if my state tolerates their existence or tries to actively throw them our.
One quibble. One thing I never liked in CtP was that there wasn't enough "buildable land". To me, "buildable land" is something you plop your cities in, and it means grassland, in emergency plains are also fine. Looking at screenshots, I'm beginning to wonder if land type allocation is more like in CtP, which I didn't like, than in Civ2, which I liked. Will there be huge swatches of grassland for me to colonize?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stefu on 05-12-2001 03:24 AM
One quibble. One thing I never liked in CtP was that there wasn't enough "buildable land". To me, "buildable land" is something you plop your cities in, and it means grassland, in emergency plains are also fine. Looking at screenshots, I'm beginning to wonder if land type allocation is more like in CtP, which I didn't like, than in Civ2, which I liked. Will there be huge swatches of grassland for me to colonize?
|
Good point! Although I dont think above problem was that apparent in the screenshots. Anyway; NO huge continental-sized areas of "non-buildable" terrain-types. Grasslands and plains should be the base, while terrain-types like jungle, swamp, hills, mountains should be proportionally and carefully sprinkled on top of that - not just layed out in enormous monotone country- or in extreme cases: even continental-sized chunks. Yes, I know about the Amazones, but country/continental chunks of it should be avoided anyway, for gameplay reasons.
Forrests and deserts is a middle-ground terrain-type in this respect. Glaciers and tundras preferbly mostly near the poles. Avoid mixing glacier and tundra side by side with desert and jungle.
Finally, In the Civ-2; mountains and hills seemed to occupie an increasingly over-proportial part of the map, the smaller mapsize you choosed to play on. On standard- and huge-sized map there was no problem. Should be fixed in Civ-3.
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited May 12, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Cyberbugs
|
|
Sweden
Mar 2001
time: 05:12
|
|
Just making a brief statement about the graphics, I think the city view looks great, but I really think the scenario map needs some more work.
Keep up the good work!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pedrun
|
|
Natal, RN, Brazil
May 2001
time: 05:12
|
|
I really hope not Sirotnikov. No overseas colonies are going to be a major mistake in this concept.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pedrun
|
|
Natal, RN, Brazil
May 2001
time: 05:12
|
|
Unless they are considering that to make overseas cololonies we need to have a city around from where the roads spread. That makes sense because european colonies used to have a Capital where there was habors that sent the products to the colonizers.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Krypter
|
|
Toronto, Canada
May 2001
time: 05:12
|
|
I noticed that most of the flat land types had green and grey marks on them (to delineate production, ala civ2). But they don't look that great. Wouldn't it be better to simply say (in the manual) that plains produce I 1 shield, grassland 1shield+1food, and then have a special fertile (black earth?) symbol for those especially rich grasslands that produce 2 food?
It would make the map look nicer, cleaner, and less obviously tiled. The shield/food marks really throw the symmetry in your face.
I know, this is probably "test" landscape and the final will look much better. Just general griping.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tribune
|
 |
Vienna, Austria
Nov 1999
time: 06:12
|
|
The city view looks fine, but the map view... hmmm... I wonder how to put it. How about this: The map view does look a bit, err, weirdish, especially the greens and blues are slightly, err, disturbing, I mean, is this really, err, *OUR* world? Or is this slightly scifi-ish, fantasy-ish look intended to prepare us for the fact that the Greys will be included as a nation?
Just joking, but I really think the map colours should undergo some change toward the natural.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Myronides
|
|
Serres, Greece
Jan 2000
time: 07:12
|
|
Quote: As for colonies, the resources go to whoever builds a colony and connects it with a road first. Consequently, colonies become key while your borders are expanding, and if you leave them unguarded or weakly guarded, you will pay the price. Also, since colonies need to be connected to a city with roads, an enemy can destroy your roads and sever the connection to that resource.
These colonides look like a nice idea, the hole game does anyway. I didn't get it though: How does one build a colony? With a worker? With colonist? Wouldn't that be too expencive? Why should I build just a colony were I could build a city? Dan? Anyone?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
|
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Simpson II on 05-12-2001 12:14 PM
You didn't play Smac, did you? That's exactly what they decided to make the AI do there. It would bring up a stack of 20-30 troops, then move them around pillaging while my bases were defended solely by 1-1-1 scout infantry. Very bad idea, the AI should attack when it has massed troops.
|
Well, obviously the AI must do reoccuring checkups on what types & quantitys of fortified units the HP-empire have, before it decides what strategy to follow. That goes without saying, dont you think.
Call it "AI cheating" or whatever, I dont care - the burden of inferior tactical overview still lays heavily on the AI anyway. Infact, I see it as an re-balancing 100% fair AI-benefit to at least give it free info-access about city-guarding HP-units (without spy-unit - only HP must use spy) - all in the name of overal better gameplay and AI-resistance
Besides; If the problem in Civ-2 spelled "blind" (fruitless) HP citywall-bashing, and the problem in SMAC spelled "blind" HP terrain-pillaging (still better) - wouldnt it then be a step forward to promote a suggestion that make the AI more "seeing" and "informed" in this respect?
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited May 12, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Myronides
|
|
Serres, Greece
Jan 2000
time: 07:12
|
|
OK! Makes sence.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jeffrey Morris FIRAXIS
|
|
Workers are increasingly becoming mobile "population points", and building colonies is one of their more spectacular abilities. Unlike terrain improvements, colonies consume the worker, much like a city consumes the settler. You don't get the worker back if your territory merges with the colony (the editors will probably allow this to be customized). Workers can also be merged with cities, captured if unattended, and even traded with your neighbors. In this game you need to defend your TERRITORY, not just your cities, or you will be swiftly punished. I find myself building hillside fortresses more in this game than Civ2/SMAC et al. One advanage of this terrain improvement is the zone of control it gives units normally without one (read: most ancient and middle ages units). But it's their ability to protect vital trade roads, colonies, and goods that makes them invaluable.
Jeff
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-05-2001 10:35
|