 |
|
Standard User
|
|
ive seen all this stuff about but what is it... an expanison, how much it gonna cost.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Standard User
|
|
a scenario editor so we can place units like in ctp2. spectacular!!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
 |
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:20
|
|
A full scenario editor, placing units, cities, editing, triggers, etc. Also, of course, adding your own units, techs, etc. At least that's what they promise.
And that's also 8 new civs, as well as some new units, as well as a few new terrain improvements.
I must agree that we'd need a summary thread - what we know about PtW.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tribune
|
 |
Vienna, Austria
Nov 1999
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Solver
A full scenario editor, placing units, cities, editing, triggers, etc. Also, of course, adding your own units, techs, etc. At least that's what they promise.
|
Didnīt they promise 'a full scenario editor' last time already? 
For me itīs 'once bitten, twice shy'.
I find CivIII so boring, compared to its predecessors, I havenīt played a game in months.
I couldnīt even bring myself to download the latest patch; I simply do not bother about CivIII any more at all. 
So one thing I promise is: I promise not to buy PtW. At least not before itīs down to less than $10.
Which may be soon enough, otoh. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sabre2th
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Tribune Didnīt they promise 'a full scenario editor' last time already? |
Yes, and it's not out yet. It's coming in the next patch. They've admitted that they screwed up. Give them a chance to fix it.
Yeah it sucks that we have to buy multiplayer in an XP, but they've given what I think are at least somewhat acceptable reasons for it
Last edited by Sabre2th on 08-07-2002 at 07:43
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Incan_Warrior
|
|
Dallas
Jun 2002
time: 23:20
|
|
I agree it would be nice to receive multiplayer for free, but Firaxis IS expanding on the virgin form of the game (which I'm surprised anyone would find boring). I think it's good they released multiplayer long after they released the initial game - now when people do play MP they will be seasoned gamers, rather than learning the game as they go.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JtheJackal
|
|
It's absolutely baffleing that someone could not like Civ 3 and like other games simliar to it. I wonder how you guys got a deffective copy?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnM2433
|
|
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Jul 2002
time: 21:20
|
|
If I recall correctly, a rifleman has a defense of 6 and an Immortal has an attack of 4, so an Immortal should only beat a rifleman of equal rank some 2/5 of the time. Actually, I think the actual odds may be more complicated than that, since each fight goes on for several "rounds," but the odds should never be over 50%, and I think may even be somewhat lower than 40%.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dimorier Maximus
|
 |
of Apolyton
May 2001
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnM2433 If I recall correctly, a rifleman has a defense of 6 and an Immortal has an attack of 4, so an Immortal should only beat a rifleman of equal rank some 2/5 of the time. Actually, I think the actual odds may be more complicated than that, since each fight goes on for several "rounds," but the odds should never be over 50%, and I think may even be somewhat lower than 40%. |
If you think about it, what chance do some dudes with swords have against an army of men equipped with rifles?  Is it 40%? Is it 20%? No, I'd say it's more like 1%.
That is what I don't like. I mean, against muskets, sure...the sword army might have a chance due to inaccuracy and slow load times. But rifles? Give me a break. They can't defend or attack an army of riflemen and have a shot either way.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnM2433
|
|
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Jul 2002
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dimorier Maximus
If you think about it, what chance do some dudes with swords have against an army of men equipped with rifles? Is it 40%? Is it 20%? No, I'd say it's more like 1%.
That is what I don't like. I mean, against muskets, sure...the sword army might have a chance due to inaccuracy and slow load times. But rifles? Give me a break. They can't defend or attack an army of riflemen and have a shot either way. |
Well, I'm not so sure about that. If the dudes with swords had metal armor or sheilds, that could protect them against rifle fire, I think. However, since the Immortals did *not* have these things, your point is well taken. In order to better reflect combat between units from different eras, the ratios of the attack and defense values of the more modern units to the more ancient ones would have to be even higher than they actually are in the game.
Now, the folks at Civ III might say that you can imagine these primative soldiers having more advanced technology in later eras, and thus being better at dealing with modern threats. And this would be fine if the units did not look exactly the same as they did in the ancient era, unlike settlers and workers. I mean, it seems absurd that a nation with nuclear power would ever use longbowmen for anything, even martial law.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-07-2002 23:29
:; 
for that - that after sticking me up for almost $70 last November for a beta game and useless Official Guide. It is like putting lipstick on the same old sow.
|