 |
|
annoyed
|
|
oops, meant to quote the first paragragh ffrom coracles entry. sorry
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kindbud
|
 |
Middle Tennessee
Nov 2001 time: 23:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Falconius
I agree with annoyed. I'm somewhat annoyed myself over this settler diarhea problem.
What I find MOST annoying about it is that all the AI civs do it, no matter who they are. There's no variety to the AI's gameplay aside from military aggression levels and the use of UUs. In Civ I and II, the different Civs had different priorities. Some were expansionists (cranking out settlers), some were militarists (cranking out military units), some were perfectionists (cranking out city improvements). In Civ III, they are all expansionists, which has effectively killed the variety of the gameplay.
Now I know this was done so that the human players who used the ICS strategy would be countered. But what about the rest of us who preferred to use a variety of other tactics? Now we are forced to play the way the ICS players always played, and the way the AI plays now. Sorry, but this has become tiresome, especially on larger maps. On a large map, you spend endless hours churning out settlers just to keep up with the number of cities being built by the AI civs. Is this supposed to be fun? |
I agree completely! I rarely played Civ 2 on the hardest levels because I enjoyed the game as an empire building experience against the other A.I.'s. Not to see how many cities I could eventually control but race to build the wonders and run the tech tree. I liked those damn movies - especially Leonardo's Workshop which had cool music. I would go to war when I had a neighbor nipping at my border etc. I liked building my cities up. Basically I enjoyed the game playing as a human perfectionist - roads, railroads, improved tiles, etc... I KNOW that ins't gonna appeal to a lot of players but it worked for me. Since the AI didn't rush settlers I didn't have to rush settlers.
All of that would be really cool to me in Civ III because the one problem with my style was that as I got really good I would be able to generate HUGE sums of cash in the end stage (and sometimes the middle stage) so with the spy I could simply buy other empires then mop the capital. No way to do that in Civ III.
Maybe I'm just a micromanagement junkie... Anyway it seems that although Civ III has several ways to achieve victory, the only sure way is conquest. I have never been close to scoring a cultural victory. I think a diplomatic win is fairly possible but war always trumps...
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
SABRA
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Trip
Yes it may be long 'time-wise', but most people care more about gameplay value. And he's right... the world gets revealed far too quickly. How could they fix this? Well, aside from a larger map, I'm not really sure. |
Indeed a larger map of somewhere like 300-320 X 300-320 would fix this problem .
|
|
|  |
 |
|
kimmygibler
|
|
"Originally posted by Trip
Yes it may be long 'time-wise', but most people care more about gameplay value. And he's right... the world gets revealed far too quickly. How could they fix this? Well, aside from a larger map, I'm not really sure."
Easy, make units require more support costs the further they are from their home city. Or if there is no "home city" concept I guess it could be distance from capital or distance from closest city. In the early game the cost could be extremely high making exploration very expensive. This would stop the ai especially from just sending hundreds of random ships randomly around the map.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21. Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|