16-09-2002 01:11									#31
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Coracle Same with bombers. In Civ 2 we could leave them on enemy tiles to try to stop his movement - and they did unless shot down. But in Civ 3, all bombers can do is have a CHANCE of destroying some improvements.

What? I'm sorry, aren't you the big realism guy? I think that in real life, bombers can't hover in one place for a year and completely block enemy ground movements... its hilarious that you, of all people, actually want the Civ2 system back.

	16-09-2002 03:01									#32
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Unlimited RR MP's is a big pain. It makes it easy for a civ you are attacking to mass his forces for a devastating counterattack. This is just another cheap unrealistic trick to discourage invasions. Same with bombers. In Civ 2 we could leave them on enemy tiles to try to stop his movement - and they did unless shot down. But in Civ 3, all bombers can do is have a CHANCE of destroying some improvements.

I agree with Coracle bout the unlimited RR MP's, but i had to read the bit about the bomber twice to make sure i read it right!

	16-09-2002 04:06									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

The two biggest problems with Civ3:

1) Unlimited railroad movement. It destroies the strategic value of the end game.

2) Lack of stacked combat. This would speed up play tremendously and thus improve both SP & MP.

My other big grip is that you still can only see 8 of the 16 civs in the diplomacy window. As far as I'm concerned this is a MAJOR interface problem which has yet to be sorted out. How can I really play my position to the fullest when I can't conduct diplomacy with half of the world's civs? It is a big pain in the rear and Firaxis has done nothing to fix it yet.

	16-09-2002 05:18									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin 2) Lack of stacked combat. This would speed up play tremendously and thus improve both SP & MP.

I didn't like stacked unit combat because of the limitations of only x troops per tile... that bugged me, especially when I needed to man a big fortress or move troops around. I can't tell you how agonizing that limit was... one of the main reasons I gave up CTP. I would hope such stacking never gets into Civ3.

quote: My other big grip is that you still can only see 8 of the 16 civs in the diplomacy window... It is a big pain in the rear and Firaxis has done nothing to fix it yet.

Well, you can see them all, just not all at once. The system works, it just isn't very convenient.

	16-09-2002 06:46									#35
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin 1) Unlimited railroad movement. It destroies the strategic value of the end game.

Agree 100% here, This one for me is a game breaker.Shortly after RR I usually lose interest a end my games.

quote: My other big grip is that you still can only see 8 of the 16 civs in the diplomacy window. As far as I'm concerned this is a MAJOR interface problem which has yet to be sorted out. How can I really play my position to the fullest when I can't conduct diplomacy with half of the world's civs? It is a big pain in the rear and Firaxis has done nothing to fix it yet.

This wasn't supported by FIRAXIS, still and easier interface would be nice (I stopped playing 16 civs because of this)

	16-09-2002 10:37									#36
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I find playing more then 8 civs nearly impossible because of the frustration caused by the poor interface design. You literally have to hope some unit from civs 8-16 happens to come into view other wise you can't send a message, ask for an alliance, or anything else. This isn't just a little inconvience this is a fundamental flaw in the game. I hope firaxis will fix it in PtW but I'm not going to bet on it.

	16-09-2002 13:16									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: I didn't like stacked unit combat because of the limitations of only x troops per tile... that bugged me, especially when I needed to man a big fortress or move troops around. I can't tell you how agonizing that limit was... one of the main reasons I gave up CTP. I would hope such stacking never gets into Civ3.

Bravo! Absolutely agree with you. First I was delighted CtP2 stack combat system, but later I was dissapointed by that.
Reasons:
1. This lead to fatal "Run to 12" race. Damned cumulative effect. If you have 12 units in stack and your opponent have even 10 similar units in stack, then you will win with just a few losses. Here is overweight with 1 or 2 units lead to fatal result.
2. Defender can't have more then 12 units in city.

	16-09-2002 14:35									#38
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin The two biggest problems with Civ3: 1) Unlimited railroad movement. It destroies the strategic value of the end game.

I don't agree on this one. I'm not against a limited RR movement, but the current system has it's own advantages and realism:

1. one turn is a year, at least. I think you can move anything across a country, in one year, using the rail system, isn't it?

2. destroying the enemy's railroad system with bombers and artilery has strategic value, because you can disrupt enemy troops' movement (and the movement of goods, too, because you can leave them without luxuries and resources).

3. "This is just another cheap unrealistic trick to discourage invasions."
Yes, it is. So what? It was way to easy to win in Civ2, once you had a powerful army. Denying the invading force to use the road and rail infrastructure has made invasions a lot more challenging.

	16-09-2002 16:34									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

In Civ2, I always profited from unlimited RR movement to invade whole Eurasia + Africa in a few turns with my howitzer army. Conquering like this is now much slower in Civ3 because of movement limitation in enemy's territory.
I truly hated it in CTP that no modern transportation means allowed me to send troops quickly across my empire. Unrealistic and no fun IMO.

What really bugs me in Civ3 is the lack of unit-trading (I'm pretty sure it won't be included in PTW). It will spawn major frustration among teammates. I'm sure there will be almost as much ranting on this issue than n the lack of unit-stacking.

	16-09-2002 16:47									#40
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin I find playing more then 8 civs nearly impossible because of the frustration caused by the poor interface design. You literally have to hope some unit from civs 8-16 happens to come into view other wise you can't send a message, ask for an alliance, or anything else. This isn't just a little inconvience this is a fundamental flaw in the game. I hope firaxis will fix it in PtW but I'm not going to bet on it.

Sure you can. Press the little D button on the lower right part of the map. There is also a hot key (Shift-D maybe?, but I always use the little button). In addition, you can go to the Diplomatic Advisor (F4) and Shift-RightClick on a head to switch it to the civ you want into play.

This is poor interface design (Mike B read this) and inconvenient, but hardly a fundamental flaw. I say that because you do have a work around, a cumbersome one, but a workable one. The real problem will be in those 24 player games, there will be an awful lot of Shift-RightClicking going on to find out the total diplomatic picture.

	16-09-2002 17:55									#41
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Thanks Warpstorm. I never knew about the shift-rightclick hot key combo. It really is to bad that the manual doesn't list all the hot key combos. Hopefully PtW's manual will fix this.

	19-09-2002 15:22									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Caliban But this did not prevent the US from INCREASING its output of Carbondioxide (sp?) and thus contributing to global warming.

Carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant, let's TRY to be a bit more precise here. Unless you want to consider every non-plant organism on the face of the planet a pollution factory.

	23-09-2002 23:39									#43
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Tiberius I don't agree on this one. I'm not against a limited RR movement, but the current system has it's own advantages and realism: 1. one turn is a year, at least. I think you can move anything across a country, in one year, using the rail system, isn't it?

Tiberius, I agree with your overall assessment of RR movement, although not for the same reasons. Using the above argument, one can also truck anything cross-country in a year. I think what it really boils down to is that RRs have an enormous advantage in movement IRL over roads.

The time assigned to the turn (whether it be 1 year, 5 years, etc.) is irrelevant, and is just used as an abstract measure of the passage of time (view it as filler time between the more absolute start and end dates of 4000BC and 2050AD, respectively.) So in order to represent this advantage, Microprose and Firaxis both decided to create unlimited RR movement.

I'm not adamantly opposed to limited RR movement, but I currently feel that the system isn't broken, so why fix it?

	24-09-2002 09:59									#44
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

You're right, Traelin.