 |
|
Optimizer
|
 |
Stockholm
Feb 2001
time: 06:25
|
|
My opinion is that the industrial and so-called "modern" age take up too much of the game-time, a least in Civ 3. I would rather play a Civ game with more events in the ancient age, while there is still a lot to discover.
I think there are enough 20th century strategy games, but that might be a question of taste.
Last edited by Optimizer on 14-02-2003 at 18:12
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lemmy
|
 |
Bubblewrap
Dec 2000
time: 06:25
|
|
Prehistoric/prewriting/tribal age 
Don't think of it in terms of Civilization, but in terms of SimTribe.
A few months ago I've actually started designing a game that focusses on the time before the Civilization games start, when everything is still very small and contained. One turn would take one month, and the map would be no bigger then Great Britain. Your tribe would start out with 10-50 tribesmen and eventually end up with maybe several hundred of them.
All of them are true individuals with their own set of skills. The way their characters are described could be taken out of any RPG. For my design i've adapted most of the SPECIAL system used in Fallout, with some minor modification. This means a tribesman has several fixed attributes, and these cannot change, think of them as genes, and a potentially unlimited set of skills. Skills, at first depend on the main attributes, but can change through practice and studying. Not all tribesmen know all skills, but new skills can be learned, or discovered by accident mostly.
The map would also be more detailed then an avg Civ-map, for instance i'd like to implement a living, dynamic world, with animals and plant. Animals migrate from tile to tile, plants have their preferred weather/season in which they grow best. Also something that would be nice is a basic evolutionary system, the scale of the game is too small to implement any realisic evolution, but changing parameters of animals (to an extent) that may become extinct would be a nice balancing addition. For example Animal A is being overhunted, solution would be to make it less desirable to be hunted (eg it gives less food/other resources), make it tougher to hunt (eg make it faster, more deadly), or increase their numbers (by increasing their birthrate).
It would be very much a micro-management game, where each tribesman has to be given specific orders, but off course daily order can be automated/repeated.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Optimizer
|
|
Stockholm
Feb 2001
time: 06:25
|
|
In Civ 3, you can prolong the ancient and medieval ages by increasing the tech costs during these ages and decreasing the tech cost for later ages.
If you also increase the shield cost for settlers dramatically (like 100 shields) and the work needed for terrain improvements, you'll have a long, nice ancient era.
To increase the action in the ancient era you can add new units between the ones available. For instance you can have dead-end techs that give all players access to certain civ-specific units.
Last edited by Optimizer on 18-02-2003 at 00:34
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
I think its misleading to put get rid of ages in the same poll that asks which age you want more flushed out. It would be a simple matter to get rid of civ "ages", go back to fluid tech development, AND at the same time flush out an age more. And I imagine that a few of the people who voted "No Ages" do have a preference as to which time period needs more techs, more units, needs more game time devoted to it...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-02-2003 20:31
, ......
|