 |
|  |
 |
|
Chronus
|
|
Thanks again, Draginol!
A civ-space game that I enjoyed (try not to laugh too hard) was Birth of the Federation. A common problem that seem to emerge was that the civilization in the middle of the galaxy was at a disadvantage since he/she could be attacked from any side while the other civs, along the map border, had a guaranteed protected side. One could argue that the middle civ had better opportunities in other areas such as earlier contacts and trade. In the end, however, this didn't seem to balance out. Was this a factor you folks considered in play testing and, if not, will you consider it in future patches?
Also, I think I see a consistent pattern emerging here in all these game examples. Is it my imagination . . . or are the cute, lovable, ET-looking Torians always selected to be the good guys? 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Draginol
|
|
We seriously considered a 3D map but we just couldn't find a way where it would be fun. GalCiv isn't like Homeworld and even there a lot of people found the 3D map objectionable.
Every feature has to justify itself. Does such a feature make the game more "fun"? In the case of a 3D map, we found it detracted from the fun.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
pg
|
|
galciv isn't connected at the sides or top/bottom atm is it? i was thinking of a map which would be like a sphere or a planet. sorta like civ maps but also connect at the top. sure it's not realistic but it'd be cool feature for gameplay as there'd be no corners/sides. 3d would be worse because it'd add lots complexity but not really any gameplay over a standard 2d map or spherical 2d map.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26. Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|