 |
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
What should NOT be in the next XP?
Any traces of Civ3 at all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Demerzel
|
|
No more cheap cosmetic extras.
I don't want bloody new Civs.
I don't want useless new wonders/buildings.
--
*sigh* why do XPs these days contain lots of trite, useless "improvements" that nobody wants/uses?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Trip
|
 |
Hunt Valley
Apr 2002
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Well, since Firaxians probably read this, I'd like to say something :
If the game is not ready in due time, I have no problem whatsoever with it being in development 3-4 more months, or even more if needed.
Really, I was very saddened by the cold welcome of PtW because it was rushed, and I was saddened as well by the rushed out version of Civ3 back in October 2001. I will be really, really glad if Firaxis obliterates these bad memories by shipping a game that is ready and is free of any major bug out of the box.
To restore Civ's reputation, a few more months of waiting is a minuscule price IMHO  |
Your voice falls on deaf ears... and, you shouldn't be taking these complaints to Firaxis, but "Atari."
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
dexters
|
 |
Vancouver, Canada
Nov 2001
time: 05:27
|
|
Considering the game won't ship for at least 5 more months, beta testing at this phase is a good sign. Most of the obvious bugs will probably be worked out.
What I DON'T WANT from Conquests is more of the same.
More units - good
More techs - good
More buildings - good
I think those are in for sure. But the stuff that are so so, and unkowns are
1) Diplomacy. -- Fixed alliances are going to be huge gameplay wise. It will be a lot of fun. But will AI be able to use it well? What sort of options do we have or is it just a glorified MPP? We don't know
2) Since Conquests feels like an XP for the single player fans of Civ III, I don't want the same AI from PTW. I want "upgrades" to quote Neo from the Matrix Reloaded. Loopholes closed. Exploits weakened, and most importantly AI that can put up a decent fight into the industrial age as well as giving the AI needed modifications so it can fight well with RR and 3 movement units, a continuing weakness on its part.
RR allows for force concentrations at any location in an AI civ's territory. They can move units from as far back as their core cities to harass the heck out of an invading force, and for 2+ movement units, there is usually enough movement points left for the units to then retreat back to their home cities and act as if nothing happened. We don't get that. We have cavalry taking really strange routes to the front where it leaves itself wide open for counterattack. We have defenders in the deep territory doing nothing while the invaders divide and conquers. The AI certainly has come a long way since 1.07f, but as always, there is room for improvement.
3) I don't wan't the same so so naval algorithms that seem to make the AI display inconsistent behavior. I've seen the AI display increadible power navally. Lots of ships blowing up your improvements.
Their invasions however, remain meek and more a distraction. That is why even when the AI fight against other AI civs, the only invasion that ever work are ones targeted against poorly defended islands. I almost never see an AI civ, any AI civ, land a force on a continent, capture a city, reinforce the city and then push inland and grab more cities (and I'm talking about AI vs AI here). That needs to be changed. And I have faith it will be.
Last edited by dexters on 08-06-2003 at 11:56
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GodKing
Bringing back the dead Panag....
(in reference to this thread that has been dead for a month - in case someone doesn't get it).
I will help then.
Yes, I am having a nice day. Are you? We kicked some but tonight in the demo game, took two cities, founded 2 more, adn are generally kicking the ottomans but.
I would LIKE to have unit trading, regional governements, and an events editor similar to the one that came out with Civ2 (in the second expansion to civ2 IIRC) but that is easier to use.
I would NOT want - bugs, a downgraded AI, a high price & crapy copy protection that prohibits all the patches from being world wide. |
hi ,
no sweat , like i did not know what you did , ..... 
anyway , i just seen a new type of copy ptw , mamamia , ..... 
the read only files are a mix of both french and english , .....  
thanks infogrames , Firaxis , Atari , this is one thing that should not go into the next game , .....
and at least could someone tell them to stay with one company for "protection" and not move around and not create needless files , ......
and we dont need a 30 seconds advertising from that copy protection firm , .... 
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tomcat ha
|
|
I want the civ 2 music back to iritaite my sises again :P
wow my first post in half a year or more
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dexters
|
|
Vancouver, Canada
Nov 2001
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
Like I said, AI must be able to do with between each other and with you too. Although the AI to AI trade bonus applies, so they will always ask for higher values before they help you. |
In case what I said here is not entirely clear, think of it this way.
If you're in trouble, the AI may choose to help you. It will calculate a value of this help based on a formula, with perhaps some random factor as a coefficient to add some human randomness to the procedure.
If the AI gets a value of 4.5 for example, that will translate to some level of help.
for example
4.5 X 10 = 450 gold worth of help, techs, money or units.
If it is another AI needing, it will still give 450 gold worth of help even if the value is less than 4.5. Say 4.5/1.1 if you're in chieftain. 1.1 being the AI to AI trade bonus.
This sort of valuation would allow AI to give varying degrees of help depending on your position and relationship in a game. I would think that to avoid exploitation, unit trading must be allowable only under Gracious conditions. A condition that only happens when you are allied militarily, with MPP or ROP or, have common enemy.
The fixed alliance system may also benefit from some sort of unit trading and I would propose allowing unit trading to happen ONLY in alliance circumstances. There is then some incentive not to screw around with your alliance partners for various alliance related reasons.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-05-2003 04:25
. So it's possible but if they will put i dunno besides they know that if they make some cosmetic improvements ppl will buy the game still. We have to show that we won't if we really want improvements otherwise why improve something if the market still demands it in it's crap state? Simple economic reality my friends. If there is demand for a produc why spend money changing it? If there is no demand then changing will help demand rise. As long as we buy all the civ games don't hope to a major change, except the cosmetic thingies. And i don't want an AI that is designed to play against me only. In galciv this is cool cause the AI competes with each other and against the human. In CIv the main target is always me and if it can trade with another ai than me it will always prefer the other bastard. This i don't want any more, since MP is really bad they can me SP more realistic
|