 |
|  |
 |
|
Sn00py
|
 |
From New Zealand
Aug 2001 time: 13:28
|
|
For diplomacy, all they really have to add are more options to throw around and use.
I don't think you can set up a battle with an ally to attack certain parts of the land, certain cities, units.
There's no World War feature within games. So, if all countries are at war with someone, the game could go into a state of 'world war' and that gets recorded, and if it happens again, it becomes 'world war 2', and so on.
Having all these new civs, etc, is OK, but the game is linear, civ is not meant to be linear. Adding new stuff doesn't fix that problem, Firaxis should be adding in features that lead your countries and other countries onto different paths, constantly.
What about a race to find new land, like Columbus? There's no 'race' sort of feature. Or what about a 'nuke race' or where your nation splits because a large % of your ppl have other ideas. (like the indepence war). these things just aren't strong enough in the game.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001 time: 06:28
|
|
I won't buy an XP for a couple of new civs. Unless they introduce new traits (attention: balance!), they will be almost (short of UUs) exact copies of other civs anyway. Same for units or buildings. Neither will I buy one for a bunch of scenarios, which I won't play anyway. PtW came out with the word Multiplayer on the box. It still doesn't work, not even PBEM. I won't shell out money for more sheer eye candy.
I would consider to buy it, if it has
- a really working Multiplayer. I mean, without half of the PBEM games crashing after months invested, and with a valid and working option to play over internet with more than 2 players and without game caused lag, crashes and dropouts.
- more diplomatic options, like the mentioned fixed alliances, a fixed UN (what's it now? a bribing contest, not more), one-sided RoP after wars ("occupation") and others. There are plenty of ideas on the boards.
- an improved combat system, and real ZoC, at least as a choosable option! If the AI can't handle it, teach it and don't take any tactical choice out of the game for the sake of a good AI! AI's suck anyway, even the best one's, when it comes to MP. It would also be good to give an option to limit the RR movement per turn, to force the players to place their forces wisely.
- a vastly improved scenario editor with events, and a scripting language, dammit. 
- the guarantee, that all patches are available at the same time for all versions (by this I mean, with 4 weeks or less to wait for localized versions), for the sake of MP! Yes, I mean Atarigreed with that! 
Unless a majority of these points is met, Firaxis/Atarigreed can stick this XP where the sun doesn't shine. Sorry to sound harsh, but I'm still angry about the MP failure named PtW.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Yahweh Sabaoth
|
 |
The Heavens
Dec 2002 time: 05:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Louis XXIV
I hope it isn't Fundamentalism (I hope they have it, but don't call it islamic) |
Fundamentalism, as rockin' as it was, made Civ2 WAY TOO EASY. Simply build up, get a lead, switch and conquer the damn world! Techs every 4-6 turns by the end of the game, and buy every last city. Way too easy.
Now that propaganda/espionage works differently, I could maybe see Fundamentalism re-introduced... but tithing would have to be WAY cut back, cultural assimilation should be made more difficult (to reflect vigorous resistance against lunatic marches, as opposed to compliance with rational conquerors).
I would like to see globalization worked into the XP... I just hope the other 4 civs are not ancient as well, or if they are, please include the Israelis...?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Louis XXIV
|
 |
I left my heart in Zarigueya
Mar 2003 time: 00:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
Fundamentalism, as rockin' as it was, made Civ2 WAY TOO EASY. Simply build up, get a lead, switch and conquer the damn world! Techs every 4-6 turns by the end of the game, and buy every last city. Way too easy.
Now that propaganda/espionage works differently, I could maybe see Fundamentalism re-introduced... but tithing would have to be WAY cut back, cultural assimilation should be made more difficult (to reflect vigorous resistance against lunatic marches, as opposed to compliance with rational conquerors).
I would like to see globalization worked into the XP... I just hope the other 4 civs are not ancient as well, or if they are, please include the Israelis...? |
I agree
It would be great if all scientific improvements (including GL) didn't work.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
TheArsenal
|
 |
Sunny Southern California
Mar 2002 time: 21:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Spiffor
I too think Conquests won't be dependant of PtW, because it would hurt the sales (I've heard there are about 4 times less sells for PtW than for Civ3, they won't want to aim at a part of this 25%, but they'll rather aim for the broades audience)
However, PtW features such as PtW units, victory conditions, Civs etc. are most likely not to figure in a vanilla Civ3 + Conquests combo. I wonder if Conquests will have multiplayer by itself or not though. |
I hope you're right.
Okay, let's assume that is true, and this XP is based upon vanilla Civ III, and is entirely independent of PtW. It still brings forth the obvious question: when they are talking about 8 new civs, are they talking about 8 new civs in addition to extra civs added to the PtW or are they saying 8 new civs added to the vanilla Civ III?
It is entirely possible that since the XP (we're assuming) expands the vanilla version, and Marketing language is based upon expansion of the vanilla version, that the latter could be true. I hope not.
edited for clarity
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28. Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|