 |
| |
|
|
Pyrkaige
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azeem
...I think our foreign advisors should drop a few hints every now and then that a paticular nation (that we have an embassy in) is sort of acting peculiar. There could be some hints that there will be war. |
This would be nice to see, if the AI in Civ3 thought about wars far ahead of time. Unfortunately, it doesn't. Best I've been able to figure out, there are two kinds of wars that the Civ3 AI starts: think of them as the hate-war and the bully-war.
The hate-war is when the AI declares war on you without asking for anything first. The AI really doesn't like you and has decided to wipe you out; it declares war and attacks, usually with a few units on the first turn. This type of war is decided upon by the AI 2 turns in advance, which is when you'll see those units moving into your territory. This is the closest thing to "planning" a war that the AI does.
The bully-war is when the AI says that you have to give them something, or else. If you don't give them what they want they'll declare war on you, even if you're halfway around the world and they have no chance of getting it from you anyway. These sort of wars are spur of the moment; they aren't planned in advance at all.
So, to have diplomatic info that told you when an AI was thinking of beating you up, it would really only work on the 2 turns where the AI was moving units into your territory to start a hate-war. While that would be nice to a point, it's not info that you can't already see yourself if you keep an eye on who has units where.
Now, if the AI in Civ3 was modified to think more deeply about whether or not to go to war, and if it took more turns (at least 5) to move units into position, and if there was a way to go about heading off such a war in advance... then there would be a use for knowing that war was coming via your foreign advisor. That's a lot of ifs to have happen, though. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
troytheface
|
|
Many of the suggestions and comments are interesting here. Ai problem is really unsolvable because with much play one can see how it wrks. Knowing how the enemy fights..how can u lose? Course i play only Mp games,
it has made Sp obsolete. What i would like to see is
the Navy System revamped, with subs that have ZOC
but that can sink ships. (but a miniscule defense)
Trade routes displayed like in Call to Power so u can really pirate. Some flame units, like a Fire catapult or
Trireme, or flame thrower. (Just for the visual really
but perhaps they could negate fortifications or something.) And carrier vs carrier air battles some how.
And more governemnts no doubt! Someone mentioned totalitarianism -which is a nice side step of getting anyone uptight.
Natural disasters are a great idea. Although i have talked to some who did not liike the idea of losing wonders and buildings ect to such. (personally i think it
would be cool, like Damn...Rome was hit by an earthquake and i lost all my #$$%%)
Someone mentioned that in Mp they would be turned off....why? by whom...i would boot them and play with those that like life-not predictability.
We will see ...and as for civ ideas- many simply want to see thier country (or group they feel somehow gives them credibility and identity) included...ur arguements are really because "i want my country to be there too" not for any logical reasons I have read. I thought that was what the editor was for...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Selanne
|
|
Winnipeg, Canada
Nov 2001
time: 05:28
|
|
I love making my own world maps. Let's fix the problems there.
1. Allow plains and tundra to be placed side by side
2. Reintroduce ice caps
3. Fix the possible terrain combos, so that plains and desert can always be placed together. In some circumstances as in point #1, the terrain will default to grassland.
4. Allow the option to place plains under jungles. Jungles have poor soil not good for growing crops.
As for civs:
1. Inca
2. Ethiopia/Axum
3. Songhai/Mali
4. Java/Indonesia
5. Khmer
6. Sioux
7. Kongo
8. Brazil (to fill another South American slot.)
We don't need anymore European or Middle Eastern civs!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:28
|
|
Well, I don't know about you guys but, if they are right in claiming that this expansion is going to be 700 TIMES larger than the PtW expansion, then I really don't think that this is going to be some little bug-fix, with a bit of eye-candy thrown in!!! To me, this sounds like the REAL-DEAL!!! i.e. Civ3 pretty much as the designers at Firaxis wanted it from the beginning (you know, before Infograms stuck it's beak in )
So, what do you guys reckon?
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:28
|
|
It's the story entitled "BETA PROGRAM SIZE, TYPE, AFFILIATIONS" and, oops, it's not hundreds of times larger-only at least "ten times larger"  . Sorry about that. Still, though, that this expansion is even 10 times larger (it could be more, 'cause she claims it will be AT LEAST 10 times larger) is a good sign that it will contain a HELL of a lot more features than PtW, and will certainly be more than eye candy plus bug-fixes!!! Sorry about getting you so excited, I just misread the relevent section-oops!!!!
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kring
|
 |
Wichita,KS,USA
Dec 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
It's the story entitled "BETA PROGRAM SIZE, TYPE, AFFILIATIONS" and, oops, it's not hundreds of times larger-only at least "ten times larger" . Sorry about that. Still, though, that this expansion is even 10 times larger (it could be more, 'cause she claims it will be AT LEAST 10 times larger) is a good sign that it will contain a HELL of a lot more features than PtW, and will certainly be more than eye candy plus bug-fixes!!! Sorry about getting you so excited, I just misread the relevent section-oops!!!!
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker. |
The 10 times larger is referring to the number of testers, not the size of the game.
Considering it (C3C) is only 400 MB (and not 4 GB) in size, the same size as PtW, and the amount of time to finish the testing for release, it can't be too much more than what they have claimed so far. The amount of space needed for the scenarios is going to take a decent chunk of that 400 MB. A large amount will also go in the Art folder. Check out your PtW Art folder (amount of space required, mine shows 263 MB just in the Art folder) if you have PtW.
Last edited by kring on 22-05-2003 at 13:29
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master2000
|
|
Does anyone has a clue what "Extended multiplayer" means?
More than 8 human players with AI? Sure miss this... Most of my LAN games are played with my friends teaming against the AI.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kring
|
|
Wichita,KS,USA
Dec 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Is Civ III: Play the World needed in order to play Civ III: Conquests?
No! You will not need Civilization III: Play the World in order to play Civilization III: Conquests!
|
There is no indication that you will need PtW for MP if you have C3C. The FAQ does state that it (C3C) will have enhanced MP support.
Last edited by kring on 23-05-2003 at 21:07
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-05-2003 11:41
, any news on the comp specs 
tell me what is keeping those extremely nice
and helpful 
says I!!
You sure about that? I am playing PTW, in single mode, and every time I get to air wars and send bombers in I get a jet interceptor appear on the other side and BLUE SCREEN, game over!
|