Chat Logs

Hey. Are the logs from the latest Firaxis Chat going to be put up like the last couple were? And if they are, do we have any kind of ETA on them? Thanks.

-------------
Edit by TF:

Chat logs now posted to the main site:

Edited:
http://www.civfanatics.com/chat/chat92303edited.shtml

Unedited:
http://www.civfanatics.com/chat/chat92303raw.txt

Ask and you shall receive... sometimes, at least. Attached is an edited version of the chat, with the comments divided by topic.

A few items that I thought were most interesting:

• Scientific Leaders (which have a chance of showing up when you are the first to research a new tech) can either rush wonders, or increase science research by +25% in all cities for 20 turns.
• Volcano eruptions can wipe out cities that they are adjacent to, and the frequency can be controlled via the editor.
• The AI has 'many improvements', including making better choices when deciding what to bombard, and escorting key naval transports.

All in all, a lot of new info to mull over!

Chieftess was supposed to do it, but thanks Pyrkaige. You did a good job editing.

Going to post it to the main site tonight along with the unedited version...

Pyrkaige, I took the liberty of formatting your edited chat log so that it is a little easier to read... hope you don't mind (If you do, just let me know and I'll take it down)!

Note to self: Next time, know what your getting into before you attempt to format such a large chat session!

Edit 9/24/03 10:30 am: New chat log - Minor Formatting and Syntax Fixes, smileys added, Linked TOC Added.

Thanks fitchn. I know how you feel.

Chat logs now posted to the main site:

Edited:
http://www.civfanatics.com/chat/chat92303edited.shtml

Unedited:
http://www.civfanatics.com/chat/chat92303raw.txt

Many thanks, fitchn. I know editing that was a chore. I sat through the chat, but it's really good to have it edited and organized.

"<Chieftess> <Aussie_Lurker> Will it be possible to make units dependant on the presence of an improvement?
<Gobi> We didn't take the route of making units dependent on improvements per se.
<Gobi> There is just a slightly different tact we took to achieve the same edge"

Damn, there's nothing I hate more than a VAGUE answer
!!! Still, this does sound KIND of good-depending on what they mean by it ! It certainly sounds like there will be SOME kind of relationship betweeen improvements and unit construction-just don't know WHAT it is!!

Other great news, to me, is the improved naval and air combat, and a better AI-again !!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Mostly good news overall

But the one gamebreaker isn't solved, when you trade something and someone pillage a road on the other side of universe, you get blamed and forever shunned.

Still, all the new stuff will make me continue playing and I suppose I have to pre-order to get the bonus cd.

Nice job editing btw, easy reading.

Chieftess> <Asker> Are there any changes to the advantages that civs recieve from existing traits?

<Merepatra_BA> @Asker>Yes there was a change to slightly lower the industrial workers speed


I thought people might comment on this more

Hmm they were evasive about what other things would be possible in the editor to create scenarios, like "lots of stuff"

fitchn, great work formatting the edited version of the chat. I don't mind at all; anything that makes it easier to read and soak up all this new info is a good thing indeed.

I'm also completely STOKED by the fact that they listened to us, and gave ground and naval units an Anti-Air capability ! Now, lets just hope that they've given fighters an 'escort bomber' mission and I reckon air combat will be ALMOST perfect !
I also liked that they still have plans, in the future, for giving 'unit vs unit' combat bonuses! It shows, yet again, that they ARE really listening to us !
Edit: Hopefully this last point means that, by this time next year, we'll see pikemen with attack bonuses against mounted units, and tanks with attack bonuses against infantry, etc, etc !!


Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Originally posted by Aussie_Lurker
"<Chieftess> <Aussie_Lurker> Will it be possible to make units dependant on the presence of an improvement?
<Gobi> We didn't take the route of making units dependent on improvements per se.
<Gobi> There is just a slightly different tact we took to achieve the same edge"

Damn, there's nothing I hate more than a VAGUE answer
!!! Still, this does sound KIND of good-depending on what they mean by it ! It certainly sounds like there will be SOME kind of relationship betweeen improvements and unit construction-just don't know WHAT it is!!

Other great news, to me, is the improved naval and air combat, and a better AI-again !!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Click to expand...

I figured they were refering to the Staue of Zeus (creates a Ancient Cavalry (3.2.2) every 5 turns) and Knight Templar (creates Crusaders (5.3.2) every 5 turns). Neither unit can be built.

I've updated the formatted chat log to fix some minor syntax problems and formatting errors (as well as using more 'correct' HTML syntaxes). I've also added a linked Table Of Contents and Smileys, where appropriate. See my previous post for the new file.

thanks for editing and posting the chat. good stuff!

1st off allow me to express kudos to CFC and all those that put the chat together and expended their energies on the editing of it. I missed it because I was playing online at the time.

To be totally truthful I must admit that when C3C was announced I was more than skeptical about purchasing it. After yesterdays chat I preordered it from Amazon for the bonus mods.

On with my observation: I realize that multiplayer is a small portion of the game and I was disappointed that there was no representation in the chat for us. It made me a little more iritated that I didn't attend. I also realize that there has been extensive beta testing for the online user. Here are a few of my concerns for the MP community:

Has the MP coding been changed, it's rumored that most of the problems with MP is that it is Micrsoft coded.

There are computer to computer issues that don't allow some players to connect with each other yet they can connect with other common players without any problems.

There are numerous Out Of Synch drops the most notorious of all has become the "empty city" OOS. This happens when 1 has eliminated all existing units in a city and the defender was trying to rush reinforcements in to save it.

Lag is a major issue also, it holds up movements, battles and general game play. I think the lag from a 56k dialup user limits the enjoyment and the participation in MP.

There are 2 major bugs in the future scenario; missles, planes and nukes cannot be used do to causing the game to lock or OOS and stack movement sometimes locks making the stack immobile and unusable.

As I said MP is a small segment of the Civ community. It has become my preferred avenue tho. I use single player only as a tool to practice new techniques. The AI may have been improved but there is no greater challenge than going head to head with other human beings. It's one thing to say "I conquered the AI on Sid level" and quite another to be able to say "I conquered Sid".

Oh, and as a caveat you never know who you may run into in multi player. Now of course we are online and I can make myself be whoever I wish. That being said if the person that was online last really was who he said he was then the Civ community is truly far reaching. That person last night claimed to be and I do believe it was Lou (Take a walk on the wild side) Reed. Truly amazing this wonderful game. Its worth every bit of the problems we experience.

Happy Civin all

ajerzguy,

I don't think I'm breaking my NDA when I say that MP received extensive testing. Many bugs were written up against MP (and fixed, too ). I'm not really into MP, but I got very used to discussions about OOSes, lag times, etc.

Not everything was resolved, of course, and some things (e.g., lag times for a 56K modem vs. broadband) simply CANNOT be fixed by a game. But I believe the MP testers came out generally satisfied with the game.

Is it just me, or does anyone else see the scientific leaders being possibly pretty unbalancing. Granted, its not guarenteed since their appearence is random, but if you're already ahead and then you also get a twenty-five percent boost in your research for the next twenty turns, sounds a bit like SETI used to be back in Civ2. :/

In regards to ajerzguy and his concerns about C3C, I too have pre-ordered. Let's face it, it's our game and hobby, and if we don't take the time to support it, by purchasing as well as criticism (constructive and not), it will go by the way of the do-do.

Overall, the expansion offers ALOT of additions, corrections, and solutions to all our concerns. When it's finally out (soon, soon,soon), we can dive into it and find out all the remaining "vague" items they were (not) referring to.

Thanks to everyone involved in putting this online chat together, and those involved in editing it.

I was always going to buy C3C; like Vanadorn says, it's our hobby - I've spent more time playing the civ series of games that all the rest put together.

I am disappointed that we're stuck to an upper limit of 31 civs to chose from; ie, I would've liked to have added a few more of my own without replacing existing civs. Who knows, it might be sorted out in a patch. To me, that's only a minor point considering all the plusses we're going to get. All the conquest stuff looks great - even just playing the "epic" game with some new civs is good. Roll on Oct 28th!