this info is all very cool, but I too am upset at the number of civ's. Although I've read the arguments about the exponentially higher amount of processing power it takes for each additional AI controlled civ, why would they take away from the number of civs that you can choose from? And despite those arguments about the limit of in-game civs, I have great trouble believing that the limits cannot be stretched just a little bit farther on a computer today from the limits established for computers several years ago. I propose we run another pole to see what peoples' current opinions on the civ limit are.
Civ3 screenshots & Info from PC GamePlay!
- Thread starter Zaswady
- Start date
Håkan Eriksson
Commander of the Swedes.
WOW!!! It's rely exciting to read about all the new things!!! I like the advisor screen! Many good new ideas!!
As for the cut-down of the number Civilizations i think they had to do that. Since now it seems that every civilization is more unique. More specefide leaders and uniue units make every civ to make more space.
------------------
<IMG SRC="http://w1.316.telia.com/~u31613053/sign.gif" border=0>
As for the cut-down of the number Civilizations i think they had to do that. Since now it seems that every civilization is more unique. More specefide leaders and uniue units make every civ to make more space.
------------------
<IMG SRC="http://w1.316.telia.com/~u31613053/sign.gif" border=0>
animepornstar
Deity
great canal... doesn´t sound like a wonder i´m gonna race to build.
siouxpermarket
Chieftain
>Thanks for the link.<
My pleasure.
I still don't get why they'd be releasing such dissimilar screenshots...unless we're unwittingly participating in some clever market research. Heh.
Which I've got no problem with, either. C'est la guerre.
My pleasure.
I still don't get why they'd be releasing such dissimilar screenshots...unless we're unwittingly participating in some clever market research. Heh.
Which I've got no problem with, either. C'est la guerre.
animepornstar
Deity
the pics reminds me of a game that came a couple of years ago called 'conquers' or something like that. the game was like colonization about colonize america. the incaesar2 pic with the horseman reminds me a lot of that game, just can´t recall the name of it. i´m gonna see if i can find the name of it somewhere.
is it pentagon we can see on the cityview pic? is the pentagon a new wonder? is the colloseum and a stadium there too?
is it pentagon we can see on the cityview pic? is the pentagon a new wonder? is the colloseum and a stadium there too?
allhailIndia
Deity
I See that the popular demands of most civ lovers have been met and this may be the best Sid Meier game yet. I just want to know whether they will allow us to customize our civs or we hav to accept only their 16 civs. I liked the second set of pics way better thn the firt andthey look a lot better. The resources idea is an excelleny one and will make the game far more interesting. Also the introduction of culture will prevent any civ from building mass units from a just captured city. The Nuke concept will probably make combat in the latte stages of the game far more intresting and prevent "modern" scenarios from ending up as nuke exchanges. In short I sincerel hope Firaxis releases a demo or shareware, to satisfy theniggling curiosities of Civfanatics, which cannot be quenched by mere screenshots
D
Dreadnought
Guest
Oh man!! Just reading those articals was awesome..this game is going to be soo cool.
I think that even though war has becoe more significant, i don' think they meant there would be more. I think they meant that it would be more inflential. Like a few battles between opposing forces could decide the fate of a civilzation instead o f about 50 or so..anyone follow.
And i'm really glad that trade agian is going to be SO important. Your really going to have to trade in this game to win. In civ II you didn't even have to in lower levels like prince.
This game is going to be awesome beyond belief. i really think some of you guys are being to critical. The graphic arn't bad, they just need to be tweaked. Like the city name for example. You'll get used to all the other changes pretty quick. there probobly for the better anyway, and if there not, all the beta testing will solve that problem.
Yeah nice to be back tin the forum!!!
------------------
"It is well that war is so terrible-we should grow too fond of it."
-Gen. Robert E. Lee, 1863
I think that even though war has becoe more significant, i don' think they meant there would be more. I think they meant that it would be more inflential. Like a few battles between opposing forces could decide the fate of a civilzation instead o f about 50 or so..anyone follow.
And i'm really glad that trade agian is going to be SO important. Your really going to have to trade in this game to win. In civ II you didn't even have to in lower levels like prince.
This game is going to be awesome beyond belief. i really think some of you guys are being to critical. The graphic arn't bad, they just need to be tweaked. Like the city name for example. You'll get used to all the other changes pretty quick. there probobly for the better anyway, and if there not, all the beta testing will solve that problem.
Yeah nice to be back tin the forum!!!
------------------
"It is well that war is so terrible-we should grow too fond of it."
-Gen. Robert E. Lee, 1863
animepornstar
Deity
the game i was thinking about is called conquest of the new world. i haven´t played it since -96 so i´m not sure how it exactly looked like, but i think that civ3 reminds of it. have anyone else played it or have screenshoots of it?
Magnus
Diplocat
I like the idea of tribute being payed on a continuous basis (N gold per turn), and also loans and interest! MONEY MONEY MONEY 
Loaf Warden
(no party affiliation)
Well, for my part, the reason I seem overly critical is because I'm only commenting on the points I have complaints about. To list all the things I'm excited about would be rather long and redundant. Suffice to say if I didn't complain about it, I'm probably happy about it. 
I see what you mean. Yes, that would be good. Wars as they stand now can often last centuries and involve dozens of 'battles' that really amount to just meaningless squabbles. An Armor falls here, a Marine there, and the war itself goes on unaffected. The only important battles are the sieges (of cities, mainly, but sometimes of fortresses as well). It would be good if they are making battles more significant within the war itself. Of course, with the new stacked armies feature, it will be easier to do that, I think.
I see what you mean. Yes, that would be good. Wars as they stand now can often last centuries and involve dozens of 'battles' that really amount to just meaningless squabbles. An Armor falls here, a Marine there, and the war itself goes on unaffected. The only important battles are the sieges (of cities, mainly, but sometimes of fortresses as well). It would be good if they are making battles more significant within the war itself. Of course, with the new stacked armies feature, it will be easier to do that, I think.
Håkan Eriksson
Commander of the Swedes.
Ít seems to me that Strategy will be a much more important role in civ3 than it is in civ2.
Now all you have to do (simplified a litlle) is to get Fundamentlaism and buy and send all military units as you can at your enemy.
------------------
<IMG SRC="http://w1.316.telia.com/~u31613053/sign.gif" border=0>
Now all you have to do (simplified a litlle) is to get Fundamentlaism and buy and send all military units as you can at your enemy.
------------------
<IMG SRC="http://w1.316.telia.com/~u31613053/sign.gif" border=0>
PinkyGen
Paper copying intern
Things I like.
1. The mini-wonders concept. Now to get in space, all races would need Apollo.
2. Units ability to attack each other from ranges, very good. This includes the sea bombardment areas.
Things I'm unsure of:
1. The Army system: Depends on how it works. It might seem overly complicated. Also, I like ambushing a large group and destroying all the units. Now it is like they are in a city or something.
2. The Barbarians: This could be very cool. On the other hand, having constantly to build units to hunt down and attack barbarians could be annoying. Also will these barbarian cities respawn in the territories of other empires?
Things I hate:
1. Custom UNITS!!! One of the great things about this game is that does not matter what group you start out with. Now its going to be unbalanced, as some units will inevitably prove to be better than other units. Then there will be wining and endless debates over which Civ is the best. Aggggghhhhhh.
2. The entire Mobilized, Normal, or Peace. First, wasn't this in CTP ( I wouldn't know, I never played the game ). I think governments should reflect on what kind of military you have. In a government like Fundy, it's like you have declared martial law and have already mobilized. It's not a government to be under during peace. On the other hand, Democracy is an excellent government for peace, as fighting wars makes keeping people happy very unpopular.
Frankly, I'm starting to get nervous, but I trust Sid.
1. The mini-wonders concept. Now to get in space, all races would need Apollo.
2. Units ability to attack each other from ranges, very good. This includes the sea bombardment areas.
Things I'm unsure of:
1. The Army system: Depends on how it works. It might seem overly complicated. Also, I like ambushing a large group and destroying all the units. Now it is like they are in a city or something.
2. The Barbarians: This could be very cool. On the other hand, having constantly to build units to hunt down and attack barbarians could be annoying. Also will these barbarian cities respawn in the territories of other empires?
Things I hate:
1. Custom UNITS!!! One of the great things about this game is that does not matter what group you start out with. Now its going to be unbalanced, as some units will inevitably prove to be better than other units. Then there will be wining and endless debates over which Civ is the best. Aggggghhhhhh.
2. The entire Mobilized, Normal, or Peace. First, wasn't this in CTP ( I wouldn't know, I never played the game
). I think governments should reflect on what kind of military you have. In a government like Fundy, it's like you have declared martial law and have already mobilized. It's not a government to be under during peace. On the other hand, Democracy is an excellent government for peace, as fighting wars makes keeping people happy very unpopular. Frankly, I'm starting to get nervous, but I trust Sid.
animepornstar
Deity
it think the new barbarian thing is good, cause now it won´t be possible to explore a whole continent with a horseman and building a empire will now be more like how it was to the romans.
Jelciakajo
Chieftain
So, would anyone care to guess which civs they are cutting?
Mongol Horde
Resident Savage Army
This is excellent news really, it has put the game right back on its pedestal for me. I echo LoafWardens sentiments really in that most if it is great but I have just one or two niggles:
1. Lowering the number of civs is disappointing if not earth shattering.
2. CUSTOM UNITS FOR CIVS ARE BAD!
At the end of the day you can't expect everything and there are some tremendous ideas in there noteably armies and trade/resources. So who's excited then?
1. Lowering the number of civs is disappointing if not earth shattering.
2. CUSTOM UNITS FOR CIVS ARE BAD!
At the end of the day you can't expect everything and there are some tremendous ideas in there noteably armies and trade/resources. So who's excited then?
Heffalump
Proboscidea Heffalumpus
I'd guess the decision to give customized personalities and units to civs is limiting the overall number of civs on offer. Hopefully they find a way around that .. i really get sick of fighting the same civs over and over ("oh no, not next to the Zulus again..")
As for units, it's sort of cool that Germans produce panzers, Americans F-15s etc but I'm doubtful they'll get each civ to end up with equal tools. Maybe they should just make it decorative? ... the units look different but have the same ratings?
As for units, it's sort of cool that Germans produce panzers, Americans F-15s etc but I'm doubtful they'll get each civ to end up with equal tools. Maybe they should just make it decorative? ... the units look different but have the same ratings?
TimTheEnchanter
I...am...an Enchanter!
I assume the reason for cutting the number of civs was the resources required to come up with things like the super-duper-3-D-wiz-bang-transmogrifiying-animated leaders like Abe and Mao. I find this unfortunate because I honestly question how much they will improve gameplay and...well, I still think they look like they have serious G-I tract issues.
I also agree that the civ-specific units are a bad idea...leave that to the scenario makers. The whole point is that *WE* dictate the outcome of our civs, not "real" history. Every civ should be able to develop whatever they want based on their choices.
Does this mean there are separate tech trees for each civ as well? That, too seems like a bad idea.
Also, is anyone else surprised at how much of the design seems to still be up in the air? From a software development perspective it seems like they're going to cut it pretty close. Can you say "Buggy"?
Like many others, I am focusing on the negative here. I have seen and heard many very good things. But maybe if Dan M. is lurking around here he can at least give us the party line on some of these topics. Please?
------------------
DEATH awaits you all...with nasty, big, pointy teeth.
I also agree that the civ-specific units are a bad idea...leave that to the scenario makers. The whole point is that *WE* dictate the outcome of our civs, not "real" history. Every civ should be able to develop whatever they want based on their choices.
Does this mean there are separate tech trees for each civ as well? That, too seems like a bad idea.
Also, is anyone else surprised at how much of the design seems to still be up in the air? From a software development perspective it seems like they're going to cut it pretty close. Can you say "Buggy"?
Like many others, I am focusing on the negative here. I have seen and heard many very good things. But maybe if Dan M. is lurking around here he can at least give us the party line on some of these topics. Please?
------------------
DEATH awaits you all...with nasty, big, pointy teeth.
Civ specific units and leaders seem to be a bad idea to me. It will make game play unbalanced. Leave that to scenarios. They probably cut some of the lesser know civs from Civ2, probably the Souix, Spanish, Indians, maybe even the Japanese. I have never played as the first three civs and only once as the Japanese. The well known civs will be in Civ3, Americans, English, Germans, Romans, Zulus, Egyptians, Russians, Chinese.
danihell
Chieftain
I think that the enemy's mustn't start throwing nukes at once, but think about the conseqeunces. Nukes as last resort otherwise yuo will get immediate nuke war.
as long as the persians, romans, americans, and mongols are still there, i will be fine. otherwise, i will demand tribute to my patience.
i like the idea of different units.
everything sounds good except the number of civs. very bad, very bad. i was hoping for a 30-civ slugfest.
in diplomacy, can you request a peace treaty between two civs? i just hate being torn between my allies.
i like the idea of different units.
everything sounds good except the number of civs. very bad, very bad. i was hoping for a 30-civ slugfest.
in diplomacy, can you request a peace treaty between two civs? i just hate being torn between my allies.
