fitchn
Civ Fanatic
The third designer diary is now available on pc.ign.com at pc.ign.com/articles/451/451862p1.html. This one covers Mesopotamia conquest scenario. Enjoy!
Designer Diary #3 on pc.ign.com
- Thread starter fitchn
- Start date
I can't wait to play it! Cheers for the link.
gunnerxtr
King
a little disapointing compared to the other articles
god_money
Prince
The map looks cool... n it might be a more fun mod if it were
altered a bit, so as the building all wonders didn't end it...
ancient mid east warfare is fascinating to me.
altered a bit, so as the building all wonders didn't end it...
ancient mid east warfare is fascinating to me.
h4ppy
You sir, pineapple?
Yay!!! I love the conquest diary things. This scenario looks worse than I thought it would be though. the main reason for my disapointment is the size. Why they cut out the Harrapans and Aryans I have no idea.(isolated civs are in most games and in real life) Well that and the time to be precise.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
I was a little dissapointed with the scenario. I had hoped for a little more detail about the tech tree changes and also expected more new units than what was given.
This was one scenario I had already planned to modify to add as much stuff as possible, so I guess I'll be busy doing so
The fact that they planned to include the Aryans and Harrapans is nice to know. I wish they had said something about why they cut out the Assyrians completely. (Because they controlled basically the entire map at one point. The Akkadian, Babylonian, or Hittite empires can't bost that)
Persia can, though. Aren't Persians of Aryan descent? (That's why the country is called Iran) The first thing I've heard mentioned about Persia is how they defeated the Medea and then expanded, so I guess they technically aren't the same thing.
The tech tree ends about when I expected it to, Alexander the Great's conquest of Persia. Since the same name for a civ has to exist throughout, it basically becomes the Myceneans vs. the Medeans. But its close enough
The civs are the Phonecians, Sumerians, Hittites, Babylonians, Egyptians, Mycenae, and Medeans. Sumeria, Babylon, Egypt, and the Hittites have leaderheads. The Phonecians, Medeans, and Mycenae could be represented by the Carthage, Persia, and Greece. Do you think this scenario will use real leaderheads (as opposed to flags or whatever).
This was one scenario I had already planned to modify to add as much stuff as possible, so I guess I'll be busy doing so
The fact that they planned to include the Aryans and Harrapans is nice to know. I wish they had said something about why they cut out the Assyrians completely. (Because they controlled basically the entire map at one point. The Akkadian, Babylonian, or Hittite empires can't bost that)
Persia can, though. Aren't Persians of Aryan descent? (That's why the country is called Iran) The first thing I've heard mentioned about Persia is how they defeated the Medea and then expanded, so I guess they technically aren't the same thing.
The tech tree ends about when I expected it to, Alexander the Great's conquest of Persia. Since the same name for a civ has to exist throughout, it basically becomes the Myceneans vs. the Medeans. But its close enough
The civs are the Phonecians, Sumerians, Hittites, Babylonians, Egyptians, Mycenae, and Medeans. Sumeria, Babylon, Egypt, and the Hittites have leaderheads. The Phonecians, Medeans, and Mycenae could be represented by the Carthage, Persia, and Greece. Do you think this scenario will use real leaderheads (as opposed to flags or whatever).
gunnerxtr
King
in the latest PC Gamer magazine there is an ad for Conquests and in the screenshot behind the ad there are some of those hittite chariots, i was sckeptical about another chariot UU but those things looked awesome
Packer-Backer
Conservative Christian
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2003
- Messages
- 763
Somebody might have pointed this out but two people can have the same idea. Sengoku was the first because it had a lot of screenies and all of the units were known, Mesoamerica's biggest feature of sacrifice and a lot info was already out, and then Mesopotamia is pretty basic and also has screenies! They are just getting the already majorly previewed conquests out of the way and I think the next order will be: WW2 Pacific, Rise of Rome, Age of Discovery, Middle Ages, Fall of Rome, and then Napoleonic. It should go in order of least previewed.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Hi Guys, don't know if anyone noticed this but, in this VERY article, Charlie Kibbler makes the following, interesting comment:
'I also experimented by doubling the movement rate of most units to better traverse the more expansive map... but I soon decided that this modification was a bad idea, since all units had essentially become "fast units" enabling them to retreat from combat.'
Now, I could be reading this wrong but, under the current rules, if you have two units with a speed greater than 1 ('fast units') attacking each other, then neither unit can retreat? (Please inform me if this is INcorrect!)Yet, according to this quote, ANY fast unit can now retreat from OTHER fast units! This, if it is true, would be a VAST improvement to the movement system (in my opinion, anyway ), and would finally allow me to 'BEEF UP' all of the movement values of units in the epic game, without losing the retreat feature of the game !!!
Anyway, it's cause for hope, at least !
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
'I also experimented by doubling the movement rate of most units to better traverse the more expansive map... but I soon decided that this modification was a bad idea, since all units had essentially become "fast units" enabling them to retreat from combat.'
Now, I could be reading this wrong but, under the current rules, if you have two units with a speed greater than 1 ('fast units') attacking each other, then neither unit can retreat? (Please inform me if this is INcorrect!)Yet, according to this quote, ANY fast unit can now retreat from OTHER fast units! This, if it is true, would be a VAST improvement to the movement system (in my opinion, anyway ), and would finally allow me to 'BEEF UP' all of the movement values of units in the epic game, without losing the retreat feature of the game !!!
Anyway, it's cause for hope, at least !
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Pirate
Emperor
This one doesn't sound as dramatic as the Japanese conquest. Still, starting from scratch with only roadmaking is a nice twist, starting truly from the beginning of civilization. Have the rules for great leaders been changed at all? It seems the way to go in Mesopotamia would be to warmonger and rush all the wonders, which seems to go against the intention of building a great civilization from the ground up. I guess I just expected this one to be the most builder-friendly conquest.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Aussie Lurker, don't get your hopes up. I think he meant that none of the units will retreat.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
But Louis, he specifically says that giving them more movement would ALLOW them to retreat from combat. If he had meant it the other way, I'm sure he would have said so!!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
gunnerxtr
King
i think that i agree with Louis on this one, what he means is that all of them would have been able to reatreat if they were fighting slow units not eachother
I'm fascinated by the fact that this scenario has three ages of its own- but I hope walking around in Iran doesn't lead you to the Alps, as it would if this was a "world" map.
Stuie
Laudir Agus Mir
I don't think you need worry about that. There's already a toggle in the editor for creating maps that do not wrap.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Assuming you have PTW
Similar threads
