ltccone
Prince
The AI doesn't use any type of artillery well. They don't mass them for an attack. They're usually just parked in cities.
E3: Firaxis Announced 2nd Civ3 Expansion!
- Thread starter Thunderfall
- Start date
The AI doesn't use any type of artillery well. They don't mass them for an attack. They're usually just parked in cities.
ltccone
Prince
Originally posted by civrules
My guess is that the AI will be improved in Conquests. It was in PTW, but just a little bit. I hope we will see a bigger change in AI behavior.
Yes the AI in PTW is much better than in vanilla civ3. They are even better about founding cities and fighting battles. The barbarians are really tougher. They destroy roads more often instead of killing themselves on your cities.
denyd
Emperor
The AI has been getting smarter and it's probably because of us!!
If I was one of the game programmers, I'd be reading the recap threads from the GOTM and tournaments and seeing what people are doing to beat the AI and then I would be either changing the AI's performance or I'd have the AI start doing what the people do.
It's scary to think of an AI on Diety using SirPleib's methods!!!
If I was one of the game programmers, I'd be reading the recap threads from the GOTM and tournaments and seeing what people are doing to beat the AI and then I would be either changing the AI's performance or I'd have the AI start doing what the people do.
It's scary to think of an AI on Diety using SirPleib's methods!!!
Chris1111
Lurker
Personally being as I am a casual player and stick around regent I dread a stronger AI.
I say make a difficulty level above diety called 'civfanatic' and make the AI difficulty more customizable so the civ god players can have their super games while the average player doesnt get screwed. Harder game = less sales in my opinion
I say make a difficulty level above diety called 'civfanatic' and make the AI difficulty more customizable so the civ god players can have their super games while the average player doesnt get screwed. Harder game = less sales in my opinion
It would actually be pretty cool if the AI was that smart. I would like it.
I rather kill a smart AI (so I wouldnt feel sorry for it) than a stupid one that dose not know in which hole it belongs (I often feel very sorry when the AI is bluffing).
I rather kill a smart AI (so I wouldnt feel sorry for it) than a stupid one that dose not know in which hole it belongs (I often feel very sorry when the AI is bluffing).
Mark Young
Formerly Sir Eric
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2003
- Messages
- 1,799
Can anyone put a civ to the trebuchet and perhaps a time period?
It may give us a clue as to what conquest scenario it might be in.
It sounds French, maybe there is a war of the roses scenario?
It may give us a clue as to what conquest scenario it might be in.
It sounds French, maybe there is a war of the roses scenario?
AlcTrv
Only goes to one thread.
BRING BACK CIVIL WARS!
kring
Asst Cook & Bottle Washer
The trebuchet appears to be a regular military unit, and NOT a UU.
LouLong
In love with Rei Ayanami
It sounds French alright but they are actually a bunch of English and French words that look alike (cannon for instance).
It is a medieval kind of artillery. More stable and stronger than the catapult. It is not a UU (or Civ-specific unit) I think but more a generic unit to fill in a gap between catapult and the gnpowder artillery.
There is no special name in the picture window which makes me believe even more so.
scotland_no1
Jimmy Hat Salesman
its medieval and all over europe the courts of all the governments spoke french (well lots not all) so you will find many units with french names. i think just like AlcTRv we should bring back civil wars, they were good when there were hardly any civs left playing and then suddenly two more appear, so it is better.
and i hope they make the game faster, before PTW i could play huge maps fine , now after PTW is bought i cant play anythign about standard without it becoming very slow each turn in the industrial/modern eras.
and i hope they make the game faster, before PTW i could play huge maps fine , now after PTW is bought i cant play anythign about standard without it becoming very slow each turn in the industrial/modern eras.
It is good that they are adding all those cool things, and more in Civilization 3: Conquests but the thing I care most about is for the game to become faster so we can play it on huge maps without taking 2+ minutes per turn. Then, we will enjoy it *much* more.
Mark Young
Formerly Sir Eric
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2003
- Messages
- 1,799
I saw a documentary last night on Richard lll. They were talking about Trebuchets and how they weren't all that accurate at aiming at a particular section of a castle wall, but were more effective if they mixed saltpeter with something else in a pouch so that when they slung it and it hit a wall or building it explode and ignite everthing around it. The called it a primitaive form of napalm. (something fire).
@ Scotland_no1.
During civil wars, if a new civ appeared was it just 1 city that had to start form scratch or was it a number of cities with buildings etc. It would certainly make things interesting
@ Scotland_no1.
During civil wars, if a new civ appeared was it just 1 city that had to start form scratch or was it a number of cities with buildings etc. It would certainly make things interesting
UUs that aren't combat units would be kinda cool... like maybe a settler that only needs 1 population to form instead of 2, or a worker that works 2x or 4x as fast (if industrious)... with those great advantages the downside would be maybe not having a unit-triggered goldenage and only can be achieved by wonders?
Heh, just a crazy idea...
Heh, just a crazy idea...
Anybody thought about what the volcano eruptions means for the scenarios....
I mean mentioning eruption as an example of something new, and C3C main feature being the
scenario, it must mean that of the campaigns must include eruptions...
So to the history books...what do we have... Pompeii, problably not...
There was one in south America, but all evidence from this is mostly archaeological so problably not... Any ideas...?
Another thing is, all these complaints, I think the reason why they want to do beta testing with hundreds of people is to make the amount of bugs minimal....seems as the only explanation..... so not to worry...
About the Hittities, well yes untill "recently" they were only known from the bible but in
the last 50 years or so much information have been gained from archaeology, and palace
records in cunei form script have been found in thousands, so they certainly are a civ
with relevance to the powerplay in 2nd millinieum BC middle east.... I think they also are
mentined in the Armana letters, the collection of letters of international politics
from the archives of the heathen pharao Akhen-Aton...
And I don't think the middle-east campaign will include both Sumerians and Babylonians, as they are kind of the same people (although different) just removed from each other
by about 1000 years... The sumerians are about 3000 BC and the babylonians (who with Hammurabi must be the Old Babylonians) are about 2000 BC...
For the record, I think one of the terms in the academic definition a civilization is a developed written language, but that doesn't exclude aboriginees from Civ3 as the North
American indians didn't have one either.... But this doesn't mean they aren't a culture, for sure they are. Maybe Civilization should be renamed Cultures 3 (Cultures 3: Play The
World...hehe). I think the term Civilazation also includes a certain stratified structure of society and definately cultures who are sedentary (lives in one place).
Of course this is just some definition used basicly to have clear understanding of what one means...(e.g. for example in archaeology).
Also someone mentioned that Australia has been inhabited before 6000 BC, they certainly have,
it has been inhabited since 60.000 BP (before present), the first were, I think, Homo Erectus.
I mean mentioning eruption as an example of something new, and C3C main feature being the
scenario, it must mean that of the campaigns must include eruptions...
So to the history books...what do we have... Pompeii, problably not...
There was one in south America, but all evidence from this is mostly archaeological so problably not... Any ideas...?
Another thing is, all these complaints, I think the reason why they want to do beta testing with hundreds of people is to make the amount of bugs minimal....seems as the only explanation..... so not to worry...
About the Hittities, well yes untill "recently" they were only known from the bible but in
the last 50 years or so much information have been gained from archaeology, and palace
records in cunei form script have been found in thousands, so they certainly are a civ
with relevance to the powerplay in 2nd millinieum BC middle east.... I think they also are
mentined in the Armana letters, the collection of letters of international politics
from the archives of the heathen pharao Akhen-Aton...
And I don't think the middle-east campaign will include both Sumerians and Babylonians, as they are kind of the same people (although different) just removed from each other
by about 1000 years... The sumerians are about 3000 BC and the babylonians (who with Hammurabi must be the Old Babylonians) are about 2000 BC...
For the record, I think one of the terms in the academic definition a civilization is a developed written language, but that doesn't exclude aboriginees from Civ3 as the North
American indians didn't have one either.... But this doesn't mean they aren't a culture, for sure they are. Maybe Civilization should be renamed Cultures 3 (Cultures 3: Play The
World...hehe). I think the term Civilazation also includes a certain stratified structure of society and definately cultures who are sedentary (lives in one place).
Of course this is just some definition used basicly to have clear understanding of what one means...(e.g. for example in archaeology).
Also someone mentioned that Australia has been inhabited before 6000 BC, they certainly have,
it has been inhabited since 60.000 BP (before present), the first were, I think, Homo Erectus.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
IIRC, some of the indigens of North Americas - and the Iroquois certainly - did have some valid form of written languages, used to keep track of their laws et al.
And yes, they did have a stratified society. The debate's been done before, maybe it'S still around if you fish for it but that was many, many, many months ago.
And yes, they did have a stratified society. The debate's been done before, maybe it'S still around if you fish for it but that was many, many, many months ago.
