To the best of my knowledge, there is a max of 31 Civs that you can play against in one game, and a max of 512 cities (total) that can be built. So bigger maps won't help that much.
E3: Firaxis Announced 2nd Civ3 Expansion!
- Thread starter Thunderfall
- Start date
Arbustro
Warlord
Do you really NEED to play in the earth map???
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
Too boot, have you actually played on the 362x362 size that's available now?
ajerzguy
Chieftain
I went back and read this entire thread. There seems to be a lot of discussion about new tribes. There also seem to be an inordinant amount anticipation as to what the tribes will be. I really hate to be the bearer of bad news but I guess I am.
Here is why: thee are 6 different traits; commercial, expansionist, industrious, militaristic, religious, and scientific. Every civ is created with 2 of these traits. Therefore you can ony have a total of 15 tribes without repeatingany of them ie.
Comm/Exp Exp/Ind Ind/Mil Mil/Rel Rel/Sci
Comm/Ind Exp/Mil Ind/Rel Mil/Sci
Comm/Mil Exp/Rel Ind/Sci
Comm/Rel Exp/Sci
Comm/ Sci
The last time I checked there already were 24 tribes. That means there are already 9 tribes with the same traits. Adding 8 more will make the total of repeated civs with similar traits total 17.
There were only 15 possibilities to begin with.
So my point is it doesn't matter what civ they make (except for the UU's) because it's already there only with a different name and color. That means with the power of the editor I can go in and take any civ and just change its name.
Granted the UU is an intregal part of the game. However, it becomes a moot point eventually since the edge that the UU gives you is short lived and really a minor detail. Yes it's cool watching them Gaellics prancing about in their spotted pantaloons, or the vivd purple Mounteds of the Iroquois etc etc etc. But how many times have you played as the Celts and never got Gaellics or got them to late to help because you had no iron. Well it has happened to me more times than I can remember. So if you want your country to be represented, take one of the existing tribes and give it your name because, that's all this Conquests cd is going to have. Yes scenarios can be fun but, they have shelf life. Random maps are always different and always unknown.
I guess that's partly why my entusiasm has been curtailed. The lack of a new patch for the 1.21 PTW is a greater disappointment. It's worse than waiting on line to ride a great roller coaster. The 1st concern of both Atari and Firaxis should be the quality of the product that is released and the condition of the Multiplayer feature leaves much to be desired. This game should have been fixed from it's original state before trying to sell us another so called full featured add-on with another $30 (US) cost. So just think this game will have cost $110 total. How many other games cost that much?
Get it right before you ask us to shell out more of our hard earned monies.
Here is why: thee are 6 different traits; commercial, expansionist, industrious, militaristic, religious, and scientific. Every civ is created with 2 of these traits. Therefore you can ony have a total of 15 tribes without repeatingany of them ie.
Comm/Exp Exp/Ind Ind/Mil Mil/Rel Rel/Sci
Comm/Ind Exp/Mil Ind/Rel Mil/Sci
Comm/Mil Exp/Rel Ind/Sci
Comm/Rel Exp/Sci
Comm/ Sci
The last time I checked there already were 24 tribes. That means there are already 9 tribes with the same traits. Adding 8 more will make the total of repeated civs with similar traits total 17.
There were only 15 possibilities to begin with.
So my point is it doesn't matter what civ they make (except for the UU's) because it's already there only with a different name and color. That means with the power of the editor I can go in and take any civ and just change its name.
Granted the UU is an intregal part of the game. However, it becomes a moot point eventually since the edge that the UU gives you is short lived and really a minor detail. Yes it's cool watching them Gaellics prancing about in their spotted pantaloons, or the vivd purple Mounteds of the Iroquois etc etc etc. But how many times have you played as the Celts and never got Gaellics or got them to late to help because you had no iron. Well it has happened to me more times than I can remember. So if you want your country to be represented, take one of the existing tribes and give it your name because, that's all this Conquests cd is going to have. Yes scenarios can be fun but, they have shelf life. Random maps are always different and always unknown.
I guess that's partly why my entusiasm has been curtailed. The lack of a new patch for the 1.21 PTW is a greater disappointment. It's worse than waiting on line to ride a great roller coaster. The 1st concern of both Atari and Firaxis should be the quality of the product that is released and the condition of the Multiplayer feature leaves much to be desired. This game should have been fixed from it's original state before trying to sell us another so called full featured add-on with another $30 (US) cost. So just think this game will have cost $110 total. How many other games cost that much?
Get it right before you ask us to shell out more of our hard earned monies.
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
Just about any game with 2 expansions if you paid full price for them. I shudder to think about the prices of buying the entire Sims game.
And don't even mention MMORPGs.
Personally, I think the money I spent on Civ3 (and expansions) is well worth it. Obviously, YMMV.
BTW, there is a new patch coming for PTW, but it won't be released till they get the translated versions finished.
There will be more to Conquests than just new civs and scenarios
Akka
Moody old mage.
Well, if it's to the same extend as PTW...Originally posted by warpstorm
There will be more to Conquests than just new civs and scenarios
Pounder
Phaethon was here
Currently there are 32 colours in the palette for 0-31.
0 for the Barbarians
1-31 for Civs
Wouldn' they have to increase the number of colours (logically to 64) to support 33 different colours and the sorting on the Hall of Fame.
Or would they just steal the white from the Barbarians for the 32nd Civ and give the Barbarians no colour.
0 for the Barbarians
1-31 for Civs
Wouldn' they have to increase the number of colours (logically to 64) to support 33 different colours and the sorting on the Hall of Fame.
Or would they just steal the white from the Barbarians for the 32nd Civ and give the Barbarians no colour.
Shirannybl
Chieftain
Sorry if somebody already asked this, Does anybody know how can I contact Firaxis by e-mail?
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Originally posted by warpstorm
There will be more to Conquests than just new civs and scenarios
But not to say the scenarios wont be loads and loads of fun--and I usually dont like even the best of scenarios!
Look at it in perspective. PTW offered an expanded Editor, Multiplayer in various modes, Singleplayer options, new "scenarios", units, ect.
Conquests offers new civs, units, improvements and some other redundant stuff.
Even considering how glitchy PTW was (before the patch), it still offers much more. Considering most of PTW's additions should already have been included into the original Civ3, thus it was something of a jip, Conquests will be an even bigger jip as it does not offer anything that would enhance the game to the point where you just HAVE to buy it.
Incredibly, it doesn't include Events into the Editor which is the real reason why Civ2 scenarios were so popular even with the "AI stupidities" --this is even after an overwhelimng number of players have specifically asked for Events.
Will there be any attempt made at keeping the Civ3 AI from endlessly moving its units about the map (which is partially the reason for the unreasonably long turns)?
Will there be a "2 vs Mounted" flag which I believe is actually in the original Civ3 (was soon removed as it didn't do anything, but is an obviously useful scenario tool)?
Why not forget the extra civs and just adjust the game interface so that it can incorperate as many civs as the player wishes to add?
You can trade Cities so why not Units?
Many questions but few good answers from Friaxis.
Conquests offers new civs, units, improvements and some other redundant stuff.
Even considering how glitchy PTW was (before the patch), it still offers much more. Considering most of PTW's additions should already have been included into the original Civ3, thus it was something of a jip, Conquests will be an even bigger jip as it does not offer anything that would enhance the game to the point where you just HAVE to buy it.
Incredibly, it doesn't include Events into the Editor which is the real reason why Civ2 scenarios were so popular even with the "AI stupidities" --this is even after an overwhelimng number of players have specifically asked for Events.
Will there be any attempt made at keeping the Civ3 AI from endlessly moving its units about the map (which is partially the reason for the unreasonably long turns)?
Will there be a "2 vs Mounted" flag which I believe is actually in the original Civ3 (was soon removed as it didn't do anything, but is an obviously useful scenario tool)?
Why not forget the extra civs and just adjust the game interface so that it can incorperate as many civs as the player wishes to add?
You can trade Cities so why not Units?
Many questions but few good answers from Friaxis.
True. I am not 100% sure what is or is not going to be on the add-on. My assumptions are based on what I already know about it and on previous experience concerning the other releases of the "civilization" series.
In 1991 Civ2 released. It was a hit as it dealt with many of the faults in Civ1 such as the "lucky" unit problem by adding unit Health Bars and Hit points. Diplomacy was improved and most importantely, the Cheat Menu was included which gave players the ability to create scenarios. Aside from these and other less important changes/additions, Civ2 wasn't a HUGE leap from Civ1. Things like stacked units being simultaneously destroyed when defending unit loses, air units not being able to pass over land units, ships that can attack land, diplomacy was still quite limited, ect. but most importantely the AI remained almost as inept.
Later the Conflicts in Civilization add-on was released which incorperated the macro language necessary for events.txt (this had a major affect on scenarios but little effect on the game itself). Then the Fantastic Worlds add-on was released which included an Editor as well as some new events but little else. Then Civ2:Gold came out which allowed multiplayer but gameplay remained untouched. Test of Time was never a success because Civ2 .scn files were not compatible thus the new events included with the game weren't much help --ToT also had higher system requirements thus limiting its audience.
Then Civ3 was released, (a DECADE after the original Civ2 came out) and advanced significantely yet it came with a price: huge system requirements. Civ2 had low requirements and turns took no time at all. Civ3 did not make up for this with more intelligent AI. It even lacked things the previous relase had, like pre-set starting locations (what's the point of having historically-based civs with unique units and a map of Earth if they start on the wrong side of the planet?).
PTW then just added in things that should have already been in the game, like the multiplayer option which needed a patch to work (not to mention the overwhelming number of patches for Civ3). Just getting the pre-set starting locations took a whole add-on (and it certainly wasn't free).
So, considering the history of the Civilization series, you'll pardon me for being pessimistic about this new add-on.
In 1991 Civ2 released. It was a hit as it dealt with many of the faults in Civ1 such as the "lucky" unit problem by adding unit Health Bars and Hit points. Diplomacy was improved and most importantely, the Cheat Menu was included which gave players the ability to create scenarios. Aside from these and other less important changes/additions, Civ2 wasn't a HUGE leap from Civ1. Things like stacked units being simultaneously destroyed when defending unit loses, air units not being able to pass over land units, ships that can attack land, diplomacy was still quite limited, ect. but most importantely the AI remained almost as inept.
Later the Conflicts in Civilization add-on was released which incorperated the macro language necessary for events.txt (this had a major affect on scenarios but little effect on the game itself). Then the Fantastic Worlds add-on was released which included an Editor as well as some new events but little else. Then Civ2:Gold came out which allowed multiplayer but gameplay remained untouched. Test of Time was never a success because Civ2 .scn files were not compatible thus the new events included with the game weren't much help --ToT also had higher system requirements thus limiting its audience.
Then Civ3 was released, (a DECADE after the original Civ2 came out) and advanced significantely yet it came with a price: huge system requirements. Civ2 had low requirements and turns took no time at all. Civ3 did not make up for this with more intelligent AI. It even lacked things the previous relase had, like pre-set starting locations (what's the point of having historically-based civs with unique units and a map of Earth if they start on the wrong side of the planet?).
PTW then just added in things that should have already been in the game, like the multiplayer option which needed a patch to work (not to mention the overwhelming number of patches for Civ3). Just getting the pre-set starting locations took a whole add-on (and it certainly wasn't free).
So, considering the history of the Civilization series, you'll pardon me for being pessimistic about this new add-on.
Arrrrr, who cares if it's no good, any real civ fanatic will have to get it. I think I'll wait at least a week or so this time to make sure the feedback is at least better than dreadful. And hopefully, they've updated the Hoover Dam wonder to that dam nearing completion in China right now, what's that thing called again? One helluva dam if you ask me!
I have thought of the dam thing too. They will move out 7-8 million people from their homes and the rich history from the thousand-year-old villages will be gone forever. 
Unless a bomb hits it, of course. Then all the little villages will be on dry land and the villages on the other side - well....
Unless a bomb hits it, of course. Then all the little villages will be on dry land and the villages on the other side - well....
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
Wasn't 1991 when Civ1 came out? Computers have advanced quite a bit since then, upping the requirements seems reasonable; my old computer runs it fine up to large maps. My recent computer can run them fairly well.
Yes, it was. It came on the Civ3 patch (1.29f or maybe the one before it). You didn't need to purchase PTW to do this.
I also disagree with your comemnt on the AI. Civ3 has the strongest AI in the series by far. Civ2, while a lot of fun, was a total push over.
Seems to me you are just spreading FUD.
You're right, it's Civ1 that came out in 1990, Civ2 came later. As for the 1.29f patch, its true that you didn't need to buy PTW just for pre-set starting locations, but keep in mind that two patches came out before it and they didn't include this option; the point wasn't to say what PTW had but rather what Civ3 didn't --one shouldn't have to download a patch for additions that should have already been in the game. The 1.29f patch also provided some other things that were included in PTW, but PTW mostly added things that Civ3 should have had anyway.
Add-ons usually include new story/scenario expansions and small additions that improve gameplay beyond what the orginal needed, NOT additions that were clearly meant for the original, not fixes that should have been dealth with in the original and not scenarios taken from of the net. Patches are not meant to change gameplay, they are just meant to fix glitches that could not have been foreseen by the makers of the game.
As for the AI, I agree the Civ3 AI is the strongest of all the previous releases --that isn't much of an achievement. Diplomacy is atrocious --there's a new AI oddity posted every day/week on the CF's Main Page. AI still uses the strategy of sending single/small groups of units to their doom. AI tech trading turns the game into a frantic arms race. Its incapable of maintaining a full treasury --something it could even do in Civ1. The list is long. To be perfectly blunt, it still blows.
When we finally get Multiplayer which at least gives players an alternative to playing the AI, its glitchy --for an advanced game it does seem reasonable that it should have included Multiplayer from the start, like most other advanced games.
One word on graphics. I personally think that a strategy game does not need particularly great graphics to be popular --as long as people can tell the difference between infantry and armor, it's the gameplay that counts.
In the case of Civ, the fact that it can be altered to create virtually any scenario means that if the players aren't happy with the finished product, they can change it to meet their personal tastes.
Keep in mind that most other strategy games out there are not as universal as Civ and that the reason why I'm knocking it is not because its bad but rather that, more than any other game presently on the market, it has the potential to be great if not the greatest. If everyone is exclusively pro-Civ all the time (like many game reviewers that gave Civ3 an unfairly high rating when it first came out) then it's the equivilant to thinking backwards thus the makers of the game, who probably frequent these forums, will not get a clear picture as to just how interested players are in this game and what needs to be included into future expansions/patches/whatever. I think I can speak for many players when I say: what people want is to have a good, complete product without the need for extensive patch-ing and if they are going to buy an add-on it has to elaborate significantely on the original, otherwise it's not worth the money and well, like Civ3's AI, the treasuries of many potential buyers are anything but full.
P.S. To those of you who disagree, sorry for spreading "FUD."
Add-ons usually include new story/scenario expansions and small additions that improve gameplay beyond what the orginal needed, NOT additions that were clearly meant for the original, not fixes that should have been dealth with in the original and not scenarios taken from of the net. Patches are not meant to change gameplay, they are just meant to fix glitches that could not have been foreseen by the makers of the game.
As for the AI, I agree the Civ3 AI is the strongest of all the previous releases --that isn't much of an achievement. Diplomacy is atrocious --there's a new AI oddity posted every day/week on the CF's Main Page. AI still uses the strategy of sending single/small groups of units to their doom. AI tech trading turns the game into a frantic arms race. Its incapable of maintaining a full treasury --something it could even do in Civ1. The list is long. To be perfectly blunt, it still blows.
When we finally get Multiplayer which at least gives players an alternative to playing the AI, its glitchy --for an advanced game it does seem reasonable that it should have included Multiplayer from the start, like most other advanced games.
One word on graphics. I personally think that a strategy game does not need particularly great graphics to be popular --as long as people can tell the difference between infantry and armor, it's the gameplay that counts.
In the case of Civ, the fact that it can be altered to create virtually any scenario means that if the players aren't happy with the finished product, they can change it to meet their personal tastes.
Keep in mind that most other strategy games out there are not as universal as Civ and that the reason why I'm knocking it is not because its bad but rather that, more than any other game presently on the market, it has the potential to be great if not the greatest. If everyone is exclusively pro-Civ all the time (like many game reviewers that gave Civ3 an unfairly high rating when it first came out) then it's the equivilant to thinking backwards thus the makers of the game, who probably frequent these forums, will not get a clear picture as to just how interested players are in this game and what needs to be included into future expansions/patches/whatever. I think I can speak for many players when I say: what people want is to have a good, complete product without the need for extensive patch-ing and if they are going to buy an add-on it has to elaborate significantely on the original, otherwise it's not worth the money and well, like Civ3's AI, the treasuries of many potential buyers are anything but full.
P.S. To those of you who disagree, sorry for spreading "FUD."
Bigger Maps!!!
I personally like to play with all civs. YES it takes me at about 15 MINUTES for it to be may turn again and i don't care! I create a huge map 356 x 356 60% water (using the world creation tool) and then i do some landscape on my own and still if you give 15 settlers to each civ. there is no room to expand! The only solution is to conquer or after you research industralization when you can finally build settler ( i did this) try to build cities where someone's elese city was before because of a war or something.
The rules can be changed!!!
I personally like to play with all civs. YES it takes me at about 15 MINUTES for it to be may turn again and i don't care! I create a huge map 356 x 356 60% water (using the world creation tool) and then i do some landscape on my own and still if you give 15 settlers to each civ. there is no room to expand! The only solution is to conquer or after you research industralization when you can finally build settler ( i did this) try to build cities where someone's elese city was before because of a war or something.
The rules can be changed!!!
Arrrr, the fact that the press release doesn't mention anything about AI improvements probably means there aren't any. I have a feeling they'd be trumpeting that if it were the case, and they need a carrot to draw people toward civ4 I guess. It's really too bad, because sometimes it seems like the Firaxis team is trying to imply with their history simulation that 95% of the population that has ever existed has been afflicted with Down's syndrome. It's true that the Romans had quite a problem with lead poisoning back in the day, and the English royal family had a little trouble with inbreeding from time to time, as did many cultures, but come on, ALL of them? Maybe conquests will include a 'Great Idiots of History' scenario where all the most mentally deficient leaders of history are gathered together in one alternate universe to battle for supremacy. Hey, the George Bush leaderhead has already been created, why not? But seriously, I don't think even Nero, if he were alive today, would declare war and send an unescorted aircraft carrier with no planes on it into my waters.
Not that I want to be overly negative... (what does FUD mean, anyway?) It's a compliment really. I don't put the energy into criticizing other games because, well, most don't deserve the attention. Civ is a great concept and platform, hopefully it continues to evolve in this as well as other areas. And AI must be aggrivatingly difficult to program... maybe Firaxis would like a consultant?
Not that I want to be overly negative... (what does FUD mean, anyway?) It's a compliment really. I don't put the energy into criticizing other games because, well, most don't deserve the attention. Civ is a great concept and platform, hopefully it continues to evolve in this as well as other areas. And AI must be aggrivatingly difficult to program... maybe Firaxis would like a consultant?
When PTW was announced it did not mention anything about improved AI, yet it is much improved. I bought it a few days ago and am playing my second game and I am also noticing much better AI. Perhaps the same will happen with Conquests...
