Nexushyper said:
No I'm not whining and I agree, the pollution is unrealistic the way it is now, however I believe it should stay and just be changed. As well as corruption, it can stay but needs improvement.
Sorry, I read your other post, and you somehow paid for all the others who were saying the same or "worse" (in my view). I was basically annoyed to see all the people request what I think are stupid features, because they're just there to make more sales, not to deepen the strategy. Craters and powerful bombardment make for no-brainer strategies and belong to the micro-warfare level, something that is out of hand of Civ. Futhermore, the "please keep everything and just add" motto doesn't help.
I do feel insulted and harashed at the fact you say I was whining when I was not and this comment. [my quote] upsets me as you can clearly see from my sig that I am a Staff Sergeant in the U.S. Air Force Space Command.
Sorry again, I extended your feeling with what I read before, so you were not whining. Good. Now I won't adapt my speech to every poster anyday. Being a chief in the army won't impress me at all, as for Civ disussion at least. On a French board I would even say "tu" over "vous" to everyone. And I was basically making fun of myself with such a quote, because I had never been so angry at the USA before argueing with people in OT.
Anyways, back on topic. I enjoy the ideas of corruption and pollution but you all make good points. They way they are now does not work realistically nor game playwise. However, they should stay in civ 4 just be modified/fixed/whatever to make them game playable and realistic.
The concepts of pollution and corruption are essential to a game called Civilization, I don't deny it, I say it !
But the way they were implemented is unrealistic and bad gameplay-wise (well, at least pollution, corruption is rather OK in comparison, though having thousands of completely corrupted cities isn't that realistic). When you both have unrealistic (does this simulate history and RL ?) and gameplay-wise broken (doesn't deepen the strategy, go for no-brainers, is unfun, is purely mechanical and random, etc...) elements, those must go... or get a massive reworking? That's what Soren is trying to do. In the end we'll get something simulation pollution and corruption, that I have no doubt about, but I hope it will be better.
The Last Conformist said:
Having a name that's next to unspellable, but looks like something I can spell, does that sort of thing.
Copy-paste... just like yours.
Before man took it? That view only makes sense if you make the somewhat counterintuitive assumption that land in CivIII is empty of people before you colonize it.
Civ is so simple regarding the extreme complexity of real life and history (fortunately !) that this way of considering things makes sense. I just wanted to say that craters make tiles weaker than when they are bare.
Anyway. No, the amount of devastation one can wreck with early units such as Dromons is not realistic. So isn't alot of things you can make in CivIII. One of them is that you can easily wage a century-long ancient era war with minimal damage to rural infrastructure.
I agree with you. So why supporting it (maybe not you, but other people) ? Why supporting craters as they are in C3C if they're really unrealistic and if they break the gameplay balance (2 things I believe in) ? One thing to clearly remember is that Civ is played on a large scale, whatever the deep need you feel to have low-scale elements too. And even with a minimal realistic feel (like craters would make some sense in a detailed and low-scaled WWI scenario), the gameplay part is more important. If a feature was introduced because it looks realistic but doesn't work in the game, then it must go... or be changed.
What craters do provide for - in a non-ideal way - is the fact that the destructive effects of warfare to a large degree are not under the control of kings and generals. It's an idea I'd like to see explored with more sophistication in CivIV.
I doubt it, for Civ4. But that's me, I prefer to wait and see. All I can do is tell people what I feel is wrong in Civ3. Still, I doubt that having such low-scale elements will add to the experience, and will be fun. This would need a very careful tuning, to the least.
I'm chiefly perplexed at the fact that you're writing as if Craters were something I implemented, or requested.
But you certainly are taking a rather confrontational stance. Why?
Sorry, sorry, sorry.
You seemed to be quite happy with C3C's craters, so it was a bit like you were supporting them, like when US citizens are asked to support their troops (even more today). At the end of the day, you don't speak to the troops nor the President (the developpers), but the citizens or CFC posters (you in this thread, about craters). Sorry.
player1 fanatic said:
I just checked the rules and anicent/medieval era bombardmnet units don't have craters.
The units that make craters start from Cannon/Frigates and everything later.
So no dromon bombaing craters in Civ3.
EDIT:
Of course, you can still destory infarstucture.
But don't forget that such objects have defense rating of 16 (compared to walls that have 8).
Thanks a lot, mate !
You learn things everyday. Because I don't think this was stated in the Civilopedia, so you basically had to figure it out by yourself (something I desperately am angry at, Soren, please put all the data in it, all the stats, formulae, features, everything !). So it's not as bad as I imagined. Still, Greek fire destroying mines is rather... odd.
CurtSibling said:
You could look at the dromon attack on the coast as being a pillage attack by crewmen.
We all have different views of what level of micro-management we want to see.
But only so much is possible - We can hope for a decent level of clever tweakiness. And also a suitably low level of 'fun' elements.
(EG: no-brain arcade stuff)
Hehe, Curt paying a visit here.
OK, crewmen go pillage the tile for one turn. Now, an enemy ship comes in and attacks the dromon, question : who is defending the dromon on the sea ? The crew is out to pillage the tile (with Greek fire
), so you only have a few people to defend the dromon, move it on the sea, etc... The thing is, IMHO, sea (and to some extent, land) bombardment and craters are badly implemented elements, gameplay-wise, even before finding out if it's fun or realistic. That's why I'm rather sceptic about Civ4's hypothetical low-scale elements, but like I said, I can just wait and see.
Oh and Curt, about your P.S. : Maybe we should tell our OT friends to play Civ more ? As for me, I'll try to refrain from being too generalistic, and carefully write down my real thinking instead of summing it up in 2 or 3 hype words, happy ?
Destroy their economical value, destroy the roads, destroy the mines, and above all destroy the ground so much that the land is less productive than before Man took it ? No, that makes no sense.
