Land bridge

Quasar1011

King of Sylvania
Joined
May 17, 2003
Messages
2,968
Location
California
I would like to see something brought back that was in Civ2, though it's hard to know what to call this. Suffice it to say, there were places on the map where the tiles were ordered in such a way, that you could move land units north to south, and sea units east to west, through the same area. In Civ 3 you can't do this.
Referring to the below screenshot, I am playing as the Americans. I take a city and re-name it Lansing. In Civ 2, Lansing would have been a port, and I would have been able to build a ship, move it out into the sea, and attack that English ship to the west. In Civ 3, the squares northwest of Lansing form a land bridge, blocking the coastal tile north of Lansing from the sea. I'd like to have the old way back! Screenshot:
 
Yeah sounds good! Have been in the same position and it's really annoying. Don't think bridges should be too big though.
 
Well, if Lansing had been built one more tile to the west, it would been able to have a port. I'm not sure that chaning the game so that exact city placement is less important is for the better. I believe a very interesting/fun part of the early game is the city placement aspect.

Having to think hard when deciding city placement, and never being able to get a perfect placement, but rather being forced to prioritize between several positions that each have pros and cons is much more interesting than being able to use the "perfect" layout each time.
 
I agree with Quasar. I miss that "feature" from Civ2. In fact, I still try moving my boats through those thin isthmus' without thinking about it.

Barring they allow canals, this would be nice to have.
 
Originally posted by TheNiceOne
Well, if Lansing had been built one more tile to the west, it would been able to have a port. I'm not sure that chaning the game so that exact city placement is less important is for the better. I believe a very interesting/fun part of the early game is the city placement aspect.

Having to think hard when deciding city placement, and never being able to get a perfect placement, but rather being forced to prioritize between several positions that each have pros and cons is much more interesting than being able to use the "perfect" layout each time.
Yes, but unfortunately, the AI is too stupid to handle it.

In fact, maybe the AI planned this all along, Quasar. They knew you were going to capture it eventually, so they placed it one square out of position just to annoy you. ;)
 
Originally posted by WillJ
Yes, but unfortunately, the AI is too stupid to handle it.

In fact, maybe the AI planned this all along, Quasar. They knew you were going to capture it eventually, so they placed it one square out of position just to annoy you. ;)

Yeah, but in Civ 2, you could mod and terraform squares too.

I have half a mind to clear that jungle and plop down a new city, just to serve as a naval base! But by that time, my modern armor will be parked outside Buckingham Palace. :)

Hey WillJ, you gonna buy C3C on Oct. 28th?
 
In this case there isn't much use for it, but I've had ones where it would have been useful. Of course, I built a city there.
 
Completely off-topic: Which terrain mod is that? That cultural border looks nice...
 
i though the wierd lines in national borbers were because of river and not because someone got creative... anyway they look far more realistic.
 
Originally posted by Quasar1011
Hey WillJ, you gonna buy C3C on Oct. 28th?
Probably not. I don't want it really bad, so I'll probably wait a while to read reviews, ask questions about it, and maybe wait for the price to drop.

Edit: Why do you ask?
 
I'm hoping this will be implemented in Conquests as well, or at least have an editor option to enable/disable it. It would be a HUGE help to my ACW scenario.
 
Back
Top Bottom