H
Hoside
Guest
yea they need to update their site today.
What's your biggest angst over civ3?
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
S
Snapcase
Guest
My Angst is probably the Editing tools, to be honest. SMAC's were such a big letdown, and although improvements have been promised this time round, they would have to be significantly better than Civ2's not to dissapoint me.
Flak
vBülletin Förum
First, Thank you for answering! I know a lot of guys here often feel like the Firaxis folks never even know this place exists. Thank you, thank you , thank you.
As far as 'complex' agreements, I'm sure the many Native Americans and African Americans who play this game will be glad to know that their ancestors didn't arrange any 'complex' agreements without writing. They just didn't have the intelligence in them I guess. Man! If only the Western civilization had reached us sooner we could actually WRITTEN DOWN all those treaties.
It's too bad that Western stereotypes of so called 'primitive' civilizations are being allowed to limit gameplay of such a fantastice game. Particularly in such an unrealistic and insulting way.
[This message has been edited by Flak (edited August 19, 2001).]
G
Graeme the mad
Guest
I think firaxzis is right with writing - it does make historical sense not just based on western cukture.
Without writing it is hard to have complex agreement becasue they canot be recorded and the african tribes did not have complex agreements as such which worked properley - an advanced trading system is difficult if you cant record number of goods and such.
Native Americans and Africans didnt have complex diplomacy - wheras their counterparts in south America who developed writing (or the incas measurment system which was bead strings) did have large empires and have trade agreements and such like with other empires
------------------
Never underestimate the power of stupid people
Without writing it is hard to have complex agreement becasue they canot be recorded and the african tribes did not have complex agreements as such which worked properley - an advanced trading system is difficult if you cant record number of goods and such.
Native Americans and Africans didnt have complex diplomacy - wheras their counterparts in south America who developed writing (or the incas measurment system which was bead strings) did have large empires and have trade agreements and such like with other empires
------------------
Never underestimate the power of stupid people
Morten Blaabjerg
Settler
I would say a tribe would need at least 3 techs to be able to communicate and administrate "advanced" treaties.
monarchy
code of laws
writing
One of the main reasons for germanic and nordic tribal kings to ally with the church in early medieval times, was the need for skilled officials who could read and write and keep record of "rights", agreements and trade/tax administration.
As for wonder movies and animated advisors, I have no tears. I agree totally with Firaxis, that they don't fit in. It is too silly to try and recreate a whole (imaginary) world, and then spoil it by bringing in bits of video and actors in silly costumes from the real world. It spoils the illusion.
[This message has been edited by Morten Blaabjerg (edited August 19, 2001).]
monarchy
code of laws
writing
One of the main reasons for germanic and nordic tribal kings to ally with the church in early medieval times, was the need for skilled officials who could read and write and keep record of "rights", agreements and trade/tax administration.
As for wonder movies and animated advisors, I have no tears. I agree totally with Firaxis, that they don't fit in. It is too silly to try and recreate a whole (imaginary) world, and then spoil it by bringing in bits of video and actors in silly costumes from the real world. It spoils the illusion.
[This message has been edited by Morten Blaabjerg (edited August 19, 2001).]
Papa Lazarou
you're my wife now dave!
i agree with points 3, 4, 6 & 7, especially 6! I too loved the unit workshop but id just settle for more of a variety of units right now
B
boca
Guest
I'm sorry, but the biggest angst for me are those colors!
I think they are depressing. Look at those greens and blues!
I just hope firaxis will make something about this, or at least give us the ability to modify it
I think they are depressing. Look at those greens and blues!
I just hope firaxis will make something about this, or at least give us the ability to modify it
D
Dearmad
Guest
Gotta say, I like the colors in the screenshots so far- I like the gradual colors from nearly white to deep green of the sea, and the blue of the rivers... I think the land is well done too- not so overly and unrealistically green everywhere- just pockets of intense vegetation. I hope rainforest areas are dense and vast though.
J
John DiFool
Guest
I am most concerned with the 'city carpeting' problem. In Civ II the AI would build cities literally everywhere (even in places which were terrible spots), often overlapping with each other. This sucked because going in and taking every city would often prove to be a very tedious exercise.
My hope for Civ III is that you will be worse off if you decide to build a city in a bad spot than you would if you didn't build one at all! I mean there is a reason why there isn't a bustling metropolis in the middle of the Sahara Desert, on top of the Alps, or in the midst of the Pripet Marshes in Russia. I have always preferred quality over quantity as far as cities go.
I also would like to have some sort of bonus included if you leave some wilderness areas unexploited-perhaps this can add to your cultural rating if you don't develop your equivalent of the Everglades or Yosemite Park.
John DiFool
My hope for Civ III is that you will be worse off if you decide to build a city in a bad spot than you would if you didn't build one at all! I mean there is a reason why there isn't a bustling metropolis in the middle of the Sahara Desert, on top of the Alps, or in the midst of the Pripet Marshes in Russia. I have always preferred quality over quantity as far as cities go.
I also would like to have some sort of bonus included if you leave some wilderness areas unexploited-perhaps this can add to your cultural rating if you don't develop your equivalent of the Everglades or Yosemite Park.
John DiFool
Dwarven_Megalomaniac
Chieftain
Why must there be angst?
None of us have played the damn game yet.
Concerns? Ok, I can see that... but angst? Play the game first, then by all means, let the tales of frustration and angst flow!
My CONCERN: that forums disintegrate into flame post and "hate the developer" rants. I'm not saying thats what this place is like. I've been pretty impressed in the past.
None of us have played the damn game yet.
Concerns? Ok, I can see that... but angst? Play the game first, then by all means, let the tales of frustration and angst flow!
My CONCERN: that forums disintegrate into flame post and "hate the developer" rants. I'm not saying thats what this place is like. I've been pretty impressed in the past.
I
Iroquois
Guest
While I am eagerly waiting Civ3's release I am unhappy about 2 things.
No. 1 - The game is still limited on how many civs are in the game; just 7 civs. AND now only has 16 civs overall.
No. 2 - I am very concerned that there will not be multiplayer tournament style play included with the game package. I have brought this issue up with Firaxis as well as posting it on this site numerous times and have never gotten a response from Firaxis. They mentioned that they were working on ideas for multiplayer support back in May but were very vague and have said nothing else since. This worries me because I have seen Alpha Centauri colloecting a lot of dust on my shelf because there was no easy way to find people for multiplayer.
------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/Iroquois/Hi_angry.jpg" border=0>If you cross the border, you better have your green card!<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/Iroquois/SKULL.gif" border=0>
No. 1 - The game is still limited on how many civs are in the game; just 7 civs. AND now only has 16 civs overall.
No. 2 - I am very concerned that there will not be multiplayer tournament style play included with the game package. I have brought this issue up with Firaxis as well as posting it on this site numerous times and have never gotten a response from Firaxis. They mentioned that they were working on ideas for multiplayer support back in May but were very vague and have said nothing else since. This worries me because I have seen Alpha Centauri colloecting a lot of dust on my shelf because there was no easy way to find people for multiplayer.
------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/Iroquois/Hi_angry.jpg" border=0>If you cross the border, you better have your green card!<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/Iroquois/SKULL.gif" border=0>
A
Aragond
Guest
I agree with both of these, particularly the first. Seven is too few. Play an earth map and you'll end up with great tracts of the world completely undiscovered, even by natives. I think the best thing about any game is its flexibility, and the option to play up to, say, 25 other nations would be the ultimate.
I also hold grave fears that Civ-future-version drops the turn-based play and goes all AoE on us. **Shivers-up-spine**
Oh, and fear that there'll be no scenarios in this version (hey, we all know we want them off the bat, why not just make them automatically in there?)
However, I gotta say, and with no disrespectin' da Faraxis people, my biggest fear is that CIII will just be a rebadged, rejigged, changed-graphics version of CivII, plus some bits, minus some others, but essentially the same. I LOVE CII, don't get me wrong, BUT I also already own it. I mean, that's the Microsoft path (I refuse to have anything to do with XP because I've got NT4 & 98 working fine).
I haven't seen anything yet that particularly convinces me otherwise on the official site, either. It LOOKS different, and there's a couple of changes here and there (loss of super-graphical stuff, such as videos), but nothing REALLY new. It's <u>STILL</u> just world conquest with none of the AIs really able to stand in your way. It's still the basic, simplistic game that it was in the past, with a hidden combat system. (Though, at last, there's borders!)And while that sounds harsh, as I said, I already have Civ2, why not give me more than that?
Diplomacy that counts, and more intelligent AIs that hold grudges, and an open means of knowing about such grudges. More information about the opposing nations, that one can find by rumour. More open battles, so that when I lose my tank against his phalanx, I can at least note the "sticky bombs" that he had. (For that matter, make that impossible, there's just NO justifying that.) More nations to fight or hear about (as I said, 25 would be good). Co-opting minor nations under your spell so their units can join your battles?
In other words, more realism and flexibility.
OR, at least these things as options. (Hmm, this post should be in the "suggestions" forum, aye?)
I dunno, I'm ranting. I'm just stuck wondering whether to go Civ3 or stick with Civ2 and get Mr Crashability, Europa Universalis. I just live in hope Civ3 aint no Microsoft jobby, that it IS a better game with more options. I live in fear otherwise.
Agh, maybe I'll just get some counselling instead. ;-)
Heffalump
Proboscidea Heffalumpus
I worry that the game will feel less like a sim (the ultimate SIM is Civilization) and more like a role-playing game. And by this I'm alluding to the pre-assigned civ personalities, special units, etc. I'd prefer to see the personalities of civs develop naturally as a civ itself evolves. An expression of their growth, circumstances, and geography so to speak.
Also I worry about the culture-driven system of border expansion getting out of hand. It's clear from the reading so far that civs with strong cultures can literally push back the borders of other civs. This may be fine in ancient and middle-age times, but there's no precedent for it in modern times.
Part of civ's appeal is its reflection of the world around us. Playing civ is like being God to a miniature world. If this connection is lost, if winning in Civ becomes too distracted from "winning" in the real world, then it becomes just another game. A good game maybe, but not THE game.
Hmm, I don't want to sound too negative here. Most of what I've heard is good. Call it 90% excitement and 10% angst.
Also I worry about the culture-driven system of border expansion getting out of hand. It's clear from the reading so far that civs with strong cultures can literally push back the borders of other civs. This may be fine in ancient and middle-age times, but there's no precedent for it in modern times.
Part of civ's appeal is its reflection of the world around us. Playing civ is like being God to a miniature world. If this connection is lost, if winning in Civ becomes too distracted from "winning" in the real world, then it becomes just another game. A good game maybe, but not THE game.
Hmm, I don't want to sound too negative here. Most of what I've heard is good. Call it 90% excitement and 10% angst.
Heffalump
Proboscidea Heffalumpus
I worry that the game will feel less like a sim (the ultimate SIM is Civilization) and more like a role-playing game. And by this I'm alluding to the pre-assigned civ personalities, special units, etc. I'd prefer to see the personalities of civs develop naturally as a civ itself evolves. An expression of their growth, circumstances, and geography so to speak.
Also I worry about the culture-driven system of border expansion getting out of hand. It's clear from the reading so far that civs with strong cultures can literally push back the borders of other civs. This may be fine in ancient and middle-age times, but there's no precedent for it in modern times.
Part of civ's appeal is its reflection of the world around us. Playing civ is like being God to a miniature world. If this connection is lost, if winning in Civ becomes too distracted from "winning" in the real world, then it becomes just another game. A good game maybe, but not THE game.
Hmm, I don't want to sound too negative here. Most of what I've heard is good. Call it 90% excitement and 10% angst.
Also I worry about the culture-driven system of border expansion getting out of hand. It's clear from the reading so far that civs with strong cultures can literally push back the borders of other civs. This may be fine in ancient and middle-age times, but there's no precedent for it in modern times.
Part of civ's appeal is its reflection of the world around us. Playing civ is like being God to a miniature world. If this connection is lost, if winning in Civ becomes too distracted from "winning" in the real world, then it becomes just another game. A good game maybe, but not THE game.
Hmm, I don't want to sound too negative here. Most of what I've heard is good. Call it 90% excitement and 10% angst.
S
stravaig
Guest
At first blush, here's my thoughts:
1) I agree that it seems the developers are taking the 'safe route' and not really providing a new paradigm or quantum shift or a higher order of magnitude beyond Civ II. SMAC was a good leap forward, this doesn't seem to be as innovative. A mild dissappointment.
2) I used to check out the forums at sidgames and there were a whole bunch of cool ideas there that I'm sad aren't going to be implemented, including Religion.
3) Are they going to use event-based wonders (e.g. first to sail around the world) like CTP2 did? I really liked those.
4) I was really hoping the diplomacy would give us the ability to negotiate borders. Perhaps that'd be too complex, but it'd be very realistic and fun.
5) Slightly disappointed at only 16 Civs and 7 opponents.
All these things are pretty minor, though, and do nothing to abate my excitement!
- Stravaig
1) I agree that it seems the developers are taking the 'safe route' and not really providing a new paradigm or quantum shift or a higher order of magnitude beyond Civ II. SMAC was a good leap forward, this doesn't seem to be as innovative. A mild dissappointment.
2) I used to check out the forums at sidgames and there were a whole bunch of cool ideas there that I'm sad aren't going to be implemented, including Religion.
3) Are they going to use event-based wonders (e.g. first to sail around the world) like CTP2 did? I really liked those.
4) I was really hoping the diplomacy would give us the ability to negotiate borders. Perhaps that'd be too complex, but it'd be very realistic and fun.
5) Slightly disappointed at only 16 Civs and 7 opponents.
All these things are pretty minor, though, and do nothing to abate my excitement!
- Stravaig
Similar threads
