civ IV

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

please some news
24 answers Last reply
More about tomshardware
  1. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "Hrga" <hrvoje.pavlic@ka.htnet.hr> schreef in bericht
    news:c66pfr$97o$1@bagan.srce.hr...
    > please some news

    www.civfanatics.com and its forums
  2. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "Hrga" <hrvoje.pavlic@ka.htnet.hr> wrote in message
    news:c66pfr$97o$1@bagan.srce.hr...
    > please some news


    They cut support personel on C3C to one person for it.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    The Stare wrote:
    > "Hrga" <hrvoje.pavlic@ka.htnet.hr> wrote in message
    > news:c66pfr$97o$1@bagan.srce.hr...
    >> please some news
    >
    >
    > They cut support personel on C3C to one person for it.

    I can't begin to imagine how amazing civ4 will be! Any ideas on when it
    will be released? I'm guessing not for another two years at least yet.
    Can't wait though!
  4. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    we want patrol!, we want patrol!, we want patrol! (hundreds of
    thousands of civers stomping feet, clapping hands in unison)...we want
    patrol! we want patrol! let units patrol! let units patrol! let units
    patrol!...


    "Wouter Lievens" <lievenswouter@snotmail.com> wrote in message news:<4086fa8c$0$11075$a0ced6e1@news.skynet.be>...
    > "Hrga" <hrvoje.pavlic@ka.htnet.hr> schreef in bericht
    > news:c66pfr$97o$1@bagan.srce.hr...
    > > please some news
    >
    > www.civfanatics.com and its forums
  5. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "Contro"
    <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    wrote in message news:c689s7$2qp$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
    > The Stare wrote:
    > > "Hrga" <hrvoje.pavlic@ka.htnet.hr> wrote in message
    > > news:c66pfr$97o$1@bagan.srce.hr...
    > >> please some news
    > >
    > >
    > > They cut support personel on C3C to one person for it.
    >
    > I can't begin to imagine how amazing civ4 will be! Any ideas on when it
    > will be released? I'm guessing not for another two years at least yet.
    > Can't wait though!

    I prefer they finish supporting Conquests first.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    commandoLine@yahoo.com (Commando Line) wrote in
    news:972fc92b.0404221615.5fb3bfad@posting.google.com:

    > we want patrol!, we want patrol!, we want patrol! (hundreds of
    > thousands of civers stomping feet, clapping hands in unison)...we
    > want patrol! we want patrol! let units patrol! let units patrol!
    > let units patrol!...

    I don't want patrol, I want a hex map.

    --
    ICQ: 8105495
    AIM: KeeperGFA
    EMail: thekeeper@canada.com
    "If we did the things we are capable of,
    we would astound ourselves." - Edison
  7. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    The Stare wrote:
    > "Contro"
    > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    > wrote in message news:c689s7$2qp$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
    >> The Stare wrote:
    >>> "Hrga" <hrvoje.pavlic@ka.htnet.hr> wrote in message
    >>> news:c66pfr$97o$1@bagan.srce.hr...
    >>>> please some news
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> They cut support personel on C3C to one person for it.
    >>
    >> I can't begin to imagine how amazing civ4 will be! Any ideas on
    >> when it will be released? I'm guessing not for another two years at
    >> least yet. Can't wait though!
    >
    > I prefer they finish supporting Conquests first.

    LOL true. but well, we can but dream!
  8. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Who needs a map with an alternate numbering system; none of the squares get
    values above 10 anyway?

    Oh, you mean hexagonal, not hexadecimal!!!

    That would be a nice improvement, hope it's in the design.

    "Kevin 'Keeper' Foster" <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns94D3ED3262BA0kdfosterrogerscom@130.133.1.4...
    > commandoLine@yahoo.com (Commando Line) wrote in
    > news:972fc92b.0404221615.5fb3bfad@posting.google.com:
    >
    > > we want patrol!, we want patrol!, we want patrol! (hundreds of
    > > thousands of civers stomping feet, clapping hands in unison)...we
    > > want patrol! we want patrol! let units patrol! let units patrol!
    > > let units patrol!...
    >
    > I don't want patrol, I want a hex map.
    >
    > --
    > ICQ: 8105495
    > AIM: KeeperGFA
    > EMail: thekeeper@canada.com
    > "If we did the things we are capable of,
    > we would astound ourselves." - Edison
  9. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "Kevin 'Keeper' Foster" <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns94D3ED3262BA0kdfosterrogerscom@130.133.1.4...
    > commandoLine@yahoo.com (Commando Line) wrote in
    > news:972fc92b.0404221615.5fb3bfad@posting.google.com:
    >
    >
    > I don't want patrol, I want a hex map.
    >
    > --
    So would that be no east and west, or no North and South movement?
  10. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On 23 Apr 2004 03:19:01 GMT, "Kevin 'Keeper' Foster"
    <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote:

    >commandoLine@yahoo.com (Commando Line) wrote in
    >news:972fc92b.0404221615.5fb3bfad@posting.google.com:
    >
    >> we want patrol!, we want patrol!, we want patrol! (hundreds of
    >> thousands of civers stomping feet, clapping hands in unison)...we
    >> want patrol! we want patrol! let units patrol! let units patrol!
    >> let units patrol!...
    >
    > I don't want patrol, I want a hex map.

    I'm not certain how beneficial a hex map would be, but I guess I could
    swing that way...

    As for patrol, though... Not a game goes by where I don't wish I had a
    patrol capability.
    -

    T.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister wrote:
    > On 23 Apr 2004 03:19:01 GMT, "Kevin 'Keeper' Foster"
    > <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote:
    >
    >> commandoLine@yahoo.com (Commando Line) wrote in
    >> news:972fc92b.0404221615.5fb3bfad@posting.google.com:
    >>
    >>> we want patrol!, we want patrol!, we want patrol! (hundreds of
    >>> thousands of civers stomping feet, clapping hands in unison)...we
    >>> want patrol! we want patrol! let units patrol! let units patrol!
    >>> let units patrol!...
    >>
    >> I don't want patrol, I want a hex map.
    >
    > I'm not certain how beneficial a hex map would be, but I guess I could
    > swing that way...
    >
    > As for patrol, though... Not a game goes by where I don't wish I had a
    > patrol capability.
    > -
    >
    > T.

    I'm not sure about either idea to be honest! Like you say, I don't think
    patrol is suitable really and would make that much difference due to the way
    you can move units as it is and the slowness of them moving and all that

    As for a hex map, well I think the way it's done now is right. It's
    traditional to have a north south east west approach, with the in-betweens
    there too. So you can attack from the north and the south or what not. I
    think a hex map would be a little messy, and would lead to clumsy attacks
    and movement.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Fri, 7 May 2004 10:02:40 +0100, "Contro"
    <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    wrote:

    >Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister wrote:
    >> On 23 Apr 2004 03:19:01 GMT, "Kevin 'Keeper' Foster"
    >> <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> commandoLine@yahoo.com (Commando Line) wrote in
    >>> news:972fc92b.0404221615.5fb3bfad@posting.google.com:
    >>>
    >>>> we want patrol!, we want patrol!, we want patrol! (hundreds of
    >>>> thousands of civers stomping feet, clapping hands in unison)...we
    >>>> want patrol! we want patrol! let units patrol! let units patrol!
    >>>> let units patrol!...
    >>>
    >>> I don't want patrol, I want a hex map.
    >>
    >> I'm not certain how beneficial a hex map would be, but I guess I could
    >> swing that way...
    >>
    >> As for patrol, though... Not a game goes by where I don't wish I had a
    >> patrol capability.
    >> -
    >>
    >> T.
    >
    >I'm not sure about either idea to be honest! Like you say, I don't think
    >patrol is suitable really and would make that much difference due to the way
    >you can move units as it is and the slowness of them moving and all that

    There are two reasons to use patrol (which was a feature in Sid's
    Alpha Centauri, btw)

    In the early game when there is a great deal of unclaimed land, horse
    patrols are very handy to help you keep tabs on opposing civ movement
    and to ferret our barbarians... The 25 gold per camp is nice for a
    growing civ.

    In the late game patrols on land arent terribly useful... But
    destroyers, subs, and battleships patrolling regular routes can be
    exceptionally beneficial.

    >As for a hex map, well I think the way it's done now is right. It's
    >traditional to have a north south east west approach, with the in-betweens
    >there too. So you can attack from the north and the south or what not. I
    >think a hex map would be a little messy, and would lead to clumsy attacks
    >and movement.

    Hex maps aren't clumsy at all. The hexagon is a very logical shape to
    use to allow a broad variety of movement. The only reason not to use a
    hex map is that there really isn't anything wrong with the current
    grid map model.

    I wonder if programming the game to work on a hex map would be harder
    than on a square grid?

    -

    T.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "Contro"
    <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    wrote in message news:c7fjbi$nhc$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...

    > As for a hex map, well I think the way it's done now is right. It's
    > traditional to have a north south east west approach, with the in-betweens
    > there too. So you can attack from the north and the south or what not. I
    > think a hex map would be a little messy, and would lead to clumsy attacks
    > and movement.

    Dunno if you ever played any Avalon Hill games like Panzerblitz or Squad
    Leader, or Star Fleet Battles (Not an AH game), but hex maps are about the
    closest thing to "real life" you can easily do in a game.

    GWB
  14. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Sat, 08 May 2004 04:12:34 GMT, "GWB" <capture_ctl@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >"Contro"
    ><moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    >wrote in message news:c7fjbi$nhc$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
    >
    >> As for a hex map, well I think the way it's done now is right. It's
    >> traditional to have a north south east west approach, with the in-betweens
    >> there too. So you can attack from the north and the south or what not. I
    >> think a hex map would be a little messy, and would lead to clumsy attacks
    >> and movement.
    >
    >Dunno if you ever played any Avalon Hill games like Panzerblitz or Squad
    >Leader, or Star Fleet Battles (Not an AH game), but hex maps are about the
    >closest thing to "real life" you can easily do in a game.

    Squares and hexes both are compromises. Each has different flaws.

    For squares, travelling on the diagonals increases the speed --
    distance per move. This also affects ranged combat -- bombardments
    and air attacks can hit things farther away on the diagonals. A
    'circle' of equal distance is represented on the map as a square.

    Civ hides some of that by the viewing angle, making it less
    intrusive.

    Hexes are roughly equal speed in all directions. But unlike
    squares, there can be many "shortest paths," due to the geometry of
    the hexes. Squares may not measure the distance accurately, but the
    "shortest path" is a bit easier to solve, as there are never more than
    two possible squares which might be equal.

    Squares give eight sides to surround in combat, hexes only six.
    Which is better depends on if you want blockades/envelopment to be
    easier or harder. It is easier to slip between units on squares than
    hexes -- you'll often need to do a "double layer" in order to create a
    solid front line; on hexes, a single line of units in any direction
    one deep will define a barrier. Hexes rule for representing zones of
    control.

    Keyboard controls for hex moves on a numeric pad aren't ideally
    intuitive, while moves on a square grid map neatly to it.

    Hexes are much harder to map coordinates on, tile (graphic display
    of terrain), and trickier to get a neat graphic overlay on a 3D map
    than squares. There are solutions, but it still can look odd compared
    to a square grid, as used on real maps.

    Civ3 does use real distances for corruption and any other distance
    related government effects -- it doesn't just count squares. This is
    the most fair way to do it (and even Civ1 did it like that), and it
    somewhat mitigates the diagonal movement bonus. In practice, the
    faster diagonal moves are not often relevant -- though if you're
    exploring, it can come in handy.


    --
    *-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
    ** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
    *Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>
  15. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister wrote:
    > On Fri, 7 May 2004 10:02:40 +0100, "Contro"
    > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister wrote:
    >>> On 23 Apr 2004 03:19:01 GMT, "Kevin 'Keeper' Foster"
    >>> <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> commandoLine@yahoo.com (Commando Line) wrote in
    >>>> news:972fc92b.0404221615.5fb3bfad@posting.google.com:
    >>>>
    >>>>> we want patrol!, we want patrol!, we want patrol! (hundreds of
    >>>>> thousands of civers stomping feet, clapping hands in unison)...we
    >>>>> want patrol! we want patrol! let units patrol! let units patrol!
    >>>>> let units patrol!...
    >>>>
    >>>> I don't want patrol, I want a hex map.
    >>>
    >>> I'm not certain how beneficial a hex map would be, but I guess I
    >>> could swing that way...
    >>>
    >>> As for patrol, though... Not a game goes by where I don't wish I
    >>> had a patrol capability.
    >>> -
    >>>
    >>> T.
    >>
    >> I'm not sure about either idea to be honest! Like you say, I don't
    >> think patrol is suitable really and would make that much difference
    >> due to the way you can move units as it is and the slowness of them
    >> moving and all that
    >
    > There are two reasons to use patrol (which was a feature in Sid's
    > Alpha Centauri, btw)
    >
    > In the early game when there is a great deal of unclaimed land, horse
    > patrols are very handy to help you keep tabs on opposing civ movement
    > and to ferret our barbarians... The 25 gold per camp is nice for a
    > growing civ.

    Yes, but this can really be done by manually moving your troops. I mean,
    you have the function where you can select where you want your troops to end
    up in Civ3.

    I'm just not so certain that a patrol function would suit the game. You are
    effectively looking down at a map, and I'm not sure a patrol function suits
    that metaphor.

    >
    > In the late game patrols on land arent terribly useful... But
    > destroyers, subs, and battleships patrolling regular routes can be
    > exceptionally beneficial.
    >
    >> As for a hex map, well I think the way it's done now is right. It's
    >> traditional to have a north south east west approach, with the
    >> in-betweens there too. So you can attack from the north and the
    >> south or what not. I think a hex map would be a little messy, and
    >> would lead to clumsy attacks and movement.
    >
    > Hex maps aren't clumsy at all. The hexagon is a very logical shape to
    > use to allow a broad variety of movement. The only reason not to use a
    > hex map is that there really isn't anything wrong with the current
    > grid map model.
    >

    there are problems with it. Firstly, it takes away from the logical
    structure of warfare...as in, you can attack from the north, south, east and
    west, as well as north east etc. And secondly, if you have a hex map, there
    are less squares that can contact a central square (or hexagon as the case
    would be). Imagine attacking a city in civ. Currently, you can surround it
    with 8 units. With hex map, it would only be 6, with it being impossible to
    attack from either east or west (or if you can attack via east or west,
    impossible to attack from north or south).

    I agree totally with you on nothing being wrong with the current model
    anyway. If it isn't broke, don't fix it!

    > I wonder if programming the game to work on a hex map would be harder
    > than on a square grid?

    I think it would be easier to be honest, as was seen above, a hex map would
    grant less freedom of movement, which could only make the game easier to
    program. The only way a hex map would suit the game better is if you
    couldn't move diagonally in the current game. But you can, and even if you
    couldn't, the addition of being able to move diagonally would be a better
    option than moving to hex.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    GWB wrote:
    > "Contro"
    > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    > wrote in message news:c7fjbi$nhc$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
    >
    >> As for a hex map, well I think the way it's done now is right. It's
    >> traditional to have a north south east west approach, with the
    >> in-betweens there too. So you can attack from the north and the
    >> south or what not. I think a hex map would be a little messy, and
    >> would lead to clumsy attacks and movement.
    >
    > Dunno if you ever played any Avalon Hill games like Panzerblitz or
    > Squad Leader, or Star Fleet Battles (Not an AH game), but hex maps
    > are about the closest thing to "real life" you can easily do in a
    > game.
    >
    > GWB

    Well I'm not so sure. And civ uses a map metaphor anyway, which I don't
    think suits hex at all. As I said in the other post, you lose the north,
    south, east, west and north east etc part of the game, which I think is very
    important to such a game, as that is general how battles were planned
    (attack from the north etc). And also, with a hex map, you would lose two
    places to attack a city, as now you can attack a city from 8 places, with a
    hex map, you could only attack from 6. There are other repercussions too,
    such as it taking one less square to put an embargo on a coastal city, to
    how the borders would look (pretty horrible!).

    Keep it as it is, I say!
  17. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Sorry, didn't see that you mentiond some of the same points that I have just
    done. but yes, I think that while hex might have one or two advantages,
    which don't seem to be suited to civ anyway, squares are the logical way to
    go. Especially since, as I think you mention below, squares are the logical
    way to display movement on a map. I think so anyway! I think if you take
    away the north, south etc factor, you take away from the map metaphor

    Jeffery S. Jones wrote:
    > On Sat, 08 May 2004 04:12:34 GMT, "GWB" <capture_ctl@hotmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> "Contro"
    >> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    >> wrote in message news:c7fjbi$nhc$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
    >>
    >>> As for a hex map, well I think the way it's done now is right. It's
    >>> traditional to have a north south east west approach, with the
    >>> in-betweens there too. So you can attack from the north and the
    >>> south or what not. I think a hex map would be a little messy, and
    >>> would lead to clumsy attacks and movement.
    >>
    >> Dunno if you ever played any Avalon Hill games like Panzerblitz or
    >> Squad Leader, or Star Fleet Battles (Not an AH game), but hex maps
    >> are about the closest thing to "real life" you can easily do in a
    >> game.
    >
    > Squares and hexes both are compromises. Each has different flaws.
    >
    > For squares, travelling on the diagonals increases the speed --
    > distance per move. This also affects ranged combat -- bombardments
    > and air attacks can hit things farther away on the diagonals. A
    > 'circle' of equal distance is represented on the map as a square.
    >
    > Civ hides some of that by the viewing angle, making it less
    > intrusive.
    >
    > Hexes are roughly equal speed in all directions. But unlike
    > squares, there can be many "shortest paths," due to the geometry of
    > the hexes. Squares may not measure the distance accurately, but the
    > "shortest path" is a bit easier to solve, as there are never more than
    > two possible squares which might be equal.
    >
    > Squares give eight sides to surround in combat, hexes only six.
    > Which is better depends on if you want blockades/envelopment to be
    > easier or harder. It is easier to slip between units on squares than
    > hexes -- you'll often need to do a "double layer" in order to create a
    > solid front line; on hexes, a single line of units in any direction
    > one deep will define a barrier. Hexes rule for representing zones of
    > control.
    >
    > Keyboard controls for hex moves on a numeric pad aren't ideally
    > intuitive, while moves on a square grid map neatly to it.
    >
    > Hexes are much harder to map coordinates on, tile (graphic display
    > of terrain), and trickier to get a neat graphic overlay on a 3D map
    > than squares. There are solutions, but it still can look odd compared
    > to a square grid, as used on real maps.
    >
    > Civ3 does use real distances for corruption and any other distance
    > related government effects -- it doesn't just count squares. This is
    > the most fair way to do it (and even Civ1 did it like that), and it
    > somewhat mitigates the diagonal movement bonus. In practice, the
    > faster diagonal moves are not often relevant -- though if you're
    > exploring, it can come in handy.

    --
    Just because you feel it doesn't mean it's there
  18. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "Contro"
    <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingd
    om> wrote in news:c7icg0$s43$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk:

    > GWB wrote:
    >> "Contro"
    >> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.ki
    >> ngdom> wrote in message news:c7fjbi$nhc$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
    >>
    >>> As for a hex map, well I think the way it's done now is right.
    >>> It's traditional to have a north south east west approach, with
    >>> the in-betweens there too. So you can attack from the north and
    >>> the south or what not. I think a hex map would be a little
    >>> messy, and would lead to clumsy attacks and movement.
    >>
    >> Dunno if you ever played any Avalon Hill games like Panzerblitz
    >> or Squad Leader, or Star Fleet Battles (Not an AH game), but hex
    >> maps are about the closest thing to "real life" you can easily do
    >> in a game.
    >>
    >> GWB
    >
    > Well I'm not so sure. And civ uses a map metaphor anyway, which I
    > don't think suits hex at all. As I said in the other post, you
    > lose the north, south, east, west and north east etc part of the
    > game, which I think is very important to such a game, as that is
    > general how battles were planned (attack from the north etc). And
    > also, with a hex map, you would lose two places to attack a city,
    > as now you can attack a city from 8 places, with a hex map, you
    > could only attack from 6. There are other repercussions too, such
    > as it taking one less square to put an embargo on a coastal city,
    > to how the borders would look (pretty horrible!).
    >
    > Keep it as it is, I say!

    One of the good reasons to switch to hex that hasn't been mentioned
    is the term "radius" which is used losely on a square tile map, becomes
    a real radius on a hex map.
    The city radius would actually be every hex within range 2, instead
    of every square except for the 4 far diagonals. This becomes even more
    of an issue with longer "radius" effects such as outposts on hills or
    mountains, and borders.
    And worse, civ has two different standards with regard to range.
    Cities and outposts use the messed up (but closer to correct) corners,
    while bombardment uses the full diagonals. Bombardment range of 2 will
    allow you to bombard a city without being inside it's 2 tile radius.
    WTF?!
    As someone who has played on both hexes and squares, I definitely
    prefers hexes.

    Another thing I'd like, fortresses and colonies with units guarding
    them should not be subject to cultural conversion. The enemy's borders
    should flow around the colony/fortress, leaving the colony/fortress in
    the hands of it's makers. So long as there is a unit defending it,
    anyways.

    --
    ICQ: 8105495
    AIM: KeeperGFA
    EMail: thekeeper@canada.com
    "If we did the things we are capable of,
    we would astound ourselves." - Edison
  19. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Skipping school, I decide to respond to what "Contro"
    <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom> fosted
    Sat, 8 May 2004 11:21:05 +0100 in alt.games.civ3 , viz:
    >
    >> Hex maps aren't clumsy at all. The hexagon is a very logical shape to
    >> use to allow a broad variety of movement. The only reason not to use a
    >> hex map is that there really isn't anything wrong with the current
    >> grid map model.
    >>
    >
    >there are problems with it. Firstly, it takes away from the logical
    >structure of warfare...as in, you can attack from the north, south, east and
    >west, as well as north east etc. And secondly, if you have a hex map, there
    >are less squares that can contact a central square (or hexagon as the case
    >would be). Imagine attacking a city in civ. Currently, you can surround it
    >with 8 units. With hex map, it would only be 6, with it being impossible to
    >attack from either east or west (or if you can attack via east or west,
    >impossible to attack from north or south).
    >
    >I agree totally with you on nothing being wrong with the current model
    >anyway. If it isn't broke, don't fix it!

    OOHS :-) In a Hex map, on can designate a "front" where attack/efnese are
    strongest, with decreasing values to the "left" & "right" on the flanks with a
    low value for the rear "side" Thus, one could gain an attack advantage by
    attacking the flank of a unit. Of course, one could do the same on a square
    grid, but the bookkeeping logistics would be a nightmare.

    >> I wonder if programming the game to work on a hex map would be harder
    >> than on a square grid?
    >
    >I think it would be easier to be honest, as was seen above, a hex map would
    >grant less freedom of movement, which could only make the game easier to
    >program. The only way a hex map would suit the game better is if you
    >couldn't move diagonally in the current game. But you can, and even if you
    >couldn't, the addition of being able to move diagonally would be a better
    >option than moving to hex.

    Yeah, eight moves instead of six or four. Oy - more headaches :-)


    --
    pyotr filipivich
    Next Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
    Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them, Selecting a new Them
  20. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Sat, 8 May 2004 11:21:05 +0100, "Contro"
    <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    wrote:

    >Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister wrote:
    >> On Fri, 7 May 2004 10:02:40 +0100, "Contro"
    >> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister wrote:
    >>>> On 23 Apr 2004 03:19:01 GMT, "Kevin 'Keeper' Foster"
    >>>> <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> commandoLine@yahoo.com (Commando Line) wrote in
    >>>>> news:972fc92b.0404221615.5fb3bfad@posting.google.com:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> we want patrol!, we want patrol!, we want patrol! (hundreds of
    >>>>>> thousands of civers stomping feet, clapping hands in unison)...we
    >>>>>> want patrol! we want patrol! let units patrol! let units patrol!
    >>>>>> let units patrol!...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I don't want patrol, I want a hex map.
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm not certain how beneficial a hex map would be, but I guess I
    >>>> could swing that way...
    >>>>
    >>>> As for patrol, though... Not a game goes by where I don't wish I
    >>>> had a patrol capability.
    >>>> -
    >>>>
    >>>> T.
    >>>
    >>> I'm not sure about either idea to be honest! Like you say, I don't
    >>> think patrol is suitable really and would make that much difference
    >>> due to the way you can move units as it is and the slowness of them
    >>> moving and all that
    >>
    >> There are two reasons to use patrol (which was a feature in Sid's
    >> Alpha Centauri, btw)
    >>
    >> In the early game when there is a great deal of unclaimed land, horse
    >> patrols are very handy to help you keep tabs on opposing civ movement
    >> and to ferret our barbarians... The 25 gold per camp is nice for a
    >> growing civ.
    >
    >Yes, but this can really be done by manually moving your troops. I mean,
    >you have the function where you can select where you want your troops to end
    >up in Civ3.

    If you had played SMAC you'd prolly think differently.

    Obviously patrol in games like Starcraft or C&C is critical. In Civ,
    it's less critical and more just helpful, but still, it's helpful...

    I can move units manually, but the question is, how much micromanaging
    do I want to do? I know in the early game when expansion is slow
    (especially slow in DyP which purposefully slows down growth until you
    get out of despotism, for realism) that I can walk a swatch of land
    for barbs and such. The Goto command will go one way (and tips off the
    AI to your plans). The explore command is useless after you've
    uncovered the map. Patrol would help me manage certain repetitive
    tasks.

    >I'm just not so certain that a patrol function would suit the game. You are
    >effectively looking down at a map, and I'm not sure a patrol function suits
    >that metaphor.

    Sure it does. It's just an option, and not a hard one to implement I
    would imagine.
    -

    T.
  21. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    pyotr filipivich wrote:
    > Skipping school, I decide to respond to what "Contro"
    > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    > fosted Sat, 8 May 2004 11:21:05 +0100 in alt.games.civ3 , viz:
    >>
    >>> Hex maps aren't clumsy at all. The hexagon is a very logical shape
    >>> to use to allow a broad variety of movement. The only reason not to
    >>> use a hex map is that there really isn't anything wrong with the
    >>> current grid map model.
    >>>
    >>
    >> there are problems with it. Firstly, it takes away from the logical
    >> structure of warfare...as in, you can attack from the north, south,
    >> east and west, as well as north east etc. And secondly, if you have
    >> a hex map, there are less squares that can contact a central square
    >> (or hexagon as the case would be). Imagine attacking a city in civ.
    >> Currently, you can surround it with 8 units. With hex map, it would
    >> only be 6, with it being impossible to attack from either east or
    >> west (or if you can attack via east or west, impossible to attack
    >> from north or south).
    >>
    >> I agree totally with you on nothing being wrong with the current
    >> model anyway. If it isn't broke, don't fix it!
    >
    > OOHS :-) In a Hex map, on can designate a "front" where
    > attack/efnese are strongest, with decreasing values to the "left" &
    > "right" on the flanks with a low value for the rear "side" Thus, one
    > could gain an attack advantage by attacking the flank of a unit. Of
    > course, one could do the same on a square grid, but the bookkeeping
    > logistics would be a nightmare.

    I'm not sure why the flanking attacks would be such a problem on a square
    map....compared to a hex map anyway. but I do agree that you could have
    varying degrees of attacks, but again, I think attacks were always
    calculated from attacking frmo the north, east, west and what not....

    >
    >>> I wonder if programming the game to work on a hex map would be
    >>> harder than on a square grid?
    >>
    >> I think it would be easier to be honest, as was seen above, a hex
    >> map would grant less freedom of movement, which could only make the
    >> game easier to program. The only way a hex map would suit the game
    >> better is if you couldn't move diagonally in the current game. But
    >> you can, and even if you couldn't, the addition of being able to
    >> move diagonally would be a better option than moving to hex.
    >
    > Yeah, eight moves instead of six or four. Oy - more headaches :-)

    LOL :-) well I'm not sure that would matter though, really. In the end, it
    would be the same difference. They'd just make the maps bigger, or the
    hexes smaller or what not. I don't think the movement is really a problem
  22. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister wrote:
    > On Sat, 8 May 2004 11:21:05 +0100, "Contro"
    > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 7 May 2004 10:02:40 +0100, "Contro"
    >>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister wrote:
    >>>>> On 23 Apr 2004 03:19:01 GMT, "Kevin 'Keeper' Foster"
    >>>>> <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> commandoLine@yahoo.com (Commando Line) wrote in
    >>>>>> news:972fc92b.0404221615.5fb3bfad@posting.google.com:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> we want patrol!, we want patrol!, we want patrol! (hundreds of
    >>>>>>> thousands of civers stomping feet, clapping hands in
    >>>>>>> unison)...we want patrol! we want patrol! let units patrol! let
    >>>>>>> units patrol! let units patrol!...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I don't want patrol, I want a hex map.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I'm not certain how beneficial a hex map would be, but I guess I
    >>>>> could swing that way...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> As for patrol, though... Not a game goes by where I don't wish I
    >>>>> had a patrol capability.
    >>>>> -
    >>>>>
    >>>>> T.
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm not sure about either idea to be honest! Like you say, I don't
    >>>> think patrol is suitable really and would make that much difference
    >>>> due to the way you can move units as it is and the slowness of them
    >>>> moving and all that
    >>>
    >>> There are two reasons to use patrol (which was a feature in Sid's
    >>> Alpha Centauri, btw)
    >>>
    >>> In the early game when there is a great deal of unclaimed land,
    >>> horse patrols are very handy to help you keep tabs on opposing civ
    >>> movement and to ferret our barbarians... The 25 gold per camp is
    >>> nice for a growing civ.
    >>
    >> Yes, but this can really be done by manually moving your troops. I
    >> mean, you have the function where you can select where you want your
    >> troops to end up in Civ3.
    >
    > If you had played SMAC you'd prolly think differently.
    >
    > Obviously patrol in games like Starcraft or C&C is critical. In Civ,
    > it's less critical and more just helpful, but still, it's helpful...
    >
    > I can move units manually, but the question is, how much micromanaging
    > do I want to do? I know in the early game when expansion is slow
    > (especially slow in DyP which purposefully slows down growth until you
    > get out of despotism, for realism) that I can walk a swatch of land
    > for barbs and such. The Goto command will go one way (and tips off the
    > AI to your plans). The explore command is useless after you've
    > uncovered the map. Patrol would help me manage certain repetitive
    > tasks.

    Well, true, I have to admit that it wouldn't really be a bad thing. I just
    meant that I think it's not too much of a problem. but yes, I do agree that
    it could only be a good thing, and that it wouldn't make anything worse.

    >
    >> I'm just not so certain that a patrol function would suit the game.
    >> You are effectively looking down at a map, and I'm not sure a patrol
    >> function suits that metaphor.
    >
    > Sure it does. It's just an option, and not a hard one to implement I
    > would imagine.

    LOL true, I think I was a bit harsh on this one. Sorry!
  23. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Kevin 'Keeper' Foster wrote:
    > "Contro"
    > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingd
    > om> wrote in news:c7icg0$s43$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk:
    >
    >> GWB wrote:
    >>> "Contro"
    >>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.ki
    >>> ngdom> wrote in message news:c7fjbi$nhc$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
    >>>
    >>>> As for a hex map, well I think the way it's done now is right.
    >>>> It's traditional to have a north south east west approach, with
    >>>> the in-betweens there too. So you can attack from the north and
    >>>> the south or what not. I think a hex map would be a little
    >>>> messy, and would lead to clumsy attacks and movement.
    >>>
    >>> Dunno if you ever played any Avalon Hill games like Panzerblitz
    >>> or Squad Leader, or Star Fleet Battles (Not an AH game), but hex
    >>> maps are about the closest thing to "real life" you can easily do
    >>> in a game.
    >>>
    >>> GWB
    >>
    >> Well I'm not so sure. And civ uses a map metaphor anyway, which I
    >> don't think suits hex at all. As I said in the other post, you
    >> lose the north, south, east, west and north east etc part of the
    >> game, which I think is very important to such a game, as that is
    >> general how battles were planned (attack from the north etc). And
    >> also, with a hex map, you would lose two places to attack a city,
    >> as now you can attack a city from 8 places, with a hex map, you
    >> could only attack from 6. There are other repercussions too, such
    >> as it taking one less square to put an embargo on a coastal city,
    >> to how the borders would look (pretty horrible!).
    >>
    >> Keep it as it is, I say!
    >
    > One of the good reasons to switch to hex that hasn't been mentioned
    > is the term "radius" which is used losely on a square tile map,
    > becomes a real radius on a hex map.
    > The city radius would actually be every hex within range 2, instead
    > of every square except for the 4 far diagonals. This becomes even
    > more of an issue with longer "radius" effects such as outposts on
    > hills or mountains, and borders.
    > And worse, civ has two different standards with regard to range.
    > Cities and outposts use the messed up (but closer to correct) corners,
    > while bombardment uses the full diagonals. Bombardment range of 2
    > will allow you to bombard a city without being inside it's 2 tile
    > radius. WTF?!
    > As someone who has played on both hexes and squares, I definitely
    > prefers hexes.

    hmm, I guess there are some benefits. But I think there are with squares
    too. And I don't really have that much of a problem with squares. and,
    well, I don't know, I feel hexes make it more like a board game too, for
    some reason. LOL if that makes sense.

    >
    > Another thing I'd like, fortresses and colonies with units guarding
    > them should not be subject to cultural conversion. The enemy's
    > borders should flow around the colony/fortress, leaving the
    > colony/fortress in the hands of it's makers. So long as there is a
    > unit defending it, anyways.

    yes, that sounds like a good idea. I didn't know that happened to be
    honest, as I'd not really made many of those, but I agree with you on that
    for sure!
  24. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Invid Fan wrote:
    > In article <Xns94E3894C5573Ckdfosterrogerscom@130.133.1.4>, Kevin
    > 'Keeper' Foster <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Another thing I'd like, fortresses and colonies with units
    >> guarding them should not be subject to cultural conversion. The
    >> enemy's borders should flow around the colony/fortress, leaving the
    >> colony/fortress in the hands of it's makers. So long as there is a
    >> unit defending it, anyways.
    >
    > Only if they find a way for the AI to deal with it. It wouldn't be
    > fair for the human player to rush a worker over to build a fortress
    > near the AI capital early in the game before their culture has
    > expanded much, then use it later in the game as a base for an attack.
    >
    > "Oh, don't worry about those 50 knights now trapped in that fort in
    > the middle of your country. Yes, I know I canceled our ROP. Don't
    > worry, they'll find a way out..."

    LOL :-)
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games