Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Information regarding Civ 4.....

Last response: in Video Games
Share
December 3, 2004 10:39:36 PM

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

Hello

Some more information has been posted about Civ 4, including a couple of
early screen shots...

http://www.civfanatics.com/

A snip from what has been posted......

Below are some of the more interesting stuff from the article:



a.. Development is being headed by creator Sid Meier himself.

b.. Civ IV has been written entirely from scratch.

c.. The 3D engine will allow you to zoom smoothly from a global view all
the way down to a single city.

d.. Individual units will gain experience and acquire new upgrades such as
bonuses against specific enemy types and the ability to use enemy roads.

e.. No more spearmen defeating tanks.

f.. Besides incorporating new technologies, the tech tree has been changed
to allow radically different research paths to the same high-level
technologies. Now you won’t have to follow a strict research path to be
competitive later in the game – a design that opens up a whole new world of
possibilities.

g.. Civilization IV has been designed to fully support the mod community.
The game is written using flexible XML data files and the Python scripting
language so that modders will have no trouble at all creating their own
personalized worlds, units, technologies, and historical events. Advanced
modders will even be able to control the AI.

h.. Civ4 has been designed from the outset to include the multiplayer
mode. You will be able to team up in co-op mode against the AI or other
teams of players, and a random-map generator ensures an equal start.





--
Regards

Morgan

Hard drive problems...
www.flyinglizard.freeserve.co.uk

More about : information civ

Anonymous
December 4, 2004 12:37:05 AM

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

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 19:39:36 -0000, Morgan <morgan@home.net> wrote:
>
> a.. Development is being headed by creator Sid Meier himself.

Yay.

> b.. Civ IV has been written entirely from scratch.

Um, OK?

> c.. The 3D engine will allow you to zoom smoothly from a global view all
> the way down to a single city.

Booo, feature-bloat for no good reason.

> d.. Individual units will gain experience and acquire new upgrades such as
> bonuses against specific enemy types and the ability to use enemy roads.

That's cool.

> e.. No more spearmen defeating tanks.

I wonder how they're going to do that? You rolls the dice, you takes
your chances. Maybe they're just scaling hit points and defensive points
more realistically?

> f.. Besides incorporating new technologies, the tech tree has been changed
> to allow radically different research paths to the same high-level
> technologies. Now you won’t have to follow a strict research path to be
> competitive later in the game – a design that opens up a whole new world of
> possibilities.

I'm not sure I get this.

> g.. Civilization IV has been designed to fully support the mod community.
> The game is written using flexible XML data files and the Python scripting
> language so that modders will have no trouble at all creating their own
> personalized worlds, units, technologies, and historical events. Advanced
> modders will even be able to control the AI.

Fantastic. I can't wait to waste hundreds of my hours playing it.

Dave Hinz
December 4, 2004 1:16:40 AM

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

On 3 Dec 2004 21:37:05 GMT Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message
<31c4k1F39kbcaU2@individual.net>...

> > e.. No more spearmen defeating tanks.
>
> I wonder how they're going to do that? You rolls the dice, you takes your
> chances. Maybe they're just scaling hit points and defensive points more
> realistically?

They could alter the rules so that, for example, any battle between units
with combat rating differing by a factor of more than, say, eight, is
automatically a win for the superior unit.

They could do this in lots of ways.

> > f.. Besides incorporating new technologies, the tech tree has been
> > changed to allow radically different research paths to the same
> > high-level technologies. Now you won?t have to follow a strict research
> > path to be competitive later in the game ? a design that opens up a
> > whole new world of possibilities.
>
> I'm not sure I get this.

Instead of every prerequisite of a tech being needed before that tech could
be obtained, certain prerequisites will be either/or affairs.

> Dave Hinz

--
Daran

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary. -- James D. Nicoll
Related resources
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 2:11:46 AM

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

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 19:39:36 -0000, "Morgan" <morgan@home.net> wrote:

>Hello
>
>Some more information has been posted about Civ 4, including a couple of
>early screen shots...
>
>http://www.civfanatics.com/

Thanks for the info but the screenshots have already been removed at
the magazines request. I wonder if someone has them and can post to
the Civ2 binary group.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 1:02:12 PM

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

Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<31c4k1F39kbcaU2@individual.net>...
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 19:39:36 -0000, Morgan <morgan@home.net> wrote:
> >
> > a.. Development is being headed by creator Sid Meier himself.
>
> Yay.
>
> > b.. Civ IV has been written entirely from scratch.
>
> Um, OK?
>

To the non-programers, this means that unlike Civ 3, they didn't take
a previous version and start modifing. This allows the code to be much
cleaner, which greately speeds up debuging.
It also means that several of the items below are possible.

> > c.. The 3D engine will allow you to zoom smoothly from a global view all
> > the way down to a single city.
>
> Booo, feature-bloat for no good reason.
>

I think it's cool myself.

> > d.. Individual units will gain experience and acquire new upgrades such >as
> > bonuses against specific enemy types and the ability to use enemy roads.
>
> That's cool.
>

Agreed.

> > e.. No more spearmen defeating tanks.
>
> I wonder how they're going to do that? You rolls the dice, you takes
> your chances. Maybe they're just scaling hit points and defensive points
> more realistically?
>

They might also reintroduce the concept of fire power, and if fire
power is much much less than armor, probabibility of getting thru the
armor to do any damage at all is assigned 0%.

> > f.. Besides incorporating new technologies, the tech tree has been changed
> > to allow radically different research paths to the same high-level
> > technologies. Now you won?t have to follow a strict research path to be
> > competitive later in the game ? a design that opens up a whole new world of
> > possibilities.
>
> I'm not sure I get this.
>

Interesting, multiple paths to the same higher techs. Some mods in Civ
III featured this, namely the Master of Magic, Jr one in Fantastic
Worlds.

> > g.. Civilization IV has been designed to fully support the mod community.
> > The game is written using flexible XML data files and the Python scripting
> > language so that modders will have no trouble at all creating their own
> > personalized worlds, units, technologies, and historical events. Advanced
> > modders will even be able to control the AI.
>
> Fantastic. I can't wait to waste hundreds of my hours playing it.
>

Yup, XML files are easy to modify.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 3:27:39 PM

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

Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in
news:31c4k1F39kbcaU2@individual.net:

> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 19:39:36 -0000, Morgan <morgan@home.net> wrote:
>>
>> a.. Development is being headed by creator Sid Meier himself.
>
> Yay.
>
>> b.. Civ IV has been written entirely from scratch.
>
> Um, OK?

This is a good thing. It means the game will inherit no bugs, and
it gives the designers a lot more room for new/different ideas.

>> c.. The 3D engine will allow you to zoom smoothly from a global
>> view all
>> the way down to a single city.
>
> Booo, feature-bloat for no good reason.

Agreed, I don't think this is an important feature for this type of
game.

>> d.. Individual units will gain experience and acquire new
>> upgrades such as
>> bonuses against specific enemy types and the ability to use enemy
>> roads.
>
> That's cool.
>
>> e.. No more spearmen defeating tanks.
>
> I wonder how they're going to do that? You rolls the dice, you
> takes your chances. Maybe they're just scaling hit points and
> defensive points more realistically?

What they need (IMO) is a way for battles to draw. Really this
would be a win for the defender, but without the attacker being
destroyed.

The other stuff seems ok, but I guess I'm still going to be put off
for the hex map that I've been waiting for. I hate the radius-isn't-
really-a-radius tiles we have now.


--
ICQ: 8105495
AIM: KeeperGFA
EMail: thekeeper@canada.com
"If we did the things we are capable of,
we would astound ourselves." - Edison
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 5:32:40 PM

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

On 4 Dec 2004 12:27:39 GMT, Kevin 'Keeper' Foster <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in
> news:31c4k1F39kbcaU2@individual.net:
>> Someone else wrote:
>
>>> b.. Civ IV has been written entirely from scratch.
>> Um, OK?
>
> This is a good thing. It means the game will inherit no bugs, and
> it gives the designers a lot more room for new/different ideas.

Yes, but speaking from direct personal experience, a total rewrite
just allows you to trade known bugs for new and interesting bugs.

>>> e.. No more spearmen defeating tanks.
>>
>> I wonder how they're going to do that? You rolls the dice, you
>> takes your chances. Maybe they're just scaling hit points and
>> defensive points more realistically?
>
> What they need (IMO) is a way for battles to draw. Really this
> would be a win for the defender, but without the attacker being
> destroyed.

Isn't that what happens when, say, a tank backs down from a losing
battle?

> The other stuff seems ok, but I guess I'm still going to be put off
> for the hex map that I've been waiting for. I hate the radius-isn't-
> really-a-radius tiles we have now.

Didn't we have hex map back in civ1 or so? Or was it colonization
or something? I remember that they weren't always squares and I was annoyed
when they became so.

Dave Hinz
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 5:32:41 PM

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

Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<31e048F37obkbU4@individual.net>...
> On 4 Dec 2004 12:27:39 GMT, Kevin 'Keeper' Foster <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote:
> > Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in
> > news:31c4k1F39kbcaU2@individual.net:
> >> Someone else wrote:
>
> >>> b.. Civ IV has been written entirely from scratch.
> >> Um, OK?
> >
> > This is a good thing. It means the game will inherit no bugs, and
> > it gives the designers a lot more room for new/different ideas.
>
> Yes, but speaking from direct personal experience, a total rewrite
> just allows you to trade known bugs for new and interesting bugs.
>

Yes, but those new bugs are usually easier to track down and fix.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 6:43:27 PM

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

Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in
news:31e048F37obkbU4@individual.net:

> On 4 Dec 2004 12:27:39 GMT, Kevin 'Keeper' Foster
> <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote:
>> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in
>> news:31c4k1F39kbcaU2@individual.net:
>>> Someone else wrote:
>>
>>>> b.. Civ IV has been written entirely from scratch.
>>> Um, OK?
>>
>> This is a good thing. It means the game will inherit no bugs,
>> and
>> it gives the designers a lot more room for new/different ideas.
>
> Yes, but speaking from direct personal experience, a total rewrite
> just allows you to trade known bugs for new and interesting bugs.

True. I'm rather disappointed in the average quality of modern
games. I understand the complexity and other issues involved, but
still far too many games are released with bugs that just shouldn't
make it past any reasonable level of testing. This is a separate issue
though so I guess it doesn't belong here.

>>>> e.. No more spearmen defeating tanks.
>>>
>>> I wonder how they're going to do that? You rolls the dice, you
>>> takes your chances. Maybe they're just scaling hit points and
>>> defensive points more realistically?
>>
>> What they need (IMO) is a way for battles to draw. Really
>> this
>> would be a win for the defender, but without the attacker being
>> destroyed.
>
> Isn't that what happens when, say, a tank backs down from a losing
> battle?

Not really since the mobile unit actually gets it's butt kicked in
the process. And the retreat option may help against spearmen, but
it's useless against Jaguar Warriors.
Maybe they could have an evasion chance, where a hopeless defender
could avoid being destroyed. After all, if you can't find the enemy,
it's difficult to kill him. This would have to be heavily terrain
dependant, good in jungles; almost impossible on plains. Unit type
would make a difference too, as tanks should have a harder time
clearing jungle than infantry.

>> The other stuff seems ok, but I guess I'm still going to be
>> put off
>> for the hex map that I've been waiting for. I hate the
>> radius-isn't- really-a-radius tiles we have now.
>
> Didn't we have hex map back in civ1 or so? Or was it colonization
> or something? I remember that they weren't always squares and I
> was annoyed when they became so.

Colonization and the Civ series have always had squares. The only
difference now is that they are turned 45 degrees.
There was a debate in here before about hex maps in a CIV (C-IV)
wishlist thread. I was surprised by the number of posts against it.
But I think most people would come around once they played on a hex
map.

I hope they make an obsolete unit list too. GalCiv has an effective
one.

And they need to give fortresses and colonies local (in their own
tile) the ability to resist opposing culural expansion. Maybe only
when a defending unit is present.

And we need a colony with a harbor option. Something like the
current outpost option would work. Sacrifice one worker to build a
colony on a resource, another worker to build a harbor on the shore,
make sure the two are connected by a road and then you have access to a
resource on another continent without a city or trading partner.

Hehe, suppose I better stop.

--
ICQ: 8105495
AIM: KeeperGFA
EMail: thekeeper@canada.com
"If we did the things we are capable of,
we would astound ourselves." - Edison
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 7:27:27 PM

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

On 4 Dec 2004 15:43:27 GMT, Kevin 'Keeper' Foster <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote:
>
> And we need a colony with a harbor option. Something like the
> current outpost option would work. Sacrifice one worker to build a
> colony on a resource, another worker to build a harbor on the shore,
> make sure the two are connected by a road and then you have access to a
> resource on another continent without a city or trading partner.

If you're going to do that, why not just drop a settler there and make
a town? Then you'll have your own sphere (ok, diamond) of influence
and not have to worry about someone else's cultural growth stomping
on your colony?

Dave Hinz
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 8:40:55 PM

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

Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in
news:31e6rfF39230pU4@individual.net:

> On 4 Dec 2004 15:43:27 GMT, Kevin 'Keeper' Foster
> <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote:
>>
>> And we need a colony with a harbor option. Something like the
>> current outpost option would work. Sacrifice one worker to build
>> a colony on a resource, another worker to build a harbor on the
>> shore, make sure the two are connected by a road and then you
>> have access to a resource on another continent without a city or
>> trading partner.
>
> If you're going to do that, why not just drop a settler there and
> make a town? Then you'll have your own sphere (ok, diamond) of
> influence and not have to worry about someone else's cultural
> growth stomping on your colony?

First, some sort of cultural defense is an absolute must for
colonies in CIV. Without it, all the above is useless.

A city would count against the optimal number, a single settler
costs more than 2 workers, workers can be captured on the continent
instead of shipping over a settler, a city that gets captured costs
gold, a city that does flip is another city for your opponent, even a
small "outpost" type city needs to be managed. That's all I can think
of offhand.

I agree with you that in Civ3 a city is a better choice than a
colony. My points are an attempt to make colonies worthwhile in at
least some cases.

--
ICQ: 8105495
AIM: KeeperGFA
EMail: thekeeper@canada.com
"If we did the things we are capable of,
we would astound ourselves." - Edison
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 1:19:49 AM

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

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 19:39:36 -0000, "Morgan" <morgan@home.net> wrote:

>Hello
>
>Some more information has been posted about Civ 4, including a couple of
>early screen shots...
>
>http://www.civfanatics.com/
>
>A snip from what has been posted......
>
> Below are some of the more interesting stuff from the article:
>
>
>
> a.. Development is being headed by creator Sid Meier himself.

That can't hurt, I suppose, since he hasn't been directly involved
since Civ 1.

> b.. Civ IV has been written entirely from scratch.

I thought that much of Civ3 was too, but this won't hurt either.

> c.. The 3D engine will allow you to zoom smoothly from a global view all
>the way down to a single city.

I don't know that this feature is needed. But 3D simplifies some of
the map scaling issues (the view size can be the same regardless of
resolution using it), and once you decide to use a 3D display engine,
you might as well make the most of it.


> d.. Individual units will gain experience and acquire new upgrades such as
>bonuses against specific enemy types and the ability to use enemy roads.

That can't hurt. But as long as we're into unit features, I think
that a lot more open-ended options would be nice. Very much of the
game's features -- in units, city improvements, wonders, terrain,
whatever else -- is tied hard to the standard epic game. That makes
it harder to create mods which reflect some other concepts, including
fantasy and scifi scenarios as well as alternative takes on historical
settings.

> e.. No more spearmen defeating tanks.

Would cut some complaints about balance, but if they still have
spearmen facing tanks at all in the real world, it needs fixing. So
if they do it right, the solution is that in a world with tanks, you
don't see any spearman on the battlefield.

Other solutions might shift the balance some. Simple ones aren't
hard. Some mods increase the values of more modern units, and thus
decrease the odds that ancient units will win. Civ2's firepower
combat system really didn't do anything more than that (hit point
increases and firepower statistically work out much like simply
increasing attack).

Adding armor -- damage reduction/absorption -- would reduce the
effectiveness of units with low damage values, and could make some
units invulnerable to others. But while this would be interesting to
represent certain situations, I don't know if it would do a good job
in a generalized historical war situation. When in history has one
side been invulnerable? An easy win is one thing, but a guaranteed
win with no losses is something else.

> f.. Besides incorporating new technologies, the tech tree has been changed
>to allow radically different research paths to the same high-level
>technologies. Now you won’t have to follow a strict research path to be
>competitive later in the game – a design that opens up a whole new world of
>possibilities.
>
> g.. Civilization IV has been designed to fully support the mod community.
>The game is written using flexible XML data files and the Python scripting
>language so that modders will have no trouble at all creating their own
>personalized worlds, units, technologies, and historical events. Advanced
>modders will even be able to control the AI.

These two sound quite interesting. Civ2 and Test of Time both had
great flexibility with simple text files for parameters and scripting.
Civ3's scenario editing had a lot of interesting capabilities, but
never got everything that Civ2 had -- especially the special events
and some of the unusual unit properties available.

--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/&gt;
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/&gt;
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 4:25:06 AM

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

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 22:19:49 -0600, Jeffery S. Jones
<jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:

>> e.. No more spearmen defeating tanks.
>
> Would cut some complaints about balance, but if they still have
>spearmen facing tanks at all in the real world, it needs fixing. So
>if they do it right, the solution is that in a world with tanks, you
>don't see any spearman on the battlefield.
>
> Other solutions might shift the balance some. Simple ones aren't
>hard. Some mods increase the values of more modern units, and thus
>decrease the odds that ancient units will win. Civ2's firepower
>combat system really didn't do anything more than that (hit point
>increases and firepower statistically work out much like simply
>increasing attack).
>
> Adding armor -- damage reduction/absorption -- would reduce the
>effectiveness of units with low damage values, and could make some
>units invulnerable to others. But while this would be interesting to
>represent certain situations, I don't know if it would do a good job
>in a generalized historical war situation. When in history has one
>side been invulnerable? An easy win is one thing, but a guaranteed
>win with no losses is something else.

I never minded spearmen beating tanks on a rare occasion. I did think
the tank suffered too much damage trying to take them out though. In
real life a tank could take many spearmen with one hit. I agree that
the real problem is spearmen shouldn't be on the battlefield at the
point in the game anyway. I can't imagine a modern civ sending off
spearmen to fight tanks.

I thought about having old units die off with age or having a forced
upgrade. The problem is remote locations are always going to have
older units. If the units just died off than the cities would have no
defense. So then I was thinking modern units should either be much
more powerful or have more hitpoints. Maybe each hitpoint would count
as two ancient hit points. If they did that then the AI would beat up
heavily on civs behind in tech.
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 4:25:06 AM

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

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 19:39:36 -0000, "Morgan" <morgan@home.net> wrote:

> a.. Development is being headed by creator Sid Meier himself.

Not sure if that is good or bad. I am curios if he was involved in
the purchase.

> b.. Civ IV has been written entirely from scratch.

I suspect that isn't entirely true. I am sure they had to rewrite
things to build the 3D engine. I am sure they will salvage some of
the code or at minimum the code logic. For instance part of it will
just be translated to work with the new design.

> c.. The 3D engine will allow you to zoom smoothly from a global view all
>the way down to a single city.

This might be the killer for me. I come from an adventure gamer
background and I always like the 2d models better than then 3d. It
could potentially make it easier to micro manage a large civ. I
think I would rather have a better way to review all the statistics so
I can compete with the AI better.

> d.. Individual units will gain experience and acquire new upgrades such as
>bonuses against specific enemy types and the ability to use enemy roads.

This should be interesting. I wonder how they will implement use of
enemy roads without decreasing enemy defense.

> e.. No more spearmen defeating tanks.

I wonder if this means the units will just surrender. If so then civs
who fall behind will get absorbed quickly.

> f.. Besides incorporating new technologies, the tech tree has been changed
>to allow radically different research paths to the same high-level
>technologies. Now you won’t have to follow a strict research path to be
>competitive later in the game – a design that opens up a whole new world of
>possibilities.

The problem is the AI often follows the same path for every civ.
Maybe this will help make civs alot more different than they are right
now. I would like to have the ability to capture an enemy tech once I
have conquered enough cities.

> g.. Civilization IV has been designed to fully support the mod community.
>The game is written using flexible XML data files and the Python scripting
>language so that modders will have no trouble at all creating their own
>personalized worlds, units, technologies, and historical events. Advanced
>modders will even be able to control the AI.

I will like this part the best. This opens a whole new realm.

> h.. Civ4 has been designed from the outset to include the multiplayer
>mode. You will be able to team up in co-op mode against the AI or other
>teams of players, and a random-map generator ensures an equal start.

Maybe this will make online gaming worth it. They never did get it
right in PTW.
December 5, 2004 10:00:24 AM

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

On 4 Dec 2004 17:40:55 GMT Kevin 'Keeper' Foster <thekeeper@canada.com>
wrote in message <Xns95B58102FD22Fkdfosterrogerscom@130.133.1.4>...

> A city would count against the optimal number, a single settler
> costs more than 2 workers, workers can be captured on the continent
> instead of shipping over a settler, a city that gets captured costs
> gold, a city that does flip is another city for your opponent, even a
> small "outpost" type city needs to be managed. That's all I can think
> of offhand.

You can't build cities on some types of terrain.

--
Daran

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary. -- James D. Nicoll
December 5, 2004 10:04:40 AM

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

On 4 Dec 2004 15:43:27 GMT Kevin 'Keeper' Foster <thekeeper@canada.com>
wrote in message <Xns95B56D186E280kdfosterrogerscom@130.133.1.4>...

> There was a debate in here before about hex maps in a CIV (C-IV)
> wishlist thread. I was surprised by the number of posts against it.
> But I think most people would come around once they played on a hex
> map.

Perhaps it should be an option.

I'd like to see a geodesic map, which would most accurately model a globe.

> I hope they make an obsolete unit list too. GalCiv has an effective
> one.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here.

--
Daran

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary. -- James D. Nicoll
December 5, 2004 10:36:34 AM

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

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 01:25:06 -0500 P12 <nowhere@all.com> wrote in message
<2295r0djeu5qljj9hc84ot8dfnthir8icb@4ax.com>...

> I never minded spearmen beating tanks on a rare occasion. I did think
> the tank suffered too much damage trying to take them out though. In
> real life a tank could take many spearmen with one hit. I agree that
> the real problem is spearmen shouldn't be on the battlefield at the
> point in the game anyway. I can't imagine a modern civ sending off
> spearmen to fight tanks.

I suggest that any unit which defeats a more powerful unit should have a
chance of an upgrade. Also units should be upgraded automatically at random
if they are in contact with more advanced units, whether of the same civ or
not, to reflect the possibility of obtaining equipment through unofficial
channels. Zulu warriors still exist, after all, but they carry
Kalashnikovs.

--
Daran

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary. -- James D. Nicoll
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 1:19:15 PM

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

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 07:36:34 +0000, Daran <daranSPAMg@lineone.net>
wrote:

>I suggest that any unit which defeats a more powerful unit should have a
>chance of an upgrade. Also units should be upgraded automatically at random
>if they are in contact with more advanced units, whether of the same civ or
>not, to reflect the possibility of obtaining equipment through unofficial
>channels. Zulu warriors still exist, after all, but they carry
>Kalashnikovs.

I guess the game never reflected that the weaker civ would acquire the
weapons from dead soldiers or through trade. The American Indians
took up rifles and horses any way they could get them. They could
not build them but they certainly knew how to use them.
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 3:14:19 PM

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

Daran <daranSPAMg@lineone.net> wrote in
news:8hoa82-c44.ln1@wheresmeshirt.clara.net:

> On 4 Dec 2004 15:43:27 GMT Kevin 'Keeper' Foster
> <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote in message
> <Xns95B56D186E280kdfosterrogerscom@130.133.1.4>...
>
>> There was a debate in here before about hex maps in a CIV
>> (C-IV)
>> wishlist thread. I was surprised by the number of posts against
>> it. But I think most people would come around once they played
>> on a hex map.
>
> Perhaps it should be an option.
>
> I'd like to see a geodesic map, which would most accurately model
> a globe.

That would be interesting.

>> I hope they make an obsolete unit list too. GalCiv has an
>> effective
>> one.
>
> I'm not sure what you're suggesting here.

I would like to be able to make the decision as to what units are
obsolete. So if you make a unit obsolete, it would no longer appear in
city build queues. The reason I don't like the automatic obsolete
method currently used is that it obsoletes units when an upgrade for
the unit is available. This means that some units never become
obsolete (privateer, destroyer) and some units which are still worth
building become obsolete. For example, in the early game it is often
still worthwhile to build warriors (for police duty) after you have
iron working.

--
ICQ: 8105495
AIM: KeeperGFA
EMail: thekeeper@canada.com
"If we did the things we are capable of,
we would astound ourselves." - Edison
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 3:14:20 PM

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

On 5 Dec 2004 12:14:19 GMT, "Kevin 'Keeper' Foster"
<thekeeper@canada.com> wrote:

> I would like to be able to make the decision as to what units are
>obsolete. So if you make a unit obsolete, it would no longer appear in
>city build queues. The reason I don't like the automatic obsolete
>method currently used is that it obsoletes units when an upgrade for
>the unit is available. This means that some units never become
>obsolete (privateer, destroyer) and some units which are still worth
>building become obsolete. For example, in the early game it is often
>still worthwhile to build warriors (for police duty) after you have
>iron working.

I like to load up on pikeman before I get saltpeter. The musketman
adds lttle value but costs twice as much.
December 5, 2004 6:53:24 PM

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

P12 wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 07:36:34 +0000, Daran <daranSPAMg@lineone.net>
> wrote:
>
>> I suggest that any unit which defeats a more powerful unit should
>> have a chance of an upgrade. Also units should be upgraded
>> automatically at random if they are in contact with more advanced
>> units, whether of the same civ or not, to reflect the possibility of
>> obtaining equipment through unofficial channels. Zulu warriors
>> still exist, after all, but they carry Kalashnikovs.
>
> I guess the game never reflected that the weaker civ would acquire the
> weapons from dead soldiers or through trade. The American Indians
> took up rifles and horses any way they could get them. They could
> not build them but they certainly knew how to use them.

*wanders in*

yes, perhaps they could do it by way of enabling the tech tree advancement
to be lessened the more "experience" a civ has by way of fighting against
such weapons. Perhaps being defeated by a unit with such weapons wouldn't
help any advancement towards gaining the tech, but defeating a unit with the
advancement would....and it wouldn't be by loads, as that would be unfair,
but say for every 4 defeats, means a turn less required to research that
tech, or what not....something like that anyway.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 12:49:27 AM

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

On 4 Dec 2004 10:02:12 -0800, Jon Nunn <joncnunn@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<31c4k1F39kbcaU2@individual.net>...
>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 19:39:36 -0000, Morgan <morgan@home.net> wrote:
>>
>> > b.. Civ IV has been written entirely from scratch.
>>
>> Um, OK?
>
> To the non-programers, this means that unlike Civ 3, they didn't take
> a previous version and start modifing. This allows the code to be much
> cleaner, which greately speeds up debuging.

And to a programmer, it means that they'll trade a already mostly-fixed
list of bugs, for a new and yet to be discovered list of bugs. Mature
software is less buggy, generally speaking, particularly if made by the
same folks and/or the same management.

>> > c.. The 3D engine will allow you to zoom smoothly from a global view all
>> > the way down to a single city.
>>
>> Booo, feature-bloat for no good reason.
>
> I think it's cool myself.

Ehhh...how often do you actually look at your cities in the birds-eye view?
How does burning cycles rendering all that graphical 3D stuff improve
playability?

(snip of stuff we mostly agree on; what's the point in going over _that_?)

Dave Hinz
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 12:50:32 AM

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

On 4 Dec 2004 10:04:08 -0800, Jon Nunn <joncnunn@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<31e048F37obkbU4@individual.net>...
>>
>> Yes, but speaking from direct personal experience, a total rewrite
>> just allows you to trade known bugs for new and interesting bugs.
>
> Yes, but those new bugs are usually easier to track down and fix.

The obvious ones, sure. After which you're left with a collection of
subtle and esoteric bugs, much like civ3 probably has today. I can see
why they're doing it, don't get me wrong, but "reducing bugs by starting
over" is a fool's mission.

Dave Hinz
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 1:06:46 AM

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

Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in
news:31k2h8F3cn0iaU3@individual.net:

> On 4 Dec 2004 10:04:08 -0800, Jon Nunn <joncnunn@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> news:<31e048F37obkbU4@individual.net>...
>>>
>>> Yes, but speaking from direct personal experience, a total
>>> rewrite just allows you to trade known bugs for new and
>>> interesting bugs.
>>
>> Yes, but those new bugs are usually easier to track down and fix.
>
> The obvious ones, sure. After which you're left with a collection
> of subtle and esoteric bugs, much like civ3 probably has today. I
> can see why they're doing it, don't get me wrong, but "reducing
> bugs by starting over" is a fool's mission.

Well that's not a very optimistic point of view.

--
ICQ: 8105495
AIM: KeeperGFA
EMail: thekeeper@canada.com
"If we did the things we are capable of,
we would astound ourselves." - Edison
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 1:33:43 AM

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

Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On 4 Dec 2004 10:04:08 -0800, Jon Nunn <joncnunn@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<31e048F37obkbU4@individual.net>...
>>>
>>> Yes, but speaking from direct personal experience, a total rewrite
>>> just allows you to trade known bugs for new and interesting bugs.
>>
>> Yes, but those new bugs are usually easier to track down and fix.

>The obvious ones, sure. After which you're left with a collection of
>subtle and esoteric bugs, much like civ3 probably has today. I can see
>why they're doing it, don't get me wrong, but "reducing bugs by starting
>over" is a fool's mission.

Depends. If version 1 was in assembler and version 2 in C++,
the latter will contain fewer bugs and be easier to maintain.

Plus code tends to accumulate a lot of cruft as one has to
patch bugs and insert work-arounds. A clean start fixes that.

And it is likely that the experience gained in three previous
versions (plus add-ons) will help craft a game that is more
logical from the programmer's point of view.

But it will have bugs. I guarantee it.

----- Paul J. Gans
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 12:06:35 PM

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

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:33:43 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com>
wrote:

>>The obvious ones, sure. After which you're left with a collection of
>>subtle and esoteric bugs, much like civ3 probably has today. I can see
>>why they're doing it, don't get me wrong, but "reducing bugs by starting
>>over" is a fool's mission.
>
>Depends. If version 1 was in assembler and version 2 in C++,
>the latter will contain fewer bugs and be easier to maintain.
>
>Plus code tends to accumulate a lot of cruft as one has to
>patch bugs and insert work-arounds. A clean start fixes that.
>
>And it is likely that the experience gained in three previous
>versions (plus add-ons) will help craft a game that is more
>logical from the programmer's point of view.
>
>But it will have bugs. I guarantee it.
>
> ----- Paul J. Gans

If it wasn't for bugs we wouldn't have anything to talk about... :) 



Bad Bob the Albino
[...smother him in onions and
cook him til he's blue.]
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 8:26:10 PM

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

On 6 Dec 2004 22:06:46 GMT, Kevin 'Keeper' Foster <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in
> news:31k2h8F3cn0iaU3@individual.net:

>> The obvious ones, sure. After which you're left with a collection
>> of subtle and esoteric bugs, much like civ3 probably has today. I
>> can see why they're doing it, don't get me wrong, but "reducing
>> bugs by starting over" is a fool's mission.

> Well that's not a very optimistic point of view.

Writing software for, er, 24 years now, will do that to ya.

Dave Hinz
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 8:27:22 PM

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

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:33:43 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>The obvious ones, sure. After which you're left with a collection of
>>subtle and esoteric bugs, much like civ3 probably has today.

(snip)

> But it will have bugs. I guarantee it.

Well, hello again, Paul. It's been years, how's it going?

Dave Hinz
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 11:02:04 PM

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

Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:33:43 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote:
>> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>>>The obvious ones, sure. After which you're left with a collection of
>>>subtle and esoteric bugs, much like civ3 probably has today.

>(snip)
>
>> But it will have bugs. I guarantee it.

>Well, hello again, Paul. It's been years, how's it going?

Pretty well. I've recently taken up Civ again and so I'm
now following the civ groups. I've been here a week or so.

I'm really interested in Civ4. Sounds like it might be
the right mixture between 2 and 3 with enough new added to
keep things interesting.

But I gather it is a year away and many things change
in a year...

---- Paul J. Gans
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 11:07:11 PM

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

Bad Bob <badbob@blueflintcat.nospamus> wrote:
>On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:33:43 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com>
>wrote:

>>>The obvious ones, sure. After which you're left with a collection of
>>>subtle and esoteric bugs, much like civ3 probably has today. I can see
>>>why they're doing it, don't get me wrong, but "reducing bugs by starting
>>>over" is a fool's mission.
>>
>>Depends. If version 1 was in assembler and version 2 in C++,
>>the latter will contain fewer bugs and be easier to maintain.
>>
>>Plus code tends to accumulate a lot of cruft as one has to
>>patch bugs and insert work-arounds. A clean start fixes that.
>>
>>And it is likely that the experience gained in three previous
>>versions (plus add-ons) will help craft a game that is more
>>logical from the programmer's point of view.
>>
>>But it will have bugs. I guarantee it.
>>
>> ----- Paul J. Gans

>If it wasn't for bugs we wouldn't have anything to talk about... :) 

:-)

Conclusion: since newsgroups are for talking, what they
talk about are bugs... ;-)

Some truth to that, isn't there?

---- Paul J. Gans
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 12:23:06 AM

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

Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in
news:31m7diF3dh5dsU2@individual.net:

> On 6 Dec 2004 22:06:46 GMT, Kevin 'Keeper' Foster
> <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote:
>> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in
>> news:31k2h8F3cn0iaU3@individual.net:
>
>>> The obvious ones, sure. After which you're left with a
>>> collection of subtle and esoteric bugs, much like civ3 probably
>>> has today. I can see why they're doing it, don't get me wrong,
>>> but "reducing bugs by starting over" is a fool's mission.
>
>> Well that's not a very optimistic point of view.
>
> Writing software for, er, 24 years now, will do that to ya.

Hasn't done it to me. I have a few years to catch up to you though.

--
ICQ: 8105495
AIM: KeeperGFA
EMail: thekeeper@canada.com
"If we did the things we are capable of,
we would astound ourselves." - Edison
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 1:58:04 AM

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

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 20:02:04 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>Well, hello again, Paul. It's been years, how's it going?
>
> Pretty well. I've recently taken up Civ again and so I'm
> now following the civ groups. I've been here a week or so.

I think we met previously in the medieval genealogy group, where
that pompous arrogant guy with the latin quotes hangs (hung?) out.

> I'm really interested in Civ4. Sounds like it might be
> the right mixture between 2 and 3 with enough new added to
> keep things interesting.

Either way, if it's as good or better than civ3, I'll spend a lot
of time on it. I've bought each civ game as it comes out - the
replayability is fascinating.
>
> But I gather it is a year away and many things change
> in a year...

In software projects? Naah, initial feature set is always adhered to,
no feature creep ever happens.

Dave Hinz
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 1:59:10 AM

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

On 7 Dec 2004 21:23:06 GMT, Kevin 'Keeper' Foster <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in
> news:31m7diF3dh5dsU2@individual.net:
>
>> On 6 Dec 2004 22:06:46 GMT, Kevin 'Keeper' Foster
>> <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Well that's not a very optimistic point of view.
>>
>> Writing software for, er, 24 years now, will do that to ya.
>
> Hasn't done it to me. I have a few years to catch up to you though.

....or, it could just be my natural inclination to be jaded and cynical.
Probably a bit of each driving the other.

Dave "That or that decade+ working for a mega-megacorp" Hinz
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 5:44:05 AM

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

Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 20:02:04 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote:
>> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Well, hello again, Paul. It's been years, how's it going?
>>
>> Pretty well. I've recently taken up Civ again and so I'm
>> now following the civ groups. I've been here a week or so.

>I think we met previously in the medieval genealogy group, where
>that pompous arrogant guy with the latin quotes hangs (hung?) out.

Yup. He's still around.

>> I'm really interested in Civ4. Sounds like it might be
>> the right mixture between 2 and 3 with enough new added to
>> keep things interesting.

>Either way, if it's as good or better than civ3, I'll spend a lot
>of time on it. I've bought each civ game as it comes out - the
>replayability is fascinating.
>>
>> But I gather it is a year away and many things change
>> in a year...

>In software projects? Naah, initial feature set is always adhered to,
>no feature creep ever happens.

<grin>

---- Paul J. Gans
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 6:52:08 PM

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

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 02:44:05 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>I think we met previously in the medieval genealogy group, where
>>that pompous arrogant guy with the latin quotes hangs (hung?) out.
>
> Yup. He's still around.

Lovely. Is he still morphing weekly to evade killfiles too? What a
waste of skin that guy is.

>>In software projects? Naah, initial feature set is always adhered to,
>>no feature creep ever happens.
>
><grin>

The thing is, more often than not, it's the developer's fault, because
they encourage/allow it to happen to them. Ah well...beats working, y'know?

Dave Hinz
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 8:37:05 PM

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

Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 02:44:05 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote:


>The thing is, more often than not, it's the developer's fault, because
>they encourage/allow it to happen to them. Ah well...beats working, y'know?

Yeah. But we've all seen unfinished games rushed to market
"before their time". That's understandable but sad.

I generally wait for it all to settle down before I adopt
a new game.

---- Paul J. Gans
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 1:15:11 PM

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

Actually, it's usually management's fault. Grunt level developers like
me aren't invited to meetings that decide when to set the deadlines for
entire phases nor what features get implemented in given phases.
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 10:42:55 PM

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

On 9 Dec 2004 10:15:11 -0800, joncnunn@yahoo.com <joncnunn@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Actually, it's usually management's fault. Grunt level developers like
> me aren't invited to meetings that decide when to set the deadlines for
> entire phases nor what features get implemented in given phases.

Yup, and they never tell the infrastructure guys what they'll need until
after they need it, either. And it's not just games development, by any
means.
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 10:23:10 PM

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

joncnunn@yahoo.com wrote:
>Actually, it's usually management's fault. Grunt level developers like
>me aren't invited to meetings that decide when to set the deadlines for
>entire phases nor what features get implemented in given phases.

Wot? You *can't* write an AI that beats people without cheating
in a week? Our game depends on that. Who hired this idiot anyway?

----- Paul J. Gans
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 11:17:36 PM

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

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:23:10 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote:
> joncnunn@yahoo.com wrote:
>>Actually, it's usually management's fault. Grunt level developers like
>>me aren't invited to meetings that decide when to set the deadlines for
>>entire phases nor what features get implemented in given phases.
>
> Wot? You *can't* write an AI that beats people without cheating
> in a week? Our game depends on that. Who hired this idiot anyway?

"Just start coding, we'll give you the requirements list next week".
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 5:20:23 AM

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

Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:23:10 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote:
>> joncnunn@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>Actually, it's usually management's fault. Grunt level developers like
>>>me aren't invited to meetings that decide when to set the deadlines for
>>>entire phases nor what features get implemented in given phases.
>>
>> Wot? You *can't* write an AI that beats people without cheating
>> in a week? Our game depends on that. Who hired this idiot anyway?

>"Just start coding, we'll give you the requirements list next week".

Gotcha! Been there, done that, even in my environment.

----- Paul J. Gans
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 12:53:04 AM

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

Kevin 'Keeper' Foster wrote:
> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in
> news:31e048F37obkbU4@individual.net:
>
> Colonization and the Civ series have always had squares. The only

> difference now is that they are turned 45 degrees.
> There was a debate in here before about hex maps in a CIV (C-IV)
> wishlist thread. I was surprised by the number of posts against it.

> But I think most people would come around once they played on a hex
> map.

On a side note, I'd like to see cities actually expand on the map and
take up as much space as they need to. IOW, right now Civ3 take up just
a 5x5 square for a city, and never any more than this. I'd like to see
a city actually continue to expand and eat up more of the map. This
could make it interesting in terms of possibly swallowing neighbouring
cities, yours or your opponents.

Dennis
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 5:19:54 PM

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

Dennis Snelgrove <snelgrov@computan.on.ca> wrote:

>Kevin 'Keeper' Foster wrote:
>> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in
>> news:31e048F37obkbU4@individual.net:
>>
>> Colonization and the Civ series have always had squares. The only

>> difference now is that they are turned 45 degrees.
>> There was a debate in here before about hex maps in a CIV (C-IV)
>> wishlist thread. I was surprised by the number of posts against it.

>> But I think most people would come around once they played on a hex
>> map.

>On a side note, I'd like to see cities actually expand on the map and
>take up as much space as they need to. IOW, right now Civ3 take up just
>a 5x5 square for a city, and never any more than this. I'd like to see
>a city actually continue to expand and eat up more of the map. This
>could make it interesting in terms of possibly swallowing neighbouring
>cities, yours or your opponents.

That's a good idea, but I suspect it is impractical.

The designers of the various Civs (and other similar games)
have the constant problem of trying to simulate some version
of reality in a small map space and limited computer power.

One major problem is that of scaling. If a map is 70 squares
long in one dimension and if we compare that to the earth,
then each square is about 350 miles long (taking equitorial
distances.) Clearly a 5x5 city is way too big... ;-)

The same scaling problems apply to movement and to battle
result computation.

Worse, each "unit" must represent some sort of army. An
"artillery" unit is not a single piece of ordnance, at least
I'd hope not.

In reality major units are not nearly this homogeneous. To
a degree that is modelled by giving artillery a defensive
factor and a movement factor.

All this has to be balanced against playability. For instance
in "reality" (whatever that is) one would have thousands of
bureaucrats (if not tens or hundreds of thousands) to manage
the "workers". You, the immortal ultimate ruler would only
have to issue general orders. But the AI isn't quite up to
that, so we have to micromanage to some degree.

I don't mean this as a criticism of any poster or their ideas.
I've got my own set of things I'd like to see done.

My solution when I play is to basically enter "game reality"
where I deal with a world similar to ours in some ways but
radically different in others. And I simply accept that for
what it is.

Including the cheating by the AI... ;-)

----- Paul J. Gans
December 14, 2004 12:35:57 AM

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

On 3 Dec 2004 21:37:05 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:

>> f.. Besides incorporating new technologies, the tech tree has been changed
>> to allow radically different research paths to the same high-level
>> technologies. Now you won’t have to follow a strict research path to be
>> competitive later in the game – a design that opens up a whole new world of
>> possibilities.
>
>I'm not sure I get this.

I think I understand (as much as understanding can be had without
seeing the game).

If you have looked at the different scenarios, you will see that they
have different tech trees. The 'radically different research paths'
may mean that Sid may have radically changed the trees. I can't guess
as to how. Have you seen Rise and Rule? It has 'radically different
research paths' as well.

Of course, there is the possibility that the difference may be civ
specific. That means that the Eastern nations may have a different
path than the Western nations. Therefore when you play different
nationalities, you may have different upgrade routes.

It will certainly be interesting to see the real answer.


Buck
--
For what it's worth.
December 14, 2004 12:43:16 AM

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

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 07:04:40 +0000, Daran <daranSPAMg@lineone.net>
wrote:

>> There was a debate in here before about hex maps in a CIV (C-IV)
>> wishlist thread. I was surprised by the number of posts against it.
>> But I think most people would come around once they played on a hex
>> map.
>
>Perhaps it should be an option.

and a programmer's nightmare.


>
>I'd like to see a geodesic map, which would most accurately model a globe.

That would be interesting. Especially if the poles are polar.


Buck
--
For what it's worth.
December 14, 2004 12:45:11 AM

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

On 5 Dec 2004 12:14:19 GMT, "Kevin 'Keeper' Foster"
<thekeeper@canada.com> wrote:

> So if you make a unit obsolete, it would no longer appear in
>city build queues.


Speaking of which, if any of you have played Call to Power, you will
be aware of how you can change the build que of many cities at once.
I would really love to see that as a new feature in 4.

Buck
--
For what it's worth.
December 14, 2004 12:49:10 AM

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

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 10:19:16 -0500, P12 <nowhere@all.com> wrote:

>On 5 Dec 2004 12:14:19 GMT, "Kevin 'Keeper' Foster"
><thekeeper@canada.com> wrote:
>
>> I would like to be able to make the decision as to what units are
>>obsolete. So if you make a unit obsolete, it would no longer appear in
>>city build queues. The reason I don't like the automatic obsolete
>>method currently used is that it obsoletes units when an upgrade for
>>the unit is available. This means that some units never become
>>obsolete (privateer, destroyer) and some units which are still worth
>>building become obsolete. For example, in the early game it is often
>>still worthwhile to build warriors (for police duty) after you have
>>iron working.
>
>I like to load up on pikeman before I get saltpeter. The musketman
>adds lttle value but costs twice as much.


I often select a strong city, delete the roads and build spearmen or
pikemen even after musketmen are available. It also has the added
advantage of being able to move them to another city and upgrade them
so they are built much quicker than could normally be built.
Buck
--
For what it's worth.
December 14, 2004 12:50:28 AM

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

On 12 Dec 2004 21:53:04 -0800, "Dennis Snelgrove"
<snelgrov@computan.on.ca> wrote:

>
>Kevin 'Keeper' Foster wrote:
>> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in
>> news:31e048F37obkbU4@individual.net:
>>
>> Colonization and the Civ series have always had squares. The only
>
>> difference now is that they are turned 45 degrees.
>> There was a debate in here before about hex maps in a CIV (C-IV)
>> wishlist thread. I was surprised by the number of posts against it.
>
>> But I think most people would come around once they played on a hex
>> map.
>
>On a side note, I'd like to see cities actually expand on the map and
>take up as much space as they need to. IOW, right now Civ3 take up just
>a 5x5 square for a city, and never any more than this. I'd like to see
>a city actually continue to expand and eat up more of the map. This
>could make it interesting in terms of possibly swallowing neighbouring
>cities, yours or your opponents.
>
>Dennis


What about trading FOOD between cities? Why shouldn't cities be able
to share food with each other. One city is packing more food than it
can eat and another can't feed four citizens. It isn't rite!

Buck
--
For what it's worth.
December 14, 2004 1:02:49 AM

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

On 12 Dec 2004 21:53:04 -0800, "Dennis Snelgrove"
<snelgrov@computan.on.ca> wrote:

>On a side note, I'd like to see cities actually expand on the map and
>take up as much space as they need to. IOW, right now Civ3 take up just
>a 5x5 square for a city, and never any more than this. I'd like to see
>a city actually continue to expand and eat up more of the map. This
>could make it interesting in terms of possibly swallowing neighbouring
>cities, yours or your opponents.
>
>Dennis


AAAAAIIIIII!!!! NO, NO, NO!!!

My dinky little 1.3GHz machine can't handle any more abuse from this
extra bloat!

It does sound interesting, but with Civ being as big a bloat as it
already is, I would hope they make it more friendly to smaller
computers. For example, the Gigantic map is very hard to play on some
of the best computers.

There comes a point, especially in some of the drawn out games I play,
that the time between turns is incredibly long. My friend just
purchased a new 3 GHz computer with 2 GB RAM and still has problems
being bogged down on long large-map games.

Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting they make it compatible to
486-25s, but I would hope they don't take up Microsoft's attitude of
"We'll make the software and the manufacture's computers will catch up
to us."

I wouldn't mind having a new computer each year, but that really isn't
practical for me. As it is, Civ3 Conquests and PhotoShop are the only
programs that tax this computer, with Civ being the biggest bear in
it.


Buck
--
For what it's worth.
December 14, 2004 1:06:06 AM

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

On 4 Dec 2004 10:04:08 -0800, joncnunn@yahoo.com (Jon Nunn) wrote:

>Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<31e048F37obkbU4@individual.net>...
>> On 4 Dec 2004 12:27:39 GMT, Kevin 'Keeper' Foster <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote:
>> > Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in
>> > news:31c4k1F39kbcaU2@individual.net:
>> >> Someone else wrote:
>>
>> >>> b.. Civ IV has been written entirely from scratch.
>> >> Um, OK?
>> >
>> > This is a good thing. It means the game will inherit no bugs, and
>> > it gives the designers a lot more room for new/different ideas.
>>
>> Yes, but speaking from direct personal experience, a total rewrite
>> just allows you to trade known bugs for new and interesting bugs.
>>
>
>Yes, but those new bugs are usually easier to track down and fix.


Maybe! However, it allows more newer features and if well designed,
the bugs will be easier to find as they don't have to figure out what
needs to be repaired, the old module called by the new one or the new
one to be compatible with the old one which has to be compatible to an
older one.
Buck
--
For what it's worth.
!