Thread Tools
Old September 25, 2001, 05:08   #31
Alexander's Horse
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Deity
 
Alexander's Horse's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: In a tunnel under the DMZ
Posts: 12,273
Quote:
Originally posted by Earthling7

- Roads are the most heavily defended structures during a war.
Should be - but why reward fools who don't?
__________________
Any views I may express here are personal and certainly do not in any way reflect the views of my employer.

Look, I just don't anymore, okay?
Alexander's Horse is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 05:17   #32
Tjoepie
Chieftain
 
Tjoepie's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Belgium
Posts: 75
I think Civ3-team decided to give us more choices in the way you want to play peacefull/warlike/combination and I see that as a big plus!
The best proof are all the different ways you can win the game!

I can't wait to play too ... I just hope I'll find it in Belgium (LE or not) not too long after the release in the US because I'll be biting my nails so hard my fingers my suffer too and if I read reports on how great it is ... oh well, maybe this forum will not host any US players the first few days...
__________________
Live long and prosper !
Tjoepie is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 05:27   #33
Alexander's Horse
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Deity
 
Alexander's Horse's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: In a tunnel under the DMZ
Posts: 12,273
Jesus wept
Quote:
Originally posted by Tjoepie

I think Civ3-team decided to give us more choices in the way you want to play peacefull/warlike/combination and I see that as a big plus!
The best proof are all the different ways you can win the game!
You're invincible optimism is REALLY starting to get on my nerves.

And can the rest of you shorten your posts? I couldn;t be bothered reading beyond about a paragraph, if that.
__________________
Any views I may express here are personal and certainly do not in any way reflect the views of my employer.

Look, I just don't anymore, okay?
Alexander's Horse is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 05:54   #34
Tjoepie
Chieftain
 
Tjoepie's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Belgium
Posts: 75
Thanks your kindness, I was just giving my thoughts!
Aren't this forums about expressing our ideas and thoughts?
Please don't start a thread if you don't care for other opignons!

By the way , I'm not saying I think civ3 will be perfect, far from it!
I'm actually very sceptic about some stuff like the AI, the new not using hostile roads( see my reply!), etc...

All I wanted to say is that I don't agree with your initial post of this thread saying that warmongers will probably not be able to play there style of game.

I hope this not too long for you ?!?
__________________
Live long and prosper !

Last edited by Tjoepie; September 25, 2001 at 06:22.
Tjoepie is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 06:10   #35
Father Beast
King
 
Father Beast's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: My head stuck permanently in my civ
Posts: 1,703
You know, I recall horse once saying "Civ2 is incredibly easy. anyone who can't immediately beat it on the highest difficulty level is a MORON."

See, his real complaint is that they will fix the problems (mainly ICS, the brainless easy win) that made it so easy to win in civ1/2. then he won't win immediately and will have to bow before the truly good players on this site.

somebody get horsie a hanky

(now horse will make some testosterone poisoned demand that if I'm so great, then play him an MP game. typical off the point argumnetim ad hominem)

personally I'm pleased that conquering the world is no longer the only way to win. now the warmongers will have to work for it. poor, poor horsie.
__________________
Any man can be a Father, but it takes someone special to be a BEAST

I was just about to point out that Horsie is simply making excuses in advance for why he will suck at Civ III...
...but Father Beast beat me to it! - Randomturn
Father Beast is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 06:29   #36
Provost Harrison
Apolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV PBEMPolyCast Team
Deity
 
Provost Harrison's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Germans own my soul.
Posts: 14,861
Quote:
Originally posted by monkspider
Wow, you're diety level! You are the only person I have ever seen anyone here to reach that level.
Give me a couple of weeks. Check out the post counts of Imran Siddiqui, Alexander's Horse, Mao, Ming and MarkG for the Deities of this place. I have over 9700 so I am not far short...
__________________
Speaking of Erith:

"It's not twinned with anywhere, but it does have a suicide pact with Dagenham" - Linda Smith
Provost Harrison is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 06:52   #37
Ozymandous
Prince
 
Ozymandous's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 507
Here have some cheese with your whine and spam.. Oops, based on your failure to acknowledge how the game has been balanced for both sides (see the "how the game was biased towards warmongers" reply), I see you already have cheese.

News flash, but the game has been designed (or attempted to by all accounts) to favor both sides in this, this is Civ THREE, not Civ 2.1. If you want an unrealistic game then stick to playing Civ2.

Quote:
Firstly, the ridiculous new rule that invaders cannot use roads. WTF?
Umm, railroads should never be able to be used for the movement bonus because they are easy to sabotage. Roads should be usable for 100% of their "normal" bonus in ancient times and as each era progresses they should be restricted more and more based on the owning Civ's tech. This gradual decrease of road movement bonus would represent the ability of a Civ to better coordinate guerilla fighters and other means (mines and other abstracted defenses) to slow down invaders.

Quote:
Secondly, you can't destroy spaceships after launch - that was always fun
Fun maybe, but realistic, no. Unless of course you have some sort of secret "spaceship killer" weapon or plane it is unrealistic to assume you will destroy a spaceship that has launched for an inter-stellar journey.

Quote:
Thirdly, the strongly rumored lack of multiplayer - what a joke
This has what to do with the game supposedly being 'too peaceful'?

Quote:
Fourthly, the use of culture to define borders, what are troops for?
Troops are to defend your cities and resources. Culture doesn't DEFEND your border, merely shows how large your area of influence is.

Quote:
Fifthly, that fact you MUST build improvements to expand your empire (tell that to the Mongols!), so much for ICS
No, you must build improvements to expand your cultural borders/influence. You can still expand by taking over foreign cities or founding your own cities, but cannot exert a "sphere of influence" unless you have a strong cultural foundation.

The Mongols didn't have much culture that I am aware of, rather they integrated other people's culture's into their empire. How long did the Mongol "empire" last once Ghengis died? A tad bit longer than Alexander's empire, but not nearly as long as the Roman empire did, even after Rome fell. This is what a strong cultural influence will do for your empire.

Ah, ICS... So sad, too bad that your broken game feature won't be as broken and unbalanced in this version of Civ3 (hopefully anyway). Maybe now you'll have to use a little more strategy instead of manipulating a flaw in the game design.

Quote:
Sixthly, the fact that some units, in fact mostly defenders, won't have a zone of control (tell that to the Spartans!)
Umm, the Spartans defended a mountain pass. I am sure if they "fix" Civ3 so that chariots, horse-drawn troops, and other units cannot pass over mountains and you put some defenders in a mountain pass you can achieve the same result.

If you could transport a troop transport helicopter and platoon of modern day troops to back when the Spartans defended that pass you'd see how little a ZOC the Spartans really had.

Last edited by Ozymandous; September 25, 2001 at 06:59.
Ozymandous is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 07:23   #38
randomturn
Prince
 
Local Time: 13:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: NYC US
Posts: 893
I was just about to point out that Horsie is simply making excuses in advance for why he will suck at Civ III...

...but Father Beast beat me to it!
randomturn is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 07:41   #39
Steve Clark
King
 
Steve Clark's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,555
I think Civ3 will offer much more strategies than Civ2. In Civ2, we have come up with four major strategies that can win every time (for ICS, OCC, Bloodlust and AC). I fully suspect that Civ3 will expand that list. But notice I didn't say "balanced". To say that Civ3 will be more balanced is a myth. There is no such thing as balance in playing a game. It comes down to the skill level of the player in relation to the AI or against other players.

If I want to whet my warmonger appetite in Civ, I'll just play one of those intense war-based custom scenarios. That far exceeds anything war-like that the regular game will offer. Thus another reason why I probably won't be playing the regular game very long.
Steve Clark is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 07:58   #40
Urban Ranger
NationStatesApolyton Storywriters' GuildNever Ending Stories
Deity
 
Urban Ranger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: The City State of Noosphere, CPA special envoy
Posts: 14,606
Quote:
Originally posted by Steve Clark
I think Civ3 will offer much more strategies than Civ2. In Civ2, we have come up with four major strategies that can win every time (for ICS, OCC, Bloodlust and AC). I fully suspect that Civ3 will expand that list. But notice I didn't say "balanced". To say that Civ3 will be more balanced is a myth. There is no such thing as balance in playing a game. It comes down to the skill level of the player in relation to the AI or against other players.


What is balanced to you?

To me, it means that between two player of similar skills, each has a 50% to win any given game. To put it in another way, if they play infinite number of games, each will win 50% of the time.
__________________
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
Urban Ranger is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 08:04   #41
redstar1
Civilization III PBEMCivilization III MultiplayerPtWDG LegolandCivilization III Democracy GameTrade Wars / BlackNova TradersInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamNationStates
Prince
 
redstar1's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland
Posts: 753
I think the use of 'balanced' here refers to the balance of warmongering with peaceful building. In previous civs the game is geared far more towards a military strategy. Hopefully in civ3 it will be more rewarding to follow a peaceful path than in previous civs. Of course, war should still be fun, and effective.

Dave
redstar1 is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 08:31   #42
DanS
Apolytoners Hall of FameApolyCon 06 Participants
Deity
 
DanS's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Not your daddy's Benjamins
Posts: 10,737
"Umm, railroads should never be able to be used for the movement bonus because they are easy to sabotage."

WRONG. Invading armies should still get 1/2 the movement bonus or whatever for railroads. Hasn't anybody heard of changing gauges?

Re MP, anybody who has been "schooled" by carnide or Xin Yu knows what AH is talking about. I'm sure Horse has taken advantage of this free "education" many times in the past.
__________________
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
DanS is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 09:00   #43
Pembleton
Prince
 
Local Time: 07:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Cyberspace
Posts: 590
Re: Jesus wept
Quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


You're invincible optimism is REALLY starting to get on my nerves.

And can the rest of you shorten your posts? I couldn;t be bothered reading beyond about a paragraph, if that.
Someone once pointed out his supposed superiority because he had more posts than me. Now I know for sure it doesn't mean anything since the people who post all the time just spam 2-3 sentence posts without much of anything of substance just to increase their post count.

Here's a second paragraph of which Alexander has stopped reading: Also, I don't care how long you've been here.

I've found that the most interesting, thoughtful, and insightful posts have been written by settlers and chieftains. Most of them I never see post again....

And about this topic, I will reserve judgement until after the game comes out. Besides, I was annoyed that a peaceful approach was almost impossible on the harder difficulties and I always had to expand (read: military) quickly to win.
Pembleton is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 09:35   #44
dennis580
Warlord
 
Local Time: 07:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 134
I think Uraban Ranger is right on the money. Realisticly it should be about impossible to conquer two-thirds of the world. So I'm all for not being able to use roads because it makes conqeuring harder.
dennis580 is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 10:02   #45
Tventano
Warlord
 
Tventano's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Enschede, The Netherlands
Posts: 177
In this thread I have seen lots of arguments why different play-styles get more abilities. That just sounds good to me, more possibilities, more complications and more risks.

Complaining is very easy. That is why people who complain a lot get a lot of posts. Why some people think that making more posts means having more knowledge is beyond me. It just means that they often post something, nothing more. Just for the fun of it, the maintainers of this website give us some "ranks", they do mean nothing, and you all know it.
Tventano is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 10:12   #46
TJW
Settler
 
Local Time: 13:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: The magical land of Akabaku Bu
Posts: 6
i actually think that the road rule is fine. The reason that the germans were able to utilize the french road network so effectively was that the french army was in disorder and retreating, while the british expedianary force was either in belgium or been evacuated.
In history, no empire has even come close to taking even half the world. the largest empire ever to exist, the british empire, only covered 1/3 of the world. From what i've heard, the new rules will make civ3 far more realistic.
TJW is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 10:15   #47
Triped
Warlord
 
Local Time: 08:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Caledonia, Illinois, USA
Posts: 225
Keep in mind, however, that games shouldn't necessarily be realistic. The emphasis on a game should be fun through good gameplay, and I'm sure some of you have run into realistic things that ended up just being annoying.
Triped is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 10:16   #48
seer_98
Chieftain
 
seer_98's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Danvers, MA, USA
Posts: 54
Re: Jesus wept
Quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


You're invincible optimism is REALLY starting to get on my nerves.

And can the rest of you shorten your posts? I couldn;t be bothered reading beyond about a paragraph, if that.
If it wasn't obvious from the first post (it really was), it should be obvious now. AH is just Trolling .
seer_98 is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 10:31   #49
TJW
Settler
 
Local Time: 13:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: The magical land of Akabaku Bu
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally posted by Triped
Keep in mind, however, that games shouldn't necessarily be realistic. The emphasis on a game should be fun through good gameplay, and I'm sure some of you have run into realistic things that ended up just being annoying.
Spose, but its also annoying when things happen that are so stupidly unrealistic its silly-like that mighty army of chariots conquering the world...
TJW is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 10:31   #50
Ozymandous
Prince
 
Ozymandous's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 507
Quote:
Originally posted by DanS

WRONG. Invading armies should still get 1/2 the movement bonus or whatever for railroads. Hasn't anybody heard of changing gauges?
Yes, I've heard of changing gauges, but it's not as easy to change gauge as it is to swap tires on a car as often a train is designed for rails X feet/meter's wide, etc.

While possible to adapt train engines to gauge may exist it is a slow process and trains, unlike trucks can't simply go across country if someone destroys their rails.

Cutting the rail bonus is only natural since trains are easy to delay or stop completely. Keeping a road bonus for rails is wrong also because riding beside a rail track is not the same as riding on a smooth road.

If Sid, et al wanted to be really realistic they would implement a turn wait period betwen the time a train is loaded, the time it can move something and the time to unload. Having been in the military and having to load trucks (not even as heavy or cumbersome as tanks) on a train took weeks just for a few vehicles (<100).
Ozymandous is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 10:37   #51
Earthling7
Mac
Prince
 
Earthling7's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: of pop
Posts: 735
Quote:
Originally posted by Triped
Keep in mind, however, that games shouldn't necessarily be realistic. The emphasis on a game should be fun through good gameplay, and I'm sure some of you have run into realistic things that ended up just being annoying.
I think the added realism in CivIII will add to the gameplay.
__________________
To be one with the Universe is to be very lonely - John Doe - Datalinks
Earthling7 is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 11:00   #52
Steve Clark
King
 
Steve Clark's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,555
Quote:
Originally posted by TJW


Spose, but its also annoying when things happen that are so stupidly unrealistic its silly-like that mighty army of chariots conquering the world...
You don't know your ancient history. Better yet, go play Kull's Seeds of Greatness scenario and you can see for yourself the power and mobility of the chariots in the ancient age.
Steve Clark is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 11:07   #53
Ralf
King
 
Ralf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,728
Quote:
Originally posted by Earthling7
- Roads are the most heavily defended structures during a war.
Well, if they are - surely an invader shouldnt be able to drive along them just as fast as they would have done in peace-time? Especially, if the surrounding area isnt conquered & secure yet.

Quote:
I can't really see an invading army taking the Intercity train, departing at 10:46 and the defenders just waiting nervously in the cities.
You (and others) totally miss the point. Its not that a dialog pops up saying; "sorry, you cant use it". You CAN infact move along freely on enemy-roads at any time. Its just that you get a temporarily reduced or nullified road-bonus until you have conquered the nearby city, that controls the surrounding nearby roads. And the latter symbolises that enemy "roads are the most heavily defended structures during a war".

I have all respect for "reduced, not neutralized"-arguments. But these "keep invasion road-moving just as fast and untroubled as in peacetime" arguments is just plain stupid.

Last edited by Ralf; September 25, 2001 at 11:45.
Ralf is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 11:08   #54
Triped
Warlord
 
Local Time: 08:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Caledonia, Illinois, USA
Posts: 225
Most of you are intelligent and rational people...you think that things should be realistic, and get frustrated when things aren't. The secret to enjoying a good game is to just understand how things work, and have fun
Triped is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 11:30   #55
jackshot
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 07:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 89
Just an aside, I always liked the destroy spaceship thing in Civ2. To win on *earth* a civ has to maintain contact with the spaceship to show its success to the other civs. Just sending up a spaceship and losing touch with it accomplishes nothing, even if that ship would make it somewhere Alpha Centari-style.

But more to the point, roads need their bonuses in Civ3 to keep them strategically important, as they should be.
__________________
"Is it sport? I think it is. And does affection breed it? I think it does. Is it frailty that so errs? It is so too." - Shakespeare, Othello IV,iii
jackshot is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 11:44   #56
Inverse Icarus
Emperor
 
Inverse Icarus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: flying too low to the ground
Posts: 4,625
ah, a fellow warmonger's thread of anger. mine got lost in the shuffle .

anyway i too believe that the game is completely slided toward the peaceful builders.

troops should be able to extend borders to a certain extent, if i have troops on your territory long enough i should be able to use that territory.
__________________
"I've lived too long with pain. I won't know who I am without it. We have to leave this place, I am almost happy here."
- Ender, from Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card
Inverse Icarus is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 11:44   #57
Ralf
King
 
Ralf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,728
Quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Secondly, you can't destroy spaceships after launch - that was always fun
So the travelling spaceship had a constantly unrolling umbilical cord, all the way back to earth, that the succesful HP-invader can cut of prematurely - leaving the AI-ship helpless halfway?

Anyway, you can STILL thwart spaceship-launcing civs, simply by reaching another victory-condition, before that spaceship has reach AC. Or by building a much faster spaceship.

Quote:
Thirdly, the strongly rumoured lack of multiplayer - what a joke
MP is not "lacking" - its temporarily postponed. Theres a difference. Its just a question of a few couple of months, for crying out load.

Quote:
Fourthly, the use of culture to define borders, what are troops for?
Cultural influence defines your borders - your troops make your neighbors respect these borders. Both are needed.

Quote:
Fifthly, that fact you MUST build improvements to expand your empire (tell that to the Mongols!), so much for ICS
No, thats wrong. You can establish cities without prioritizing improvements. Its just that you stand the risk of loosing your empire pretty fast, if everything must be dealt "by the horseback". Compare with Dhingis Khans shortlived empire.

Theres an historical expression, by the way:
you can conquer an empire by the horseback, but you cannot rule an empire by the horseback.

Quote:
Sixthly, the fact that some units, in fact mostly defenders, won't have a zone of control (tell that to the spartans!)
We dont know exactly how these ZOC-rules apply, yet. Personally, im 100% confident that the team knows what they doing.

Quote:
And stacked combat seems to be out as well
Wrong! Stacked combat is added. Maybe not exactly as you wanted it - but that another issue.

Last edited by Ralf; September 25, 2001 at 11:57.
Ralf is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 11:50   #58
Triped
Warlord
 
Local Time: 08:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Caledonia, Illinois, USA
Posts: 225
Civ question: Could the spaceship be shot down?
Triped is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 14:41   #59
shade
Civilization II Democracy Game
King
 
shade's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: of bribery.
Posts: 2,196
Quote:
Civ question: Could the spaceship be shot down?
yeah it would be nice if you could build a photon-cannon but you would have to shoot at least 4,3 years before arival and find someone with very good eyes(who could ame at the ship )

Shade
__________________
ex-president of Apolytonia former King of the Apolytonian Imperium
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." --Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)
shameless plug to my site:home of Civ:Imperia(WIP)
shade is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 14:44   #60
Steve Clark
King
 
Steve Clark's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,555
That's what we get for inviting SMAC players here.
Steve Clark is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:46.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team