Length of turns

[kcbob]

Has anyone heard about (or can anyone from Firaxis comment on) the length of each turn in Civ III?

In Civ II at Deity level, the game starts at 50 years per turn, slows to 20, then 10, then 2, and finally 1 year per turn. I find myself wishing the early game would last longer because before I know it, it's 1500 AD. I don't think I'd like a 6000 turn game but something longer than 200+ turns would be nice.

[drake]

I dont have an exact number, but a deity game certainly has a lot more turns than 200

theres 170 alone between 1850-2020

[kcbob]

I don't think it switches to single year turns until around 1900.

[drake]

Yes I believe it does change to 1 year per turn at 1850......but only one way to find out

In any case, if you want a longer game, pace yourself! Take your time...stop to look at your civ and enjoy your nice work for once......

Civ is all about the journey, not the end....least it should be

[kcbob]

You're absolutely right... only one way to find out.

Now I can tell my wife I'm doing research tonight.

[Rosacrux]

So, the bottom line is that the turns are still the same (lame) as in Civ2?
If that is the fact, is there a way to stretch the game a bit in the earlier phases? Via editing tools, perhaps?
I have no Civ2 modification experience, so any advice would be welcome.

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by drake
I dont have an exact number, but a deity game certainly has a lot more turns than 200

theres 170 alone between 1850-2020

Turn 200 occurs in Year 1750 and turn 250 occurs in 1850 (at Emperor and Deity). For me, if a Civ2 game lasts beyond 250 turns, I consider that a failure.

The best scenario I have played was Kull's Seeds of Greatness where there were 200 turns before 1 ad (which was the end). The only way you can design a 'sweep of time' game where there will be those that wants the ancient age last longer or those that wants the modern age to be the focus is to balance it out like they have.

[Adagio]

I couldn't care less about if the turns gets slower at the earlier years, but what I would like to see is from 1950 (or little later) we begin on countring months, not nesesary one month at a time, but let's say 3 months, that would make the game more fun, atleast that's my oppinion

[The Andy-Man]

i think the game should last a bit longer in the early years (10yrs per turn).

i mean, once, i have only just discoroured the wheel and it was 1500....


but there should be more ancient units (nioce rusty ones) so we have more to play with early on.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
i mean, once, i have only just discoroured the wheel and it was 1500....

So your civ wasn't the sharpest pencil in the box, eh?



Seriously, though, in the Civ2 scenario editor you could alter the length of turns, so I don't see why that wouldn't be possible with the editor in Civ 3.

Cheers.

[The Rook]

Turn length was always a problem with me in the previous CIV games, and will probably be a problem with me in this one. In the war aspect, it was impossible to get a war over with in say 4 years like WWII. Just moving your troops into place took forever if there wasn't a railroad heading there. In reality, a ship could circle the earth in months. In Civ 2, it would take 10 years depending on the map. I agree that the time scale should be adjustable down to monthly increments.

[Steve Clark]

Huh??? You want 72,000 turns?!?!

Historical scenarios are designed for purpose of bringing you into that historical event or time period. Some scenarios have 1 turn = 1 day and while wars like WW2 seem to fit best at 1 turn = 1 month because of the inordinate length of time it takes to play one turn.

200-300 turns seem to be the best solution to have a game the last long enough to really get into but not too long that you give up (for me, that's about 25-30 hours).

Having said that, how would YOU divide up 6000 years (give or take a few hundred) to fit 200-300 turns?

[Cre8engr]

Hey, cool. There's someone else in here that's also from Colorado.

[TechWins]

Now I know this discussion is about time scale, but I would like to add that the game will not end until 2050. At least that is the impression I get from reading that all over previews.

If the editor is going to be as good as it is made out to be, then time scale will be editable. I know I will be one who will decrease the time increments for the ancient years. In doing this, though, I will create some more techs to counteract that move.

[kittenOFchaos]

Or simply increase the tech paradgim if you increase the number of turns -that requires massive amounts of playtesting...

I'll be so annoyed if in civ3 we have on diety level people completing all the tech by 1000 AD.

[kcbob]

As the sheriff in "Blazing Saddles" so beautifully put it... "Well raise my rent!" The game does go to single years in 1850! I should have know that.

As for editing the turn length, I knew that could be done but have never tried it. Maybe I should give that a go tonight.

[drake]

As punishment for being wrong, you need to go back to town and bring me a sh1t load of dimes

[Robert Plomp]

because discoveries were made much slower in the early part of humanity, that time 'flies'.

1 year turns in the early game could only be balanced if you would have big disadvantage on discoveries etc. (say every 80 turns or something) and units should move much slower and cities should grow much slower.

otherwise you'll find yourself to have 10 million people cities driving cars around 3500 BC

[kcbob]

Originally posted by drake
As punishment for being wrong, you need to go back to town and bring me a sh1t load of dimes

On my way...

[Adagio]

Originally posted by CyberShy
otherwise you'll find yourself to have 10 million people cities driving cars around 3500 BC

Cool, imagine what the people will be using when the date hits 1AD