December 1, 2001, 20:16
|
#1
|
|
Warlord
Local Time: 12:50
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 184
|
Future Era
One of the things I think would have or could have been improved on CIV2 that would have made more of an impact for CIV3 would be to have added a whole new future era. New techs could have been put in, new improvements, new wonders, new units etc. Oh wel, maybe CIV4
|
|
|
|
|
December 1, 2001, 20:38
|
#2
|
|
Emperor
Local Time: 09:50
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: I live amongst the Red Sox Nation
Posts: 7,969
|
they did this with TOT and CTP....it starts getting a little futuristic.... and all the sudden you have robots and such....were not at that era just yet in real life so its silly to put it in a civ game...
but new techs and improvements would be kewl
__________________
Boston Red Sox are 2004 World Series Champions!
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 1, 2001, 23:31
|
#3
|
|
Chieftain
Local Time: 03:50
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: HK
Posts: 46
|
Re: Future Era
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by The Rook
One of the things I think would have or could have been improved on CIV2 that would have made more of an impact for CIV3 would be to have added a whole new future era. New techs could have been put in, new improvements, new wonders, new units etc. Oh wel, maybe CIV4
|
Perhaps you would like to have a game of SMAC?? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 2, 2001, 09:17
|
#4
|
|
Warlord
Local Time: 12:50
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 184
|
I don't think it's "silly" just because we have not reached that age yet. I just like the opportunity to take a Civ from the stone age to the present, and beyond.
I never played SMAC, for some reason, it just never appealed to me. I prefer to have a single fluid game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 2, 2001, 09:53
|
#5
|
|
Prince
Local Time: 17:50
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Heraklion, Crete , Greece
Posts: 418
|
I really liked that era in CTP games but I am not sure if it is very good conserning playbility.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 2, 2001, 10:43
|
#6
|
|
Warlord
Local Time: 17:50
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: a field
Posts: 183
|
ToT wasnt too bad.
I did Like the two different simultaneous maps though, even if they where pointless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 2, 2001, 11:42
|
#7
|
|
King
Local Time: 19:50
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: of genial epicuri
Posts: 1,570
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Tilemacho
I really liked that era in CTP games but I am not sure if it is very good conserning playbility.....
|
Telemachus, I liked that era too and I just can't think why it wouldn't be good conserning playability. I mean mechas and such, it would have been great to see firaxis vision of things to come..
__________________
Que l’Univers n’est qu’un défaut dans la pureté de Non-être.
- Paul Valery
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 2, 2001, 12:50
|
#8
|
|
Settler
Local Time: 17:50
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 16
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by The Rook
I don't think it's "silly" just because we have not reached that age yet. I just like the opportunity to take a Civ from the stone age to the present, and beyond.
I never played SMAC, for some reason, it just never appealed to me. I prefer to have a single fluid game.
|
You should try to overlook the setting and play it anyhow. SMAC is a really good game, much more complex and interesting than Civ III in a lot of ways...
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 13:50.
|
|
