Thread Tools
Old April 29, 2000, 20:14   #1
DanQ
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Column #113; By Father Beast
In the 113th installment of The Column entitled "Civilization III: Wargame or Development", Father Beast comandeers be not a warmonger, but rather let peace lead you down a more enlightened path.

Comments/questions, as always, are welcomed.

----------------
Dan; Apolyton CS
 
Old April 29, 2000, 23:04   #2
The diplomat
King
 
The diplomat's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:19
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Terre Haute, IN USA
Posts: 1,285
Couldn't agree with you more!
Obviously, if you look at history, there has been a lot of wars. But I don't think that civ3 should just be about war. I am very encouraged that Sid said that civ3 will emphasize more on trade. I believe that civ3 is about developping your civilization over time toward greatness. So, Civ3 should put most of the focus on trade, culture, domestic politics, religion and diplomacy (there is so much unexplored potential in those areas. With an emphasis on the civ's cultures, religions and domestic politics, civ3 could really improve the atmosphere of the game and give the player a much deeper feel for his/her civ) . Like in History, whenever different civilizations clash and dissagree, there is a risk of war. So, there would still be plenty of opportunities for armed conflict. But civ3 is not a wargame. War should be a means not an end.

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.
[This message has been edited by The diplomat (edited April 29, 2000).]
The diplomat is offline  
Old April 30, 2000, 03:25   #3
raingoon
Prince
 
raingoon's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:19
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 500
Agreed -- whole heartedly.
raingoon is offline  
Old April 30, 2000, 09:10   #4
Atahualpa
Spanish CiversCivilization III PBEMPtWDG2 Latin Lovers
Emperor
 
Atahualpa's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: voice of reason
Posts: 4,092
I agree, but I dont share your fears. Sid mentioned that they will greatly improve Diplomacy and the fact, that minor nations are in, gives you also more peaceful/warful options.
I dont mind, if the game gets a bit more action, but I dont think this goes to far. I have confidence in Sid Meier, he is the man, who knows what to do!

ATa
Atahualpa is offline  
Old April 30, 2000, 11:42   #5
Jon Miller
staff
ApolyCon 06 ParticipantsCivilization III MultiplayerCivilization II MultiplayerRise of Nations MultiplayerPtWDG Vox ControliC4DG Vox
OTF Moderator
 
Jon Miller's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:19
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 13,063
agree on both counts, and I am afraid that firaxis will make it as foolish as ctp

Jon Miller
Jon Miller is offline  
Old May 2, 2000, 07:49   #6
Grier
Warlord
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: of Sheffield, England
Posts: 232
I agree. Most of my military action is defence of my borders until the final push at the end of the game. Although I disagree that the military side of the game is not important. Although civ is not a war game, a poor simulation of war will IMO make it a poor game. My moto would be "if you're going to include somthing, then do it well or dont do it at all". Personally I would perfer a comabt system such as the one in Imperialism, but thats just my preference.

So really I do agree that civ3 should not just be civ2 but with better comabat, instead it should also concentrate on other areas of the game.
Grier is offline  
Old May 3, 2000, 07:23   #7
Temudschin
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Stolberg, NRW, Germany
Posts: 7
Civilization III must have a improved diplomatic and religious system, but combat is very important, just look at the real history.

------------------
The ruler of the known world
Temudschin Dschingis Khan
Temudschin is offline  
Old May 3, 2000, 14:36   #8
general_charles
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Brussels Belgium
Posts: 60
This is a quote from one of my other messages:

"I do agree that the point of civ is not to make a realistic war game, there are other great games for this, but is it realistic to have military units the way they were, is it realistic that when you had 10 riflemen in one square and you get attacked by 1 musketeer that gets lucky and kills you, how can you say that it actually killed the nine others by doing nothing???
I think that an idea that was brought up and which consists on giving a goal to your army is quite good, for example, you are germany and you attack the russians, just say: "take Stalingrad", what else could Hitler do to make sure his troops did succeed???
However, to compensate this lack of control of your troops, you should be able to control how your troops get reinforcement, fuel, munitions, etc..."



------------------
-- Capitalism slaughterer --
general_charles 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 20:19.


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