August 18, 2000, 08:18
|
#1
|
Queen
Local Time: 01:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Netherlands, Embassy of the Iroquois Confederacy
Posts: 1,578
|
Buildings outside cities
I'd like to see more than forts and airbases. For instance: wall, port, launch platform, temple, sorcerer's tower, chemical plant, oil platform.
- Rib -
|
|
|
|
August 18, 2000, 11:39
|
#2
|
Emperor
Local Time: 19:26
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Glorious Land of Canada
Posts: 3,234
|
This could get a little complicated. For example, if you have an overabundance of these outside of city improvements, they will prove to be more of a hinderance (in terms of micromanagement) then an aid. Let them be built in cities I say, and merely appear on the map for aesthetic purposes.
|
|
|
|
August 18, 2000, 22:13
|
#3
|
King
Local Time: 10:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,728
|
I agree - just as when people suggested having weather simulation (I suggested that SMAC's cheap way of doing it was enough - heat wave in xxx causes +1 energy/turn) and settlements within city radii, I think these improvements should be used to decorate the map only (of course, without overcluttering it).
------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...
|
|
|
|
August 19, 2000, 17:38
|
#4
|
Local Time: 00:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Deity of Lists
Posts: 11,873
|
No, the improvements would clutter the map too much. It is hard enough to see even now with Farmland and Railroads and Fortresses on the land.
However if you just allow the building of a wall it would not be too bad. However the length of the wall and stats would have to be worked out.
|
|
|
|
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 20:26.
|
|