Which Aspect of Improvement Is Most Crucial? - Page 2

Jordal · June 29, 2000, 11:24

Grier,
I agree with you on the trade issue. But the civII style of trading was so clumsy. I liked the CTP style of trading much better.

UltraSonix · June 29, 2000, 19:08

I agree that Civ2's trading was dumb, but I haven't played CTP - I'm hard core Sid Meire - so could you please enlighten me on CTP's trading methods?

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

Tiberius · June 30, 2000, 00:20

Markos, I made a mistake while voting, please help me!

I wanted to vote trade, but accidentally I pressed the "vote" button without actually selecting anything! So I guess I sent an empty vote, because trade has 2 votes, just like before my "vote". And of course I can't vote again.

Can you change my vote, please?

Grier · June 30, 2000, 03:39

In CTP when you built a caravan instead of having to move the unit to a target city, an internal trade route could be created automatically and a foreign one if any foreign goods are available. From that point on the trade route was represented by a solid line which could be pirated by another civ (with a random chance of the caravan being destroyed).

I agree that the CTP way is better than civ2 (though by no means perfect).

Urban Ranger · June 30, 2000, 04:31

There's only one minor problem with that: you can't use caravans to help building wonders anymore.

Urban Ranger · June 30, 2000, 04:34

quote:

Originally posted by UltraSonix on 06-28-2000 01:51 AM
The idea of a civ-centric style is good, but I not sure the civ3 needs to change a winning formula...

I am not so sure. I think SMACX (maybe CtP or ToT) has stretched the original design to its limits. Right now most of the improvement suggestions I have seen, while good, fail to correct some fundamental weaknesses. Some, such as having a separate screen for espionage, calls for this sort of fundamental redesign.

[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited June 30, 2000).]

Father Beast · July 12, 2000, 23:03

Urban Ranger,
I think the valid username business has to do with capitalization. it gave me the same hassle.

I like the idea of changing to macro management once you have built up some. It probably should be tied to change in government. as a despot, you tell your people what to build, under a democracy, economic pressure determines improvements with the leader making "suggestions".

but back to the topic of this thread.
CUSTOMIZABILITY. and that includes the AI!
I also wanted 3 choices, which would have made the other 2 ai and diplomacy.

Youngsun · July 13, 2000, 02:23

AI: doesn't have to be so smart. just no more stupid mistakes.

Diplomacy:hate AI gang up! AI controlled civs need right behavior based on how powerful they are.

Military:No more units. we need division/regiment and such along with workshop.

Trade:should be vital element of the game.

If there is no significant improvement on these aspects of the game I will never buy CivIII.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited July 13, 2000).]

Deathwalker · July 13, 2000, 08:04

Just a quick point, I think Diplomacy needs to be greatley improved. To give a better feel and Combat needs to be improved.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

UltraSonix · July 16, 2000, 06:26

Was just thinking to improve diplomacy, is it really neccessary to make the AI good at it. The programmers could be cheap and make negociations complex, but the computer'll always have a set bunch of rules for each civ. eg for a set level of difficulty or higher it'll never give away towns/tribute, make peace, or swap techs. This way multiplay can have the extra diplomacy features, and in singleplay the computer'll never do anything even remotely complex, so it can't stuff up.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

UltraSonix · October 21, 2000, 18:55

I'm bumping this thread 'cause there's probably many newbies here who hasn't seen this thread.

In case anyone doesn't know, the poll above is also on the civ3 main page.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...
[This message has been edited by UltraSonix (edited October 21, 2000).]

Tim White · October 22, 2000, 20:04

I would have to say...All of them!!! But the most, hmmm, this is hard, probably military matters, mostly units and stuff.

Matthew · October 22, 2000, 21:36

quote:

Originally posted by Jordal on 06-29-2000 11:24 AM
Grier,
I agree with you on the trade issue. But the civII style of trading was so clumsy. I liked the CTP style of trading much better.

CAMEL HATER !!!!!!

In CtP and SMAC, trade is pretty much relegated to an "oh yeah, that to" part of the game. In the modern world, trade and economics in general is not an "oh yeah, that too" kind of a thing. The greatest powers on Earth right now have not gone to war with each other in almost half a century, and it is concievable that they never will again. But what makes these nations live and breathe, and keeps them as great powers, is economics, and trade is an essential part of this.

I agree that the Camels should be a bit brighter perhaps, or just a bit better trained. You should be able to click on one, and he should tell you what city you originally sent him to, if that city still demands that commodity, and which cities still demand that commodity. This is a lot easier than going to some trade screen every turn to figure out where your camels are all going. But do not kill the poor little Camel.

If some people hate the bother of moving these precious beasts around so much, then perhaps they should have an alternative, CtP option, without the management problems, but also without the 600 gold and science bonus as well.

In these enlightened times it is disturbing that some would still call for Camelid genocide.

Victory options other than AC and total conquest would be nice too.

DarkCloud · October 23, 2000, 00:36

Oh, I remember this poll, but not the thread, It's ancient and appeared about the same time I did.

Found Apolyton by March 20th 2000
Browsed the boards by July 25th 2000
On the boards by July 28th 2000

Tim White · October 23, 2000, 16:55

quote:

Originally posted by MarkG on 06-27-2000 06:59 PM
and the thread became a poll for one more time

NOTE: WE NOW USE A NEW SCRIPT, YOU HAVE TO BE REGISTERED ON THE FORUMS TO VOTE.

....

Just one vote, hmmm, I feel like you are Hitler, That I can only vote for one thing!!!

from MarkG: some people make the worst comparisons...
[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited October 30, 2000).]

Everyman · October 23, 2000, 18:06

I voted for Micromanagement but what I really wanted to vote for was "Interface" I generally like Civ II the way it is but here are a few problems I have with the interface:

1. Units take a long time to manuever from one end of the map to the other, especially after railroads. A GoTo command that works would really help.

2. It's hard to keep track of your cities and their resources. A more convenient way of accessing the city screens would be appreciated.

3. The graphics get pretty fuzzy when you zoom out.

4. I'd like to be able to see an outline of the city area before I build the city.

October 30, 2000, 17:54

final results

Civ3: Which Aspect of Improvement Is Most Crucial?
Option	Votes / Percentage
AI	123 / 33%
Customisability	44 / 12%
Diplomacy	39 / 10%
End game	7 / 1%
Gameplay	21 / 5%
Government Model	7 / 1%
Graphics Engine (3d)	7 / 1%
Historical Accuracy/Realism	22 / 6%
How much the game costs...	1 / 0%
Map/Terrain	5 / 1%
Micromanagement	14 / 3%
Militaristic matters	18 / 4%
Multimedia	1 / 0%
Scenarios	13 / 3%
Tech Tree	6 / 1%
Trade/Economics	18 / 4%
Transportation	1 / 0%
Types and number of Civs	14 / 3%
Wonders	1 / 0%
Total Votes: 362