800-1000 turns in CTP-2 (confirmed). What about CIV-3?

[Ralf]

Check out this thread at the CTP-2 section, then return here to discuss how it should be in Civ-3.
http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum35/HTML/000294.html?17

If i remember correctly SMAC had 500 turns. In Civ-3 i would like to see 600-800 turns, or even 800-1000! Advantages and disadvantages? Give us your viewpoint together with some few words explaining *why*?

MarkG or Yin26! Why not arrange a Civ-3 poll about this?

[Builder]

I dont think they should do major changes on this issue.

[Dom Pedro II]

I think the real question is whether you personally want to play a long-term game that may take a week to play and you can become familiar with the story, or do you prefer playing many quick games that your done with in a few hours of play and you can move onto the next one. I would like a nice long game.

the thing is that ctp2 could offer the ability for even less micromanagment which means less time per turn. so 800 turns in ctp2 might not be much more than 500 turns in civ2 or smac...

[DrFell]

personally i like the way things are on civ2 at the moment. i like the number of turns/timescale how they are and i dont think they should make any changes, unless its optional and not standard.

a civ3 poll is certainly a good idea, but i think it would be more interesting if it was after the release of ctp2, thus including the "ctp2 experience"....

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by MarkG on 11-04-2000 12:07 PM a civ3 poll is certainly a good idea, but i think it would be more interesting if it was after the release of ctp2, thus including the "ctp2 experience"....

Come to think of it, i agree. I was perhaps too early out with this one. Dont forget it however.

[MidKnight Lament]

Increased turns is going to mean that a whole lot of units which otherwise never get used (because they are outdated too quickly) will be worthwhile building. I think more turns is a great idea.

Mind you, I only think so because CTP took out the tiresome task of moving settlers around the map to terraform. If Civ3 doesn't change in this regard (and other micromamangement issues), it would never work. I'd hate to be moving settlers around for 1000 turns.

------------------
- MKL
"And of course Henry The Horse dances the waltz!"
Shameless Plug: http://www.poetic-license.org .............All welcome.

[Tical_2000]

More turns is a must. In Civ2, the ancient and dark ages were over in like half an hour. Has anyone out there had enough time to build a medieval navy with the Frigate/Galleon units? I know I haven't because its just not worth the effort with the small amount of time in those ages. By the time I discover magnetism (in Civ2) I'm only turns away from discovering industrialization.

[Ubersandwich]

I agree, as a matter of fact, I just skip magnetism and go straight for stream engine, thus I rarely use frigates... it would be nice if each "age" lasted long enough to fully utilize the units and carry out a mideval campaign (or even an extended renaissance-"age of exploration") before marching into the modern era.

[Tiberius]

I agree too. In the ancient ages time passes too quickly. So if the majority of the plus turns won't be in the modern ages but in the old ones, then I'm for more turns.

[yin26]

Ralf,

Markos is the go-to guy on polls. Personally, I think number of turns should be an option. It would be great to be able to slide-scale adjust the number of turns in each age. I'm not sure what broader implications that would have for game balance, but to simply add a number of turns without any corresponding challenge could be meaningless.

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 11-08-2000 05:54 AM It would be great to be able to slide-scale adjust the number of turns in each age. I'm not sure what broader implications that would have for game balance, but to simply add a number of turns without any corresponding challenge could be meaningless.

it's doable(in ctp2) via a text file....

[Grrr]

Sorry to dig up old bones, but I think this is about one of the five most important things to be discussed. The amount of turns needs to go up, especially if there are to be more civs and larger maps. I should say about 1500 turns for a map of 300x200 (a good size for larger amounts of civs). There should be about 1000 turns for a normal map, and 750 for a small map. Late Ancient Advances shouldn't be so easy to come by (eg take 2x as long to reasearch after 1000BC), as this will make it worth building ancient weapons. I have found this especially so in Civ CTP that really the whole ancient age can be omited, as you are in the Renaissance before any opponents find you.

[Grumbold]

Playing CtP2 I have mixed feelings about the more turns/less micromanagement issue. You certainly get to utilise each government form and each new period of units far more. This was refreshing. Unfortunately with a finite limit to expansion making continual conquest impractical and undesirable, many ages went past as an endless series of 'move explorer, twiddle city specialists and end turn' moves. The minute a new advanced government is discovered there is a brief expansionist period to take or found extra cities then rest. With more aggressive AI you might be fighting more, but expansion would still be pointless and combat is in danger of becoming tedious.

If Civ 3 can fill these spaces with occasional internal events (so managing your empire is more than just queueing builds and monitoring city happiness levels) then that will be just fine. There certainly needs to be a greater interval between military tech discoveries than it takes for a comfortably sized city to upgrade its units otherwise the pikemen in the 20th century problem will continue. If the number of turns is kept tight to keep the pace of the game ticking over then unit upgrades needd to be quick and convenient even without Leonardo.