Appearance...

GaryGuanine · March 17, 2001, 14:58

I"m sure this has been mentioned, but I would like to see an option to change the look of the game. I preferred the way Civ1 looked to Civ2 (which I thought, and still think, was an ugly game), but I had to play with isometric brown instead of those neat little tiles. I want to play with the Civ1 look. It would be really easy to implement, I would imagine, and I would apreciate it.

Gary

tmarcl · March 20, 2001, 14:57

Agreed. I'd definitely like to see more options when it comes to the display. Maybe five or six different city screens to choose from, more than the standard four city types, and possibly even different unit styles (ie, if you choose Roman, all of your units are dressed in Roman style, American for American, etc).

Terrain would be difficult to choose styles for, though I suppose it could be done. Why you would want to, though, I don't know.

Marc

Sirotnikov · March 20, 2001, 20:24

huh?

why should your units look roman if they are chinese?
I agree that we should have general sets for a few main types (far east, classical, american etc) that should modernize with time to have two basic modern sets (what I call dictator look and modern look).
But having each civ with it's own units is too much IMO.

tmarcl · March 21, 2001, 01:55

quote:

Originally posted by Sirotnikov on 03-20-2001 07:24 PM
huh?

why should your units look roman if they are chinese?
I agree that we should have general sets for a few main types (far east, classical, american etc) that should modernize with time to have two basic modern sets (what I call dictator look and modern look).
But having each civ with it's own units is too much IMO.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying have each civ have it's own units, but more like your first sentence, have a choice in the beginning for how you want your units to look. It's the same as with the city styles in the beginning-you can have them look like the default, or have the Romans building Far East Pavillions.

Marc

GaryGuanine · March 21, 2001, 23:57

Although I also agree with the unit appearance things, I like the simple elegance of the Civ1 board. It's effectively the same as the diamonds, they each have 8 outlets, but I just think it looks nicer. I thought (and still think) that the Civ2 board is ugly. I love the game, and this will have no effect as to whether I play it or not, but I just like it more.

Gary

GaryGuanine · March 21, 2001, 23:58

Although in a perfect world, of course, Civ3 would be played on a globe. I bet you could do it without THAT much difficulty, and it would be the most realistic. Although I realize it only affects the end of the game, but I want to send bombers and nuclear weapons "over the top". That's how it'd work anyway.

Gary

airdrik · March 22, 2001, 01:33

Actually, he's not talkinig about having varying unit looks depending on civ (though I support that 100%), he is talking about being able to play on a map composed of squares rather than diamonds (or even hexagons and pentagons

).

airdrik · March 22, 2001, 14:00

How about, you can switch between squares, diamonds and hexagons and pentagons (for spherical maps) just by switching terrain.bmp files, or even set it up so that you can have a terrainSq.bmp (with square terrains), a terrainDi.bmp (w/ diamonds) and terrainSph.bmp (w/hexagons and pentag0ons for spherical maps) and in the game have an option to choose between them. Scenarios would automatically set which terrain set to use, so you don't end up with a spherical scenario on a square map.