I got the Magazine! Preview, First Impressions, Screenshots forthcoming!

[Lung]

Whoops! I never played SMAC, but i do know that it came out first, so i stand corrected

[Imran Siddiqui]

quote: Ehm, there will be barbarian encampements, which is what accounts for the minor civs. Not exactly sufficient, is it?

Oh, I didn't know you worked at Firaxis... how come it doesn't say it under your name...

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 05-02-2001 02:44 AM Oh, I didn't know you worked at Firaxis... how come it doesn't say it under your name...

Well, you learn new things every day...

quote: Originally posted by Admiral PJ on 04-30-2001 02:31 PM NEW ARTICLE Today I got the latest PC Zone which has a Civ 3 preview article, its Top story.. It has a Screenshot i haven't seen before, with a cool looking aqueduct, and roads and houses in the same walled city Screen view as before.. it also has a lighthouse wonder and a tall temple and a roman like round colliseum. Maybe I should scan it in for you all to see? The article claims they have a working prototype version, and that they using a New Contoured Map system with heigh affecting artillery.. hopefully this means the final game will have round polygon SMAC like maps? Admiral Pete Emperor of the Potatoe

scan scan scan

[TechWins]

In SMAC when you used a planet buster (the same thing as a nuclear bomb) the rest of the factions ganged up on you. So I would imagine something like this will also be added in Civ III.

[TechWins]

In SMAC when you used a planet buster (the same thing as a nuclear bomb) the rest of the factions ganged up on you. So I would imagine something like this will also be added in Civ III.

[Admiral PJ]

Hey MarkG,
Thanks for the mention on the Main civ3 news site ;>
now I'm famous (no, get off me fans argg)

I'll scan the city view picture with the Cool aqueduct.. though the screenshot it may be around somewhere else, but my flatbed scanners pretty good so i'll show you a small version if i can on here.
Not sure how to put pictures on the forum, maybe I should email you it Mark?

oh and correct my spelling mistake, i meant to say height affects artilerry not heigh
though i did kind of read that into the article but i'm sure they'll use this combat strat. as its in SMAC

AdmiralPJ

Emperor of Babelfish Oceanus

[Admiral PJ]

http://www.pczone.co.uk/guest/php3/o....php3?id=33777

This has the whole story on pczones website,
AND all of its screenshots (except Queen Elizabeth I's head but thats on the civ3 site)
they are the ORIGINAL screenshots , not poor scans
and you can see the full aqueduct unlike in the clipped magazines version.

Admiral Pete

[Imran Siddiqui]

WOW! This is clearest look at Civ3 we've been able to see! Thanks to PCZone and you, AdmiralPJ.

I wrote up a News Article and gave you props in it... expect to see it today or tomarrow.

Thanks again!

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Guys,
I hope this thread is still being read, as I like to know some peoples opinions concerning the suggestions I sent to Firaxis about Stacked Combat (armies)
Firstly, I should say that I had hoped that combat would be resolved on a seperate Tactical Screen (Like Birth of the Federation). Where you could move your units around, set tactics for each unit and select targets for your units attacks. With that in mind, I believe that stacked combat CAN WORK, if it's done PROPERLY!! Here were some of my suggestions:

Fisrt of all I suggested that building stacks should be tied to an earlier advance than Nationalism-I suggested Warrior Code/Iron Working or even a new advance like "Mass Combat Tactics". Of course this suggestion depends on when Nationalism will be available (is it 18th-19th centurty nationalism, or the first appearence of the "Nation-State" to which they refer?)

My second, and most important suggestion, was that units in an army stack should fight individually and all at the same time-to give greater advantage to a numerically superior army! The way this could work is that, when you engage an enemy with a stack, both sides stacks split up on the screen into seperate units (arranged in a face off similar to that on a chess board). From here you click on each unit, choose a target for their attack, and select a basic order (see below). After you've finished selecting targets for all your units you press an attack button, and combat commences and continues until one force is destroyed, routed or retreats!

My third suggestion was to take range into account during combat. This would give modern units an advantage over melee units, as they'll get several shots off without fear of retaliation! Basically, when you engage an oponent, you will face off at a default "Range" based on terrain, unit ranges and how far units can see. If a unit is out of range it moves closer each combat "Round" until it can hit its opponent, or it is defeated/destroyed. This would mean that each unit would have to have a "Tactical" movement rate to represent its movement during combat.

I also suggested that you should be able to give your units basic "Orders" before a combat starts. This would be as simple as: Assault, Defend, Harass, Supression Fire, encircle, Entrench etc. Basically, once combat begins you can't change a units orders (unless you have a leader) except to order a retreat. I also felt that units (armies) should be able to violate orders and retreat if they are badly damaged or up against a superior force (ie. units should have morale, based on combat strength and experience!) Connected to this is my belief that it should be possible to rout units-when a unit reaches the Red hit point level, they automatically retreat, but can be attacked by enemies with ranged weapons as they flee (routed units cannot defend, as they are too busy getting away!)

I also felt that turns should be broken up into a seperate Move and Attack step: ie. everyone moves their units, then everyone conducts attacks. This would allow a player to bring an army back to a key location, if an army appears that he didn't see earlier (assuming he has enough Movement left!)
It also means that, if you launch a Nuclear Weapon(s), your opponent can launch any weapons he has before you resolve the attack (anyone for MAD?!)

Last of all, I believed that most land and some sea units should have a maximum "Range". This is the range they can go, unsupported, into enemy territory. In order to go further they must either capture an enemy city, or construct "Supply Depots" (which could be attacked or Raided by the Enemy!) I felt that this would stop an enemy from simply moveing in and taking your Capital.

Anyway, sorry for the length of the post. I hope to hear some suggestions (positive and Negative) sometime in the near future.

The Aussie Lurker