First Screenshots: VIKINGS (probable), SPANISH, MONGOLS, Multiplayer

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by monkspider
Here's a new Paradigm for us to consider on the Conquistador/Knight question
Firaxis introduces a number of new units in the XP.
One of those new units is the Crusader, back from Civ 2. Fitting somewhere between knight and cavalry.
The Conquistador is a special version of the Crusader.

That's a good point. We have been looking at this as the UUs replace the units at the same point scientifically, perhaps the new ones will arrive at different junctures? If this were so, could the spainiards make knights and then crusaders, or would they have to wait for crusaders? I would hope the former, which would add a lot to the game, IMO. I personally have been annoyed at the gap between knights and Cavs, Spain can be played to fix that.

Interesting.

[kring]

Originally posted by Imp. Montezuma
2 Spiffor

"Represented in four eras, each Civilization features new units for even more strategic depth"

May be UUs for wich era. Four UUs for wich civ

That would be what people have wanted for a while now: since the UU's can unbalance the game if playing with early UU's: Jaguar Warriors for example.

[Alex]

Regarding that screenshot with Radar Towers and Airbases, I don't think we should consider it as depicting a real game. They probably cheated to put the improvements there, in order to see how they looked like or something like that.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Alexnm
Regarding that screenshot with Radar Towers and Airbases, I don't think we should consider it as depicting a real game. They probably cheated to put the improvements there, in order to see how they looked like or something like that.

On civfan, Mike (IIRC) said that they cheated (did you hear that Coracle!) to put the units in for the screenshots, so I'm sure they did the same with the radar and airbases.

[kring]

In a similar post at CivFanatics, they (Firaxis) admitted to cheating

Lots of cheating going on. Had a brutal deadline...

Here's the link:

Jeffrey Morris, Firaxian

Wow, posted almost the same time. LOL

[TechWins]

Wow, this looks great.

I think the boxes to check on the right side of the MP screen could be confirmation boxes. Such as that the gaem can't start until each box is checked by each player. This is useful because it makes sure each player got to pick the Civ they wanted. Then again I could be completely wrong.

About the UUs, remember a few things: 1) these could be preliminary numbers. 2) more regular units could have been added. 3) the old regular unit could have been changed. 4) the special abilities and costs for each unit. Granted anyone of these may not be the answer, but they are all likely of being the reason for the strange stats to the UUs.

Did anybody notice that it's going to be a Q4 release. This was the expected time frame, but an early fall (autumn) release in September or October was never ruled out.

[kring]

Probably in time for Christmas.

I would prefer they say Christmas, and deliver in Sept/Oct, then the other way round. I hope they take enough beta test time; I am willing to wait longer for that reason. Q4 could mean Oct, Nov or Dec, though.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by TechWins
Did anybody notice that it's going to be a Q4 release. This was the expected time frame, but an early fall (autumn) release in September or October was never ruled out.

yes want now! not in november or december. Though q4 covers oct, hope it is early

edit: duh, 12 divided by 4 is three, thus no sept in 4th quarter. My mind is really slowing down lately.

[kring]

What would be nice would be having an option for a male or female leaderhead for each civ: Napoleon or Joan for example. I know you can change your sex as it is now for leader purposes, but you would still have Joan's leaderhead if you chose male gender.

[asleepathewheel]

I would have to agree with Spankbot: not hitting enter does make a huge difference!

Wonder what this is in reference to, or are the guys at firaxis just screwing with us.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by kring
I know you can change your sex as it is now for leader purposes, but you would still have Joan's leaderhead if you chose male gender.

Does that make you feel uncomfortable kring? hehe. I agree that it would be great if we could be male or female, wish this was an option.

[TechWins]

Wonder what this is in reference to, or are the guys at firaxis just screwing with us.

If you look under 'Game Type' you'll notice that they are playing on the 'turnless' mode.

[kring]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


Does that make you feel uncomfortable kring? hehe. I agree that it would be great if we could be male or female, wish this was an option.

No, but it would make some people uncomfortable. An interesting another option would be to allow France Napoleon to fight France Joan.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by TechWins


If you look under 'Game Type' you'll notice that they are playing on the 'turnless' mode.

That's what I was thinking.

[TechWins]

I have a question, since there is a 'no goody huts' option does this mean that expansionists Civs have a different ability? Every expansionists Civ in the game that is playing under that rule will be under a huge disadvantage.

[kring]

Especially since that is one of the few advantages of an Expansionist civ, the goody hut bonus. It would also discourage building Scouts as well.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by TechWins
I have a question, since there is a 'no goody huts' option does this mean that expansionists Civs have a different ability? Every expansionists Civ in the game that is playing under that rule will be under a huge disadvantage.

great point. This would make the expansionist trait irrelevant (other than starting with pottery). A scout would be useful, I suppose, in finding your enemy, but IMO, the only reason to use, is to get the goods. Maybe there is something else to Expansionists now, hope. hope that my irq's wouldn't lose one of their traits.

But I do like the option. Now you can play with raging hordes and no huts. In SP as it is today, if you have barbs, you have to have huts, unless using the editor. A nice option to remove some of the randomness of MP. An early settler would quite often end the game.

[TechWins]

Especially since that is one of the few advantages of an Expansionist civ, the goody hut bonus. It would also discourage building Scouts as well.

Actually that is the only advantage it has outside of being able to build scouts. But like you said this will discourage buidling Scouts as well. Hopefully Firaxis realized this and thought of a different ability for exapsionist Civs. If they did, though, what would the new ability be?

EDIT: one other advantage is getting the free tech but every CSA gets a free tech

[monolith94]

Isabella has poor skin complexion, crossed eyes, and ridiculous eyebrows...

Ghengee looks like what i would expect the barbarian leader to look like. You'd think that he'd dress a little bit better than his cohorts...

[Spiffor]

Is there a goody hut parameter when you start a new game (haven't played lately) ? I don't think so. Maybe it's just bundled with the Barbarians. But expansionist is the worst trait anyhow.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Is there a goody hut parameter when you start a new game (haven't played lately) ? I don't think so. Maybe it's just bundled with the Barbarians. But expansionist is the worst trait anyhow.

Its with the barbarian option. the top option, I can;t remember what its called, removes both barbs and huts. The second option, what used to be the first, is just huts (and hut triggered barbs0

[Inverse Icarus]

i also see a patrol like button in this shot:

http://apolyton.net/civ3/images/view...Screenshot.jpg

and whats the sword? attack to?

[siredgar]

I'm pretty disappointed they went for the hwacha ("firecart") as the UU for the Koreans. Although I believe it was featured in Age of Empires II's expansion pack, I think the kobukson ("turtleboat") which was also in that game would have been a better choice and much more interesting to play.

Anyhow, I had my doubts, but I pretty much knew the Koreans were going to be in the expansion pack.

As for the rest of the list, Monkspider, it looks like my prediction was right. What do I win???

The Spanish, the Vikings, and the Mongols were givens. I'm not surprised they added the Carthaginians and the Celts either. It looks like the remaining spots will be filled by the Incans and the Ethiopians (possibly the Arabs or the Turks instead though).

[civman2000]

My idea:

At 4/2/2, they are an incrdibly dominating replacement of horsemen in the ancient age, truly unbeatable. However, in the middle ages, the also replace the knoight so the is a minor disadvantage of 1 defense point to make up for the hugeness of the advantage

[ScreamingViking]

Hooray!! Though I dont see the UU being called a Berserk. If I recall correctly, a Berserk is a group of Berserkers, just as a Legion is a group of Legionaries. Therefore, 'Berserker' is the name that would remain consistant with the scheme used so far.

I like the the Spanish Conquistador and Isabella, but I would lose the dog. To busy.

Brennus and the Celts? Yeah, sure, why not?

Ghengis and the Mongols. Good but ugly. They need to start making the horseback units look disinct.

Koreans? With a wheelbarrow launcher? Hell, at least it's unique. Let's not go the way of the Aztecs and use ridiculously long city names, though. However, they might not be in the XP. My theory is that the ridiculous wheelbarrow launcher is part of the Feudal Japan scenario, not a new Korean civ.

Carthaginians. YES! Let's distinquish the elephant unit, though, or find another altogether.

That would leave Inca (for the Americas), and Ottomans/Turks (for the middle-east), maybe another.

To bad, I was really looking forward to the Australian, Bolivian, Canadian, Cuban, Dutch, Ecuadorian, Flemish, Gallic, Irish, Laplander, Malian, Newfoundlander, Qatarian, Rastafarian, Siberian, Teuton, Welsh, and Zairian civs. S***.

[DrFell]

Originally posted by civman2000
My idea:

At 4/2/2, they are an incrdibly dominating replacement of horsemen in the ancient age, truly unbeatable. However, in the middle ages, the also replace the knoight so the is a minor disadvantage of 1 defense point to make up for the hugeness of the advantage

And/or, make them cost 40 shields so that although they might be great units, you can build less of them. I'd have liked to see perhaps a 3/1/3 unit though (to simulate the speed the Mongols conquered Asia).

[monkspider]

I totally agree with Kring that each civ deserves another leaderhead included in the XP. It seems unlikely that it will happen at this point, but we can always hope.
Egypt could get Ramses II, France could get Napoleon, Russia could get Vladimir Lenin, etc.
I really just want to see an animated Napoleon, darn it.

Although, on a bright note, with the addition of Isabella, my traditional vote for Elizabeth in all those Civ III beauty pageant polls may have to be changed.

[monkspider]

By the way, congratulations Sir Eddy!!!
I still say the last two are Arabs/Inca though :P

[Grrr]

BTW if Firaxis "cheated" to put the units and tile improvements on the map, does that mean we have a cheat menu or a SAV game scenario editor?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ACooper
Please excuse me if this is a stupid question but, why does the conquistador have a dog with it?

The guy that expored the Gulf Coast of the US and spread Small Pox to the Missippi Valley had war dogs and he used them on the Amerinds.