first ptw screens: Hi-Res - Page 3

Panag · June 7, 2002, 13:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Nikolai
I loved Nappie in good, old days!

Other when he went to war on me

, and guess what, he often did...

When it comes to leaders of the civs, then I want the ones with big historical impact, and not some malplaced political correct lady.

No offence.

hi ,

"equal oppurtunity" , .........the woman want a job also , ...

beware of their rage , .....

have a nice day

Nikolai · June 7, 2002, 18:12

Just so it's clear: I have nothing against women as leaders, I think it's important, but in history games like Civ, we have to use the most important persons!

I love women!

Panag · June 7, 2002, 18:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Nikolai
Just so it's clear: I have nothing against women as leaders, I think it's important, but in history games like Civ, we have to use the most important persons!

I love women!

hi ,

we cant have them all , just like in real history we have to make certain choices , ....

have a nice day

Nikolai · June 7, 2002, 18:30

That's true.

Then we agree?

Panag · June 7, 2002, 18:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Nikolai
That's true.

Then we agree?

hi ,

yes and no , how does one "define" an important person to represent a nation , ..........

have a nice day

Nikolai · June 7, 2002, 18:36

That's a good question!

I don't thnik I'm the right person to answer that, but at least the person must have been in charge of the nation one time.

Not many women have been that, unfortunate IMO.

Panag · June 7, 2002, 18:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Nikolai
That's a good question!

I don't thnik I'm the right person to answer that, but at least the person must have been in charge of the nation one time.

Not many women have been that, unfortunate IMO.

hi ,

lets ask for vote's then , 4 out of 5 wins , ....

have a nice day

Nikolai · June 7, 2002, 18:45

Well, then I ask:

What is important when picking leaders to the civs?
Is it the fact that they have ruled the country,
that they have had huge importance for the country, no matter if they've ruled or not, or what?

Panag · June 7, 2002, 18:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Nikolai
Well, then I ask:

What is important when picking leaders to the civs?
Is it the fact that they have ruled the country,
that they have had huge importance for the country, no matter if they've ruled or not, or what?

hi ,

well there is the editor , and with that , everyone can decide for himself who he or she wants , ......

have a nice day

Gangerolf · June 9, 2002, 17:09

some comments to the last screenshot:

During the Viking age, Trondheim was known as Nidaros, Bergen as Bjoergvin and Copenhagen didn't even exist.
Either the Vikings should be called Scandinavians or Norsemen or Nordic or whatever, or the city names should be changed.

Jon Shafer · June 9, 2002, 17:46

People most likely want names they can relate to. I'm sure most people have heard of Trondheim, Stavanger, Bergen, Narvik, Tromso, etc.

Gangerolf · June 9, 2002, 19:20

Quote:

People most likely want names they can relate to. I'm sure most people have heard of Trondheim, Stavanger, Bergen, Narvik, Tromso, etc.

I don't think most people have heard of Isandhlwana, Tlacopan or Shuruppak. They're in the game..

It seems to me that Firaxis has just taken a heap of present-day Scandinavian cities and labeled them "Vikings". It's easy, but not necessarily correct.

Deathwalker · June 12, 2002, 08:09

Napoleon should have been leader of the French. It should not be about male of female leaders. It should be about people who reaaly lead the country and did a good job.
Also does anyone know when the next patch is comming out?

Radiation Zero · June 15, 2002, 07:09

I don't even think it comes down to who led the civ, I just think it matters who the most influential ones were.

Yes, Joan of Arc was a great General who beat back the English and who claimed to hear messenges from God, but Napoleon was a great General who ended up Emperor of France and carved out one of the most famous Empires in history.

Same with Russia. Sure Catherine was a good leader, and sure the Soviets weren't PC. But at its height, the Soviet Union was HUGE and basically the second most powerful nation in the world at the time, and not by too much.

Ancd yes, there's the editor. But the editor IMO is still pretty weak. I guess most of the problems lie in the way the engine is hard-coded, but still..
I hope the expansion gives the editor more punch.

kring · June 15, 2002, 13:13

The editor will get more punch in the next patch, this according to the last chats, both here and at CFC, as well as interviews and other E3 stuff.

Panag · June 15, 2002, 14:38

hi ,

maybe names should change with the change of an era , ....

have a nice day

Oerdin · June 15, 2002, 16:44

Quote:

Originally posted by panag
"equal oppurtunity" , .........the woman want a job also , ...

beware of their rage , .....

Equal oppurtunity does not guarantee equal results. Let everybody have a chance but also let those most suited get the job.

Panag · June 15, 2002, 16:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin

Equal oppurtunity does not guarantee equal results. Let everybody have a chance but also let those most suited get the job.

hi ,

equal oppurtunity , well if you give a 100 people , 50% woman , 50% men the same test , to become this or that , and you take the best , no matter what , things sort it's self out , .....

that is equal oppurtunity , .....

anyway , please lets stay on topic in this thread , ...

have a nice day

CivGeneral · June 24, 2002, 19:06

Quote:

It seems to me that Firaxis has just taken a heap of present-day Scandinavian cities and labeled them "Vikings". It's easy, but not necessarily correct. - Gangerolf

Possibly the Viking's cities would represent modern Norway, and other Scandinavian countries when they reach the industrial/modern era.

G(R)EEK · June 26, 2002, 13:10

Repeat after me:

MORE CIV IS GOOD!

more

for those people that brought us Civ3 is a GOOD thing. Just think of all the Mediocre games out ther you didn't buy because of Civ 3!

For that alone, they have both my thumbs up!

And another thing. Is it possible that the "frozen" landscape is seasons? Could this be?

Possibilities are endless, and I for one am glad we get to contribute!

Panag · June 26, 2002, 15:24

Quote:

Originally posted by G(R)EEK
Repeat after me:

MORE CIV IS GOOD!

more

for those people that brought us Civ3 is a GOOD thing. Just think of all the Mediocre games out ther you didn't buy because of Civ 3!

For that alone, they have both my thumbs up!

And another thing. Is it possible that the "frozen" landscape is seasons? Could this be?

Possibilities are endless, and I for one am glad we get to contribute!

hi ,

, more money could mean more options , now that is

have a nice day

JoeDaddy715 · June 29, 2002, 09:56

There will be no "historical accuracy" to be found in a civ game.... I hope they don't let stuff like this bog them down and slow up production. Who cares what the cities are named, odds are britan will build the pyramids. That's part of the fun. If you want historical accuracy, read books. You can change whatever you want in the editor. Firaxis, if you read this, name all the cities alpha through omega, and that'd be fine by me. ESPECIALLY if it means the next patch gets released a day sooner.... Heck, I usually rename my cities weird stuff anyway....

Panag · June 29, 2002, 12:31

Quote:

Originally posted by JoeDaddy715
There will be no "historical accuracy" to be found in a civ game.... I hope they don't let stuff like this bog them down and slow up production. Who cares what the cities are named, odds are britan will build the pyramids. That's part of the fun. If you want historical accuracy, read books. You can change whatever you want in the editor. Firaxis, if you read this, name all the cities alpha through omega, and that'd be fine by me. ESPECIALLY if it means the next patch gets released a day sooner.... Heck, I usually rename my cities weird stuff anyway....

hi ,

with the new editor coming , we can place stuff , so we can build this or that city , with this or that , ....

so , problem solved

have a nice day

ThePlagueRat · July 7, 2002, 23:27

Awesome... There is a Greataxe Berserker in the outskirts of my hometown! I'll just sit here waiting for him. Maybe he likes coffee?

GhengisFarb™ · July 8, 2002, 15:16

Quote from the 6th screenshot:

"Gimlet> lykes large werldz"

Gimlet can't spell......

Hope Gimlet isn't the Diplomacy.txt editor......

Artifex · July 9, 2002, 04:09

ahhh.. the mongols. Welcome back old friend. *sniff*

The Bloody Baro · July 9, 2002, 11:39

If you guys want REAL historical accuracy, then Carthage would need 400 pics cause the people in charge of Carthage were the Council of 400. So they just choose the most recognized and SINGLE most powerful person avaible.

Dimorier Maximus · July 9, 2002, 15:56

I want more screenshots.

Robber Baron · July 10, 2002, 11:50

Quote:

Originally posted by JoeDaddy715
Who cares what the cities are named, odds are britan will build the pyramids. That's part of the fun. If you want historical accuracy, read books. .... Heck, I usually rename my cities weird stuff anyway....

Do I smell a new thread opportunity?

El hidalgo · August 5, 2002, 03:27

This is what Britannica.com has to say about Brennus:

Quote:

according to tradition, the leader of the band of Gauls who captured Rome about 390 BC. Most scholars accept his historicity even though he is first mentioned by the Roman historian Livy (59 or 64 BC–AD 17) and not by earlier writers of comprehensive histories such as Polybius (2nd century BC).

Encyclopedia.com:

Quote:

He occupied Rome but failed to take the Capitol from Manlius (Marcus Manlius Capitolinus). According to legend, when the tribute that the Romans had agreed to pay was being weighed, a Roman complained, whereupon Brennus threw his sword on the scale, crying, "Vae victis!" [woe to the vanquished]. His historical existence is dubious.

So he may or may not be real, depending whom you believe. But at least he has a cool story.

There was a second Brennus, a little more pathetic (from Encylcopedia.com again):

Quote:

d. 279 BC, Gallic leader. He was in command of the band of Gauls (or Galatians) who invaded Greece in 279 BC At first halted at Thermopylae, he later turned and took the pass into Doris. He was wounded in an unsuccessful attack on Delphi and is supposed to have committed suicide on the northward retreat after the Gauls were attacked by the Thessalians.

Hopefully that's the Brennus I'll be playing against.

As for a leader of Carthage, how about Dido?

Another female leader no less!

(Maybe she never existed, but never mind.) Which means now we can assassinate Joan of Arc and install Napolean as rightful leader of the French.

Vive la revolution! I too hate the phony leaders picked for PC reasons

. But I don't mind Catherine the Great instead of Stalin (actually I prefer her, or Peter the Great). Basically any leader will do as long as he or she was really a leader and was important for some reason. It doesn't have to be the most important leader; that's debatable in many cases anyway.

Deserts are defined as areas with less than 10 inches of precipitation per year, whether that falls as rain or snow. And by the way Texas is not uniformly (or even mostly) a desert. It is desert in the far west (El Paso averages about 8") but not in the east (Houston gets more rain than Seattle; Dallas or San Antonio get more rain on average than London). Texas is hot, but heat is not the defining characteristic of desert; precipitation is. Same way the Amazon is not a desert.

Now for something on topic.. uh... the screen shots look great!