Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Civ3 Is filled with REAL history!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Civ3 Is filled with REAL history!

    You history fanatics may appreciate this. I just took this picture, it is pretty self-explanitory.
    Attached Files

  • #2
    Another one

    This is the other one I have.
    Attached Files

    Comment


    • #3
      Funny.

      Comment


      • #4
        stuff like that does add nice flavor to the game
        A proud citizen of the only convicted terrorist harboring nation!

        .13 posts per day, and proud of it!

        Comment


        • #5
          YEah, I love that being a history buff. However, it's a shame that you really can't NAME your treaties like The Treaty of Versialles, or the Locarno Pact, etc. Then they could mention that in diplomacy. Maybe a thing for a patch or an add on.

          Comment


          • #6
            "it's a shame that you really can't NAME your treaties like The Treaty of Versialles, or the Locarno Pact, etc"

            Wasn't that a feature in Civ 2 that whenever two AI civs signed an alliance a box popped up saying, for example, "Romans and Persians have signed the Rome Treaty to contain your aggresion", I think it just picked randomly one of the civs cities. This did add to the relaism of the game, I thought.

            I wonder why they changed that because I would imagine that they could have programmed the Civs to refer to specific treaties in this way during diplomacy.

            Does anyone else remember this from civ 2 or did I just imagine it?

            Comment


            • #7
              Yeah, that happened in civ2. Only with Pacts against you though, nothing else.

              Comment


              • #8
                Naming things like that is cool and fun, similar to the idea of being able to name Armies. Makes it feel more "real".
                Good = Love, Love = Good
                Evil = Hate, Hate = Evil

                Comment


                • #9
                  I brought up a similar idea...

                  ...about naming rivers, lakes, mountain ranges etc in my wishlist for Civ 4. I can't take credit for it, I got the idea from the PC version of SimCity 2000. Don't ask me why they dropped it from SimCity 3000.
                  MonsterMan's Mod: http://www.angelfire.com/amiga/civ3/

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: I brought up a similar idea...

                    Originally posted by MonsterMan
                    ...about naming rivers, lakes, mountain ranges etc in my wishlist for Civ 4. I can't take credit for it, I got the idea from the PC version of SimCity 2000. Don't ask me why they dropped it from SimCity 3000.
                    The ability to name landmarks was present in SMAC. Beside the Planet landmarks ("Great Dunes", "Uranium Flats"), you could name any terrain you wanted. Great feature, it would add even more flavor in Civ3.
                    I watched you fall. I think I pushed.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Now I ask myself, if these grand ideas existed in Sim City 2k and SMAC, why the hell aren't they in civ3? Sloppiness or what?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Sloppiness or what?
                        I think that this is certainly the reason behind it. Its not a challenging feature to implement I would imagine since its been in games for many years.

                        Oh, well, never mind...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by aahz_capone
                          Now I ask myself, if these grand ideas existed in Sim City 2k and SMAC, why the hell aren't they in civ3? Sloppiness or what?
                          The game was meant to be as simple and stipped down as possible. Everything you put in a game makes it bigger and slower.
                          Sorry....nothing to say!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Sorry, ACooper, I don't agree. I know that FIRAXIS didn't want the hard-to-follow sci-fi stuff in SMAC in civ3 because not everyone is into that, but I don't think simplification of a game makes it great or keeps the winning pattern that was founded in civ1.

                            A game can be immensly complex and still be fast, as SMAC has showed. What makes a winner is a game that starts simple and builds up to complex without you knowing it, essentially learning the ropes without even trying and suddenly realizing, "Hey! I know all this complex stuff and I didn't even try!"

                            The civ series has always had that, except I think that civ three falls short of the very last revelation because at one point you are building the UN and go, "What, that's it?"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Stripped down is supposed to be good? I just don't get it.

                              Who in the world ever actually wants something stripped down? The only reason to ever want that is because it makes things cost less money, since no one would pay full price for something stripped down (since it by definition has less value).

                              Civ3 however cost the standard price for a computer game...
                              Good = Love, Love = Good
                              Evil = Hate, Hate = Evil

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X