The problem with this place.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

In programming, they might be 98% done, but the last bit is always the longest. It is the last chance to work out any problems and smooth out all the wrinkles - 100% done is elusive...

[Urban Ranger]

Fun. Hm, that's right, fun.

The problem is fun and realism are not mutually exclusive. Just because something is unrealistic doesn't mean it's fun For starters I don't consider pushing hordes of counters every turn my idea of fun. Firaxis should streamline management by using lots of different screens.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by dainbramaged13
we must eliminate ideas like hexes - while it may make more sense in every way, its just not CIV-ish! Do you know what i mean?

Hmm, now that is the sort of idea I like to challenge. Swapping between tiles and hexes does not impact on the "fun" of the game and keeping something "because it has always been done like that" breeds stagnation, not innovation. Accept or reject an idea on its merits without prejudging it.

Now about my "3D real time army based combat model with inbuilt air, artillery and naval support and time-lagged order resolution subgame" idea...

[rah]

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
The added bit that I find fun might annoy Rah. Anything that requires more attention or micromanagement will probably not be welcome by many players at all, even one like me.

Please don't get me wrong, I do like some of the micro stuff and the added realism. BUT I assume you've been reading through these threads, because I've seen quite a few of your posts. There is a lot of stuff that is way over the edge here. I don't want to take a year an a half to play a game. In fact I kinda liked that one Chapter Idea that would allow a snippet of the game to be used in MP so some type of conclusion could occur in one 5 to 6 hour session. (see, we all have some crazy ideas)

Even you have to admit that there are some real wacko ideas out here. I'm sure some people posted them as jokes.

RAH

[Ecthy]

what is mad?

[korn469]

M.A.D. is a cold war term that means mutually assured destruction, which basically means everyone dies in the event of a nuclear war

so yea i do think that we all kind of got carried away with how to implement nuclear weapons in the game but i think it boils down to this

Civ3 has to have ICBMs with infinate range, that can do massive damage to a city if not destroy it outright, and ICBMs have to have a target, once one ICBM gets launched they all hit their targets simultaneously (ie it's too late for diplomacy) and SDI has to be balanced accordingly so that it only increases the chance of surviving a nuclear war but doesnt make nuclear war obsolete

i admited that i got carried away, but i still think that MAD and nuclear war being a bad thing is good for Civ3

what it boils down to is that many of us would like to see one certain feature set in civ3 get a major improvement because that is our favorite part of the game, or when we come up with a good idea that we do not think how to seemlessly integrate that idea into the rest of the game...however we are not getting paid to do that, we are simply consumers voicing our opinions of how to improve our past time

and i always TRY to make my ideas simple and civish but things don't always work out that way and if you asked ten people from apolyton what makes civ great you'd probably get ten completely different answers

still i am truly hoping that civ3 has some form of MAD in it and that Civ2/SMAC nukes are dead and gone replaced with something better

(esp. from those in the crappy SMAC, CtP camp)

uh steve you do realize that SMAC is really just AlphaCiv don't you? i really don't see why so many civ2 players hate SMAC when basically it just a sci fi version of civ2...is it just the genre? i mean really what was it about the actual gameplay (no arguments that have anything to do with genre at all) that made it SO much worse than civ2??

i mean if you play civ2, SMAC, AOK, and Counter Strike i think you'll be able to figure out which two games are similar and which games aren't like them at all...i still feel that SMAC is superior to Civ2 gameplay wise but that SMAC could have have been better and that although it beats civ2 but not hands down

[KrazyHorse]

The real problem most people have with SMAC is the fact that the game loses its historical perspective. It's not as exciting to develop graviton drives as it is to discover flight, because we know intuitively how important flight is. SMAC tries to make up for this (and I think it succeeds) by providing an almost philosophical discussion about the social impacts of every discovery and improvement.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by rah

Even you have to admit that there are some real wacko ideas out here. I'm sure some people posted them as jokes.

RAH

Yes, I know what you mean! Altho I'm not sure they are all intended as jokes - some people sadly don't realize that their ideas simply are not possibly going to work in the game. O well, more fodder for civ banter...

[Steve Clark]

i really don't see why so many civ2 players hate SMAC when basically it just a sci fi version of civ2...is it just the genre? i mean really what was it about the actual gameplay (no arguments that have anything to do with genre at all) that made it SO much worse than civ2??

That's simple, korn. It's not just the genre (I personally hate anything sci-fi), but Factions. I did not and still do not like the idea of cultural factions to the degree that SMAC introduced.

[Darkknight]

Yeah!!! What I wanted to say but didn't know I wanted to say it for ages!!
For those of you who want to make a world simulator go and make your own game (it's simple! well... close to). Leave us fanatics to enjoy our daily (hourly...) dose of civ=)

[joseph1944]

Let me remind some of you, when Sid and company (Micro Prose)sat down to discussed the making of Civ 2, they talked about remaking Civ 1 or making SMAC. The final decision was of course to remake Civ 1 into Civ 2. I remember well, the magazine story about their decision. So SMAC is the Civs game that told the story of our Civilization after reaching AC.

[Kull]

Just so long as they keep "hard limits" to a minimum and give the scenario designers a powerful event language, I don't care what they do. If the game is easily "moddable", then whatever Sid forgets, one of us can add.

[dainbramaged13]

Originally posted by Grumbold


Hmm, now that is the sort of idea I like to challenge. Swapping between tiles and hexes does not impact on the "fun" of the game and keeping something "because it has always been done like that" breeds stagnation, not innovation. Accept or reject an idea on its merits without prejudging it.

Now about my "3D real time army based combat model with inbuilt air, artillery and naval support and time-lagged order resolution subgame" idea...

I knew this would bring some kind of protest... but i couldn't help starting the debate again, just because i am against hexes. I don't really know why, its true that they make more sense in every possible way. I just dont like the look of them on a civ graphics. Maybe i could live with them. i just dont know. I also think firaxis will never be bold enough to make hexes though, because although the majority of apolyton probably would support hexes, the civving public would probably be against them.

[Yog-Sothoth]

I think of the civ3 forum as a brainstorming session, where no idea is to stupid

It's just natural that for every good idea there is 20 not so good. And if just a couple of the good ideas gets into the game, this forum have been a success. I'm sure Sid don't implement something that detract from the fun, so I don't see any harm of "stupid" ideas, beside people getting irritated that is

[joseph1944]

I was at Software Etc. (Fairfield, CA) today (6/9/01) and ask them to look up Civ 3 for the hex of it. Their computer had it listed for Oct. 2001 release.