I wanted to reply to Diablo's thread but since Diablo and KrazyHorse have to act like dumba**es I couldn't. Don't take offense to my comments Diablo and KrazyHorse, I'm just joking. So I just started it all over. I would like to have more turns in the early stages of the game but many things in the game would be distorted. Such as the techs, you would be discovering all of the techs ahead of their usual time. The size of your cities would be too big too fast. Discovery of the world also would occur too fast. Global warming could possibly occur as early as the 1800's. My point is more turns in the early ages would be nice but too much of the game would have to be changed. Any comments?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ancient Times
Collapse
X
-
Ancient Times
However, it is difficult to believe that 2 times 2 does not equal 4; does that make it true? On the other hand, is it really so difficult simply to accept everything that one has been brought up on and that has gradually struck deep roots – what is considered truth in the circle of moreover, really comforts and elevates man? Is that more difficult than to strike new paths, fighting the habitual, experiencing the insecurity of independence and the frequent wavering of one’s feelings and even one’s conscience, proceeding often without any consolation, but ever with the eternal goal of the true, the beautiful, and the good? - F.N.Tags: None
-
I know it's true that the early stages pass through very fast in Civ, but I think it was the easiest way for the designers to replicate what is an unavoidable conclusion in studying the past: the rate of change experienced by mankind in all areas of life is miniscule during the early historical era as compared to later periods. The life of a man in 1000 B.C. was very similar to the life of a man in 500 B.C. No one from 1500 A.D. would be able to adjust easily to today's lifestyle; the consequences of technological and social advances are staggering. We have to face the fact that everything went slower previously. If you're a "fun, not realism" sort of player, then bear in mind that Civ is an exponential game. The more you have, the more you can build. Early turns have to go by so fast because there is so little to do until you've built up sufficient infrastructure to get the industrial machine really rolling. The only thing I can suggest to put more emphasis on early stages is playing scenarios which are more limited in scope than 6000+ years.12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio Regum
-
I agree that there should be more going on in ancient times as it is that part of the game i most enjoy: you start with a city and must explore and expand gradually trying to grab useful land. You begin to meet new civilisations and there are early border disputes etc. This age would pass very quickly, but i think this might be on the change in civ3. With the introduction of resources there will be more diplomacy involved, and with a possibility of more civilisations per game.
I would be very interested if any other things have been introduced to make the start of the game more interesting (hint, hint FIRAXIS)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Grim Leaper
I agree that there should be more going on in ancient times as it is that part of the game i most enjoy: you start with a city and must explore and expand gradually trying to grab useful land
the cultivation of the land, and building an empre out of a few indivudal cities is what made it fun.
but in civ3, i suppose this will be different.
expansion will be hindered because of the whole "need to be on a road for lux" deal. so you cant just go and grab land. and if you dont have seafaring (or whatever the heck you need, firaxis never answered that) you cant build ports and hop on a new continent.
i'm actually a fan of micromanagement."I've lived too long with pain. I won't know who I am without it. We have to leave this place, I am almost happy here."
- Ender, from Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card
Comment
-
Somebody had a suggestion a while back (forgot who) about giving players a unit at start to explore with, in addition to their starting settlers. That could relieve some tedium, as at least the 1st several turns would allow for something being done.
I still support Grumbold's(?) idea of having the 1st 2 settlers create larger than size 1 cities at start, + having some structures built in (i.e., temple, marketplace, maybe granary). Hey, the capital starts with a palace, right? And you don't always have Masonry at start. But it would affect the later game dramatically, allowing earlier expansion.
Also civ1 had civ tech discovery rates halved after 1AD. Perhaps civ3 could do something like that, but in reverse...slower research in the beginning but accelerated after 1500 or 1750 or certain discoveries, like industrialization or university...dunno how I feel about this idea, but I thot I'd toss it out there...
i'm actually a fan of micromanagement.I'm consitently stupid- Japher
I think that opinion in the United States is decidedly different from the rest of the world because we have a free press -- by free, I mean a virgorously presented right wing point of view on the air and available to all.- Ned
Comment
Comment