Tweet
The Morris interview was great to see, more for the promise it presents of future interviews and more information.
He did let a little bit out of the bag though. Apparently having a large, aggressive civilization is not compatible with having a highly cultured one.
Doesn't make a lot of historical sense, of course. France had cathedrals coming out the wazoo and Napoleon still managed to conquer most of Europe. Germany produced Bach, Beethoven, Kant, and still ran over Europe with Hitler's Wehrmacht. The United States dominates world culture with it's movies and TV but still manages to support one of the largest and most powerful military forces the world has ever seen.
But Civ is rather silly when it comes right down to it. No civilization has actuallly lasted from 6000 BC to the present, much less established dominance by expanding quicker than the Egyptians and Babylonians 6000 years ago.
Anyway, it'll provide some new ways to play. I've noticed that most of the screenshots for the game show countries running a national deficit. Almost all of them have a negative cash flow, which makes me wonder about how hard it will be to manage a Civ III economy.
Obviously the player and the computer will not be able to just churn out units. In Civ II the computer literally blankets the map with troops. This doesn't look like it will be possible in Civ III.
This may be one of the areas they are still trying to balance. Limitations on computer troops could put a big cog in the AI's routines: fewer troops means the computer will have to place it's forces more intelligently to block the player, which means the AI will have to be more sophisticated.
Either that, or the AI is going to have circles run around its armies.
He did say that Wonders that alleviate the cost of maintenance become critical in the game, however. I thought this was rather interesting: economic survival is dependent upon wonders. How will this work in multiplayer? Probably miniwonders will play a roll here---one for everyone. Obviously the economy is going to be much more stretched than in Civ II. Even with tons of trade routes and pumping out caravan after caravan I found it very easy to go through cash.
With new cities requiring two pop points each, I gather that the overall effect will be smaller civilizations. Never played Alpha Centauri which apparently(?) does the same. A stressed economy is going to make it harder to expand as well. You need buildings to pacify the populace and troops to keep'em in line, and both cost money, which (from the screenshots) no one seems to have in any abundance.
Just who sets the rates for these resources? Aren't there any computer Rockefellers on the AI's team?
And I'm still perplexed by the Russian special unit being the MiG. Is this confirmed? It just doesn't make any sense. With the Americans having the F-15, why wouldn't everyone else have a generic fighter? It's not like the MiG is better than French, German, or British fighter aircraft. Why have 3 versions of modern fighters?
And is George Bush's Space Bomber going to be in? I want to name mine 'Bubba.'
Phutnote
PS. This is an amazing site. I don't think I've made this observation before, but Markos, you've done an incredible job with this as an information source and keep it well regulated. Bravo!
He did let a little bit out of the bag though. Apparently having a large, aggressive civilization is not compatible with having a highly cultured one.
Doesn't make a lot of historical sense, of course. France had cathedrals coming out the wazoo and Napoleon still managed to conquer most of Europe. Germany produced Bach, Beethoven, Kant, and still ran over Europe with Hitler's Wehrmacht. The United States dominates world culture with it's movies and TV but still manages to support one of the largest and most powerful military forces the world has ever seen.
But Civ is rather silly when it comes right down to it. No civilization has actuallly lasted from 6000 BC to the present, much less established dominance by expanding quicker than the Egyptians and Babylonians 6000 years ago.
Anyway, it'll provide some new ways to play. I've noticed that most of the screenshots for the game show countries running a national deficit. Almost all of them have a negative cash flow, which makes me wonder about how hard it will be to manage a Civ III economy.
Obviously the player and the computer will not be able to just churn out units. In Civ II the computer literally blankets the map with troops. This doesn't look like it will be possible in Civ III.
This may be one of the areas they are still trying to balance. Limitations on computer troops could put a big cog in the AI's routines: fewer troops means the computer will have to place it's forces more intelligently to block the player, which means the AI will have to be more sophisticated.
Either that, or the AI is going to have circles run around its armies.
He did say that Wonders that alleviate the cost of maintenance become critical in the game, however. I thought this was rather interesting: economic survival is dependent upon wonders. How will this work in multiplayer? Probably miniwonders will play a roll here---one for everyone. Obviously the economy is going to be much more stretched than in Civ II. Even with tons of trade routes and pumping out caravan after caravan I found it very easy to go through cash.
With new cities requiring two pop points each, I gather that the overall effect will be smaller civilizations. Never played Alpha Centauri which apparently(?) does the same. A stressed economy is going to make it harder to expand as well. You need buildings to pacify the populace and troops to keep'em in line, and both cost money, which (from the screenshots) no one seems to have in any abundance.
Just who sets the rates for these resources? Aren't there any computer Rockefellers on the AI's team?
And I'm still perplexed by the Russian special unit being the MiG. Is this confirmed? It just doesn't make any sense. With the Americans having the F-15, why wouldn't everyone else have a generic fighter? It's not like the MiG is better than French, German, or British fighter aircraft. Why have 3 versions of modern fighters?
And is George Bush's Space Bomber going to be in? I want to name mine 'Bubba.'
Phutnote
PS. This is an amazing site. I don't think I've made this observation before, but Markos, you've done an incredible job with this as an information source and keep it well regulated. Bravo!
Comment