The site just updated. Screenshots and Aztecs

[Triped]

Good point...however, I still think that settlers should be weak enough so that unprotected expansion is a risky (but possibly successful) plan.

[Madine]

[Madine]

It makes sense for settlers to have a defense value, but for gameplay purposes I think it is more important to curb expansion by making settlers defenseless.

[Fintilgin]

Well... if one really dosn't like it, you could always give settlers a defense point with the editing tools and text files.

Or, for that matter, remove it from others...

::Joe drops bombers to zero defense and sends his fighters over to the Roman airforce to board them and capture them in mid-air::

Mwahaha! Take that you foolish Imperial swine! Mawahaha!

Joe

[Triped]

Of course editing is always nice, but it's better when the game is right the first time

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by Triped


Of course editing is always nice, but it's better when the game is right the first time

Folks before have made ignorant statements like this and I guess it still continues. For many elements of the game, particularlt graphics, units, civs, etc., there is no such thing as "right". What you may consider right would be wrong for others, and vice-versa. For example, as soon as Tim creates a Civ3 HiRes replacement for the units.gif and cities.gif files, I'll use them. In many other cases, it would be a simple matter of making a word or number change in the rules.txt file. There is nothing wrong with doing that, they wouldn't make Civ3 better but simply more suited to what we would like to see.

[Triped]

I disagree. If that defense value affects game balance, they should figure out which one is more balanced, and incorporate that into the game. If people want to unbalance the game, they can do that.