The game seems to have a bias towards nerdy "relatively peaceful builders"

[TJW]

i actually think that the road rule is fine. The reason that the germans were able to utilize the french road network so effectively was that the french army was in disorder and retreating, while the british expedianary force was either in belgium or been evacuated.
In history, no empire has even come close to taking even half the world. the largest empire ever to exist, the british empire, only covered 1/3 of the world. From what i've heard, the new rules will make civ3 far more realistic.

[Triped]

Keep in mind, however, that games shouldn't necessarily be realistic. The emphasis on a game should be fun through good gameplay, and I'm sure some of you have run into realistic things that ended up just being annoying.

[seer_98]

Re: Jesus wept

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


You're invincible optimism is REALLY starting to get on my nerves.

And can the rest of you shorten your posts? I couldn;t be bothered reading beyond about a paragraph, if that.

If it wasn't obvious from the first post (it really was), it should be obvious now. AH is just Trolling .

[TJW]

Originally posted by Triped
Keep in mind, however, that games shouldn't necessarily be realistic. The emphasis on a game should be fun through good gameplay, and I'm sure some of you have run into realistic things that ended up just being annoying.

Spose, but its also annoying when things happen that are so stupidly unrealistic its silly-like that mighty army of chariots conquering the world...

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by DanS

WRONG. Invading armies should still get 1/2 the movement bonus or whatever for railroads. Hasn't anybody heard of changing gauges?

Yes, I've heard of changing gauges, but it's not as easy to change gauge as it is to swap tires on a car as often a train is designed for rails X feet/meter's wide, etc.

While possible to adapt train engines to gauge may exist it is a slow process and trains, unlike trucks can't simply go across country if someone destroys their rails.

Cutting the rail bonus is only natural since trains are easy to delay or stop completely. Keeping a road bonus for rails is wrong also because riding beside a rail track is not the same as riding on a smooth road.

If Sid, et al wanted to be really realistic they would implement a turn wait period betwen the time a train is loaded, the time it can move something and the time to unload. Having been in the military and having to load trucks (not even as heavy or cumbersome as tanks) on a train took weeks just for a few vehicles (<100).

[Earthling7]

Originally posted by Triped
Keep in mind, however, that games shouldn't necessarily be realistic. The emphasis on a game should be fun through good gameplay, and I'm sure some of you have run into realistic things that ended up just being annoying.

I think the added realism in CivIII will add to the gameplay.

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by TJW


Spose, but its also annoying when things happen that are so stupidly unrealistic its silly-like that mighty army of chariots conquering the world...

You don't know your ancient history. Better yet, go play Kull's Seeds of Greatness scenario and you can see for yourself the power and mobility of the chariots in the ancient age.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Earthling7
- Roads are the most heavily defended structures during a war.

Well, if they are - surely an invader shouldnt be able to drive along them just as fast as they would have done in peace-time? Especially, if the surrounding area isnt conquered & secure yet.

I can't really see an invading army taking the Intercity train, departing at 10:46 and the defenders just waiting nervously in the cities.

You (and others) totally miss the point. Its not that a dialog pops up saying; "sorry, you cant use it". You CAN infact move along freely on enemy-roads at any time. Its just that you get a temporarily reduced or nullified road-bonus until you have conquered the nearby city, that controls the surrounding nearby roads. And the latter symbolises that enemy "roads are the most heavily defended structures during a war".

I have all respect for "reduced, not neutralized"-arguments. But these "keep invasion road-moving just as fast and untroubled as in peacetime" arguments is just plain stupid.

[Triped]

Most of you are intelligent and rational people...you think that things should be realistic, and get frustrated when things aren't. The secret to enjoying a good game is to just understand how things work, and have fun

[jackshot]

Just an aside, I always liked the destroy spaceship thing in Civ2. To win on *earth* a civ has to maintain contact with the spaceship to show its success to the other civs. Just sending up a spaceship and losing touch with it accomplishes nothing, even if that ship would make it somewhere Alpha Centari-style.

But more to the point, roads need their bonuses in Civ3 to keep them strategically important, as they should be.

[Inverse Icarus]

ah, a fellow warmonger's thread of anger. mine got lost in the shuffle .

anyway i too believe that the game is completely slided toward the peaceful builders.

troops should be able to extend borders to a certain extent, if i have troops on your territory long enough i should be able to use that territory.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Secondly, you can't destroy spaceships after launch - that was always fun

So the travelling spaceship had a constantly unrolling umbilical cord, all the way back to earth, that the succesful HP-invader can cut of prematurely - leaving the AI-ship helpless halfway?

Anyway, you can STILL thwart spaceship-launcing civs, simply by reaching another victory-condition, before that spaceship has reach AC. Or by building a much faster spaceship.

Thirdly, the strongly rumoured lack of multiplayer - what a joke

MP is not "lacking" - its temporarily postponed. Theres a difference. Its just a question of a few couple of months, for crying out load.

Fourthly, the use of culture to define borders, what are troops for?

Cultural influence defines your borders - your troops make your neighbors respect these borders. Both are needed.

Fifthly, that fact you MUST build improvements to expand your empire (tell that to the Mongols!), so much for ICS

No, thats wrong. You can establish cities without prioritizing improvements. Its just that you stand the risk of loosing your empire pretty fast, if everything must be dealt "by the horseback". Compare with Dhingis Khans shortlived empire.

Theres an historical expression, by the way:
you can conquer an empire by the horseback, but you cannot rule an empire by the horseback.

Sixthly, the fact that some units, in fact mostly defenders, won't have a zone of control (tell that to the spartans!)

We dont know exactly how these ZOC-rules apply, yet. Personally, im 100% confident that the team knows what they doing.

And stacked combat seems to be out as well

Wrong! Stacked combat is added. Maybe not exactly as you wanted it - but that another issue.

[Triped]

Civ question: Could the spaceship be shot down?

[shade]

Civ question: Could the spaceship be shot down?

yeah it would be nice if you could build a photon-cannon but you would have to shoot at least 4,3 years before arival and find someone with very good eyes(who could ame at the ship )

Shade

[Steve Clark]

That's what we get for inviting SMAC players here.