Tweet
In this new screenshot of the week (Oct5) we see two players, each with dozens of cities (as seen by the mini-map). I'd just like to say, that in CivIII, and I know I'm rare here, I was hoping to see more civs playable at the same time, with altogether fewer cities for every civ.
Now, I know the other civs had probably been conquered, but still, I hate managing an empire that size... On the other side, I don't want annoying city limit rules for governments in civ3 as in ctp.
I don't know if this has been discussed before, but did anyone else ever have a problem with the fact that nations in civ games are always so linear with their relationship to empire size and strength? I always hated it when playing on a real world map-my favorite mode of play, it was always impossible to recreate actual historical events (well, some of them), because the most profitable cities in civ games are ones surrounded by irrigated grassland, and those are typically (on average) the most productive too. Consider Japan, Tokyo is the largest city in the world, with 25 million people as of 1991. Japan and similarly sized European countries historically have had high GDP's and some still are powerful economic forces today--aka japan and Great Britian.
I'm thinking of my favorite period in world history --WW2. In a civ game, it's impossible to play a normal game, and have something like that happen, because Europe must be conquered early on, by one civ, and then, and only then, may Europe be a powerful force in world affairs. Too often, Japan is easily overrun by China in the early game, then Russia, and Persia become dominant empires, and you never have a chance to accurately reflect a kind of real-world development, which is very fun for me, as a player.
Has anyone heard anything on this matter, will you be able to build multiple harbors or factories in cities or something like that, to make certain cities better than others, because of what you as the player do, or will it still be so strictly regimented to terrain values? Not that I want to be able to make cities unbeatable in siberia or anything, I'd just like to be able to see small states take on larger ones, have a comparable tech tree, and have a chance of winning militarily. I think this is a major flaw in civ2, that for you to prosper, you must have many cities.
Personally, I hope the game ships with a real world map, with all 16 civs playable at the same time, and have it be possible for me to play as Japan, or GB, or France, or Germany, and keep to myself, until the industrial age, then try to take over surrounding civs. It was never possible in civ2, b/c, you'd get outdistanced scientifically, and eventually, you'd just be overwhelmed unless you steadily built more and more cities, until you had 15 or 20 or so, by then I was always pretty much set to go.
Again, I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I think its a valid point, and would like to see the gameplay improved, so its how you conduct diplomacy, and build cities, and improve terrain, that influences your strength as a civ, not the landmass you occupy.
Now, I know the other civs had probably been conquered, but still, I hate managing an empire that size... On the other side, I don't want annoying city limit rules for governments in civ3 as in ctp.
I don't know if this has been discussed before, but did anyone else ever have a problem with the fact that nations in civ games are always so linear with their relationship to empire size and strength? I always hated it when playing on a real world map-my favorite mode of play, it was always impossible to recreate actual historical events (well, some of them), because the most profitable cities in civ games are ones surrounded by irrigated grassland, and those are typically (on average) the most productive too. Consider Japan, Tokyo is the largest city in the world, with 25 million people as of 1991. Japan and similarly sized European countries historically have had high GDP's and some still are powerful economic forces today--aka japan and Great Britian.
I'm thinking of my favorite period in world history --WW2. In a civ game, it's impossible to play a normal game, and have something like that happen, because Europe must be conquered early on, by one civ, and then, and only then, may Europe be a powerful force in world affairs. Too often, Japan is easily overrun by China in the early game, then Russia, and Persia become dominant empires, and you never have a chance to accurately reflect a kind of real-world development, which is very fun for me, as a player.
Has anyone heard anything on this matter, will you be able to build multiple harbors or factories in cities or something like that, to make certain cities better than others, because of what you as the player do, or will it still be so strictly regimented to terrain values? Not that I want to be able to make cities unbeatable in siberia or anything, I'd just like to be able to see small states take on larger ones, have a comparable tech tree, and have a chance of winning militarily. I think this is a major flaw in civ2, that for you to prosper, you must have many cities.
Personally, I hope the game ships with a real world map, with all 16 civs playable at the same time, and have it be possible for me to play as Japan, or GB, or France, or Germany, and keep to myself, until the industrial age, then try to take over surrounding civs. It was never possible in civ2, b/c, you'd get outdistanced scientifically, and eventually, you'd just be overwhelmed unless you steadily built more and more cities, until you had 15 or 20 or so, by then I was always pretty much set to go.
Again, I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I think its a valid point, and would like to see the gameplay improved, so its how you conduct diplomacy, and build cities, and improve terrain, that influences your strength as a civ, not the landmass you occupy.
), the computer will learn against a peaceful player not to waste resources like this. But I guess this is just wishful thinking. Only time will tell, of course.
, but if the ai is actually good it may be worth it. 
So, for the 'DOs' and the 'DOnots', there really is no argueing about unique civ attributes- you both can have your way.
Comment