CivIII is not sequel to CivII

[cassembler]

How about the spam, spam, eggs, bacon, and spam? Ain't got much spam in it.

[Sabre2th]

Re: Re: Re: Re: CivIII is not sequel to CivII

Originally posted by Pembleton
*spam*

Originally posted by Pembleton
*unnecessary*

The thread is somewhat pointless and definitely spammy, but your posts are quite a bit worse. At least the rest of us are making an attempt to be productive

[Grumbold]

Aaargh! Just when I thought we were dragging this back on track again

[Pembleton]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CivIII is not sequel to CivII

Originally posted by Sabre2th
The thread is somewhat pointless and definitely spammy, but your posts are quite a bit worse. At least the rest of us are making an attempt to be productive

I also did contribute a relevant post *in this thread* and I apologized to the original poster who accepted my apology.

And also, if my posts were spam, what does this make your post?

Geez, you are about the only person who has flamed me on this forum and are constantly on my case when I criticize someone. Do you really want to get into a flame war? Because if you do, I'll be here and ready to fire bud. And I won't stop.

Do you really think that after I apologized that continuing to criticize me is doing any good?

Jesus.

[Sabre2th]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CivIII is not sequel to CivII

And also, if my posts were spam, what does this make your post?

Spam, just like all the others. My complaint was about your 1-word posts. Your point (if there was one) was valid, but it seemed (to me) that you were just trying to get a couple of free posts. If you want the free posts, you should work for them a little. If you need help learning how to spam, look up Eli, he's the apolyton pro.

Geez, you are about the only person who has flamed me on this forum and are constantly on my case when I criticize someone.

Yes, Pemble, I am out to get YOU, specifically. It is my mission to attack you and only you

Do you really want to get into a flame war? Because if you do, I'll be here and ready to fire bud. And I won't stop.

I don't like flame wars and don't intend to start one. I was making a statement, which you decided to attack.

Do you really think that after I apologized that continuing to criticize me is doing any good?

I didn't see an apology, I must have missed it. I apologize if someone had already posted it.

On Topic:
Civ3 is a sequel. While SMAC was similar, it was different in a great many ways. The same is true with the CtP series. CtP was a cheap ripoff of civ to begin with. Only in CtP2 did they really try to diverge.

[Pembleton]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CivIII is not sequel to CivII

Originally posted by Sabre2th
Spam, just like all the others. My complaint was about your 1-word posts. Your point (if there was one) was valid, but it seemed (to me) that you were just trying to get a couple of free posts. If you want the free posts, you should work for them a little. If you need help learning how to spam, look up Eli, he's the apolyton pro.

You're an idiot. Those 1 word posts were ****ing *EDITS* of original posts. They were criticisms of *MY OWN* posts, not the thread itself. Anunikoba got it, and he did the same thing acknowledging why I did that. Read the entire thread again.

And I'm not here to get free posts you idiot. In fact I have criticized others of doing this. I have made many contributions to this forum and I have started threads that have over 300+ views/2-3 pages of responses. I don't recall too many of yours that have done this.

If I was here to make free posts, I would be an emperor by now. I've been here since '99.

[connorkimbro]

The Unit Workshop is a good example: this feature worked well in the futuristic SMAC

This is a bad example. The unit workshop DID make 10 times as many units, but they were 1/10 as interesting and unique. You were right about the futuritic setting was the only setting that it could work in. But even in that settings, it's below mediocre at best.

Borders? been done, lousily in smac and irrelevant in CTP (the ai didn't pay any attention to them at all). . but they ARE in civ3, and better than ever, as they are based on something else, that makes sense namely. .

Culture. A COMPLETLY new system, radical imrpovement that is going to add alot to the game. . . along with

The new trade system. Again, not a new idea, but a completly new way to implement it. . . along with diplomacy.

Smac had a pretty damn good diplomacy interface, but nothing revolutionary from civ2, just better. CTP's diplomacy. . *retch retch*. . can't even talk about it. It was irrellevant anyway, because the AI didn't pay any attention to it, but it was. . horrid. Civ3's diplomacy will not only contain the richness of Smac's (and probably even more) but will me much more customizable.

I could go on, but over all, i'd say that civ3 is pretty damn revolutionary. Not so much in the ideas, but in HOW they are being implemented. And THAT is what is important.

[Provost Harrison]

Well I know that certain features of SMAC have not been included, but it depends on how well it works within the game. However I would have liked to see some kind of modified social engineering system taking into account the nature of society on Earth.

Also, I think some of you ought to take it easy on the spamming. This is a serious thread but some of you are definitely breaking the flow of it. And if Markos gets his banning rod on you, lord help you

[connorkimbro]

However I would have liked to see some kind of modified social engineering system taking into account the nature of society on Earth.

I don't think SE would have worked, although i suppose it depends on how it was implemented. The thing is, it just wasn't that interesting in SMAC. You'd lose alot of the atmosphere of the game, if attempted in civ3.

I much prefer the set-government-along-with-"civ-ordinances" (a la. simcity) model. Depending on what set government you have, and techs and everything, different choices were offered to you regarding the specifics of your rule. Do you impose a tarrif on traded goods or not? Are women allowed to vote or not? If they are, then your people are happier, but the senate is less likely to let you go to war. (or something. . ) That provides both the atmosphere AND customizibility, it would really enhance the game.

But it's probably not in, and that's ok too. I'm sure the game will still be great.

[Skanky Burns]

I didnt like the SE in SMAC for one major reason: Its biggest affect was on how others saw my civilization, not on my civilization itself.

If you choose a 'green' economy, Morgan will fight with you, while the Gaians will be your friends, and so-on with all choices.

[tniem]

Originally posted by connorkimbro
I don't think SE would have worked, although i suppose it depends on how it was implemented. The thing is, it just wasn't that interesting in SMAC. You'd lose alot of the atmosphere of the game, if attempted in civ3.

I cannot agree with you on this issue. SE was the best addition to the series since Civ I. The government system needed an overhaul and the SE system offered a variety of different government stuctures that were all quite effective. It added strategy with choosing your various elements and it made it all more realistic than a Democracy model that has to be the same for all of history despite various monetary policies that have existed in correlation with democracy.

I much prefer the set-government-along-with-"civ-ordinances" (a la. simcity) model. Depending on what set government you have, and techs and everything, different choices were offered to you regarding the specifics of your rule.

I still prefer SE, but this would be better than the Civ I system of government. After ten years we have seen no change except maybe in the values. That is just plain sad.