Tweet
Sorry if this has been brought up before. I did searches and couldn't find the info I was looking for. I don't have the game yet, obviously. Getting the game would require me to upgrade my computer, and I'm trying to put that off, and with all the disappointing news I'm hearing about Civ3 (specifically as regards to modifiability, but other issues as well) it's that much easier to put off.
Questions
:
What happens if two terrain squares are at a diagonal to each other? In Civ 1 & 2 this would create a Bosporus type of connection where land units could cross the land part and sea units could cross the sea part (in Civ 1 it would look like the two squares of land were connected but you could still pass a ship between them; in Civ2 you got a cool-looking connection that looked like the Bosporus). From what I gather you get solid land... this is not a good thing, not good at all. Am I continually amazed at the lack of judgment Firaxis showed in not importing seemingly minor details like this from previous Civ titles.
Am I correct that forest is an overlay, like rivers in Civ2; that any terrain can be underneath them? If so this is a good thing.
What's under jungle? Do you still get disease if you clear jungle?
Complaints
:
No swamps! That's completely ridiculous. No other terrain will do as a substitute. Can't have jungle in western Siberia or on the east coast of the US (e.g. Dismal Swamp), etc., etc.
No glaciers! That ice cap in Greenland... is not tundra. Antarctica... not tundra.
No oases! Now this might be ok if the river/floodplain tile appeared as a small pool if you only place one, the way a single patch of river appeared in Civ2. But I don't think that's true knowing what I know about rivers in Civ3.
Kudos
:
Flood plains is a cool idea.
Love the different water tiles - coast, lake, etc.
Forest as an overlay is an excellent touch, if it's true.
Questions
:What happens if two terrain squares are at a diagonal to each other? In Civ 1 & 2 this would create a Bosporus type of connection where land units could cross the land part and sea units could cross the sea part (in Civ 1 it would look like the two squares of land were connected but you could still pass a ship between them; in Civ2 you got a cool-looking connection that looked like the Bosporus). From what I gather you get solid land... this is not a good thing, not good at all. Am I continually amazed at the lack of judgment Firaxis showed in not importing seemingly minor details like this from previous Civ titles.
Am I correct that forest is an overlay, like rivers in Civ2; that any terrain can be underneath them? If so this is a good thing.
What's under jungle? Do you still get disease if you clear jungle?
Complaints
:No swamps! That's completely ridiculous. No other terrain will do as a substitute. Can't have jungle in western Siberia or on the east coast of the US (e.g. Dismal Swamp), etc., etc.
No glaciers! That ice cap in Greenland... is not tundra. Antarctica... not tundra.
No oases! Now this might be ok if the river/floodplain tile appeared as a small pool if you only place one, the way a single patch of river appeared in Civ2. But I don't think that's true knowing what I know about rivers in Civ3.
Kudos
:Flood plains is a cool idea.
Love the different water tiles - coast, lake, etc.
Forest as an overlay is an excellent touch, if it's true.