Limited number of saves per game?

[Private Viper]

OK, this may have been posted before, but I can't possibly read through all threads posted

I've just finished Soldier of Fortune, and although it wasn't really that good, it did have one innovation: Limited number of saves per level. This prevented the constant reloading every time you lost a health point in the game. Now, wouldn't this work for Civ3? Of course, this could be turned off, but for those who crave the additional challenge, it would be great. You would probably be able to choose how many saves you could perform (few, normal, lots, unlimited), and you could always monitor how many you had left.

just my .02

------------------
Viper
viper@cnc.net.nz
CNCNZ

[Kyle]

If it could be turned off, sure. I like to save my game in multiple files to try different paths. Sort of a "what if?" type of thing.

But then, if you're one of those people who always takes what comes, then your not going to save-reload-save... anyway. In the end, it would probably be a redundant thing.

[Andz83]

I think it's a good idea generally. Surely there has to be the possibility to swith it off but generally...

[Par4]

NONONONONONONNOONONNOONNOONONONNOONONNONONNOONONNO NONONONNONNNONOONNONONONONONOONONONONONONONONONONO NONONONONONONONO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have SoF, love it, great game the violence is fun especially the half head shots and crouching with the shotgun amputating lower legs, MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH, on the first level you can peek around the corner and snipe(if ya cheat) the guy taking a piss, don't stand here go buy it, not the censored the full unedited kill em all version. Limited saves is definately not civ material, strategy games don't normally suffer from save every 5 feet syndrome and civ games can be long. I see no need to limit games for Civ but for SoF it was a good idea. I think it would just be a waste, but hey tell Firaxis if they give it a go then hey who am I to talk. Even with it in SoF you could turn it off.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse

[tniem]

Before there was the option to go at Civ without any saves unless you were quiting. I think it might add to this feature if you were given a box that you could change to say how many saves you want, say that it will take you 5 nights to play and you want 2 saves a night, put it at 10. I think it might add to the strategy, but I definitly want the option to save as many times as possible.

[ghazghkull]

I think that limited saves are a great idea, especially if you also include natural disasters in the game. you could possibly even make it so that you may not save it at all, and make the computer automatically save it for you whenever you start a new turn.

[agent4043]

Until the world converts and we have civIII on linux ;-) , I definately want to be able to autosave every turn. More then once I've had windows crash and put me 50 some turns back on the original civ. Maybe giving an option to turn on limited reverts for those who would rather play continuously but don't have the discipline.

Also it would be nice if the autosave worked right before the end of the previous turn. On a number of occasions I've had cities in disorder, fixed them, and had some stupid foreign civ plant a unit in my square sending me into civil disorder for a second turn collapsing my democracy. Not being able to cancel out of the disorder alerts is a pain in the rear but that's another thread.

[Adm.Naismith]

In SMAC (Alpha Centauri) Firaxis already implemented an "Iron Man" mode you can chose at the start of a new game.

It let you save only exiting the game (but it keep an autosave of the last turn for the sake of crash recovery ).

This way is less useful to try-and-reload, and in fact setting IRON MAN you gain more points at the end of game (+25%, if I remember correctly).

So I bet Firaxis will reuse this model in CIV III if they don't receive strong complaint against it.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Private Viper]

OK, I wasn't aware of that. But I'd still like to see games with limited number of saves. none at all is perhaps a tad too extreme (although probably fun as well). I'd just like to keep the option open.

just my .02

------------------
Viper
viper@cnc.net.nz
Command & Conquer NZ

[MidKnight Lament]

I'm pretty sure it was 100% to your score. Which was just a little bit insane. If you were at all worried about your score, why wouldn't you play ironman? Bbeing forced to exit when you save isn't that much of an inconvenience. If there's any score bonus, it should be quite minor, methinks.

- MKL

[Jeje2]

This might be interesting.

I have never been very interested in multiplaying, but I still like to do small cometition of my own.

One of the problems with single player mode is saving. One can never no it and it makes comparing difficult. (*)

So IMHO there might be an option for limited saves. These games could then participate in comparision of single play games. (I just think the limit might be low, say 10)


(*) I have SMAC and I allways use "Iron Man", but many times I have decided when in a crossroad to "quit" for now. (My last game was 29 savefiles) Next time then I try one solution and if I'm not satiesfied I return to an old save. (Anf if this isn't cheating, I don't know what is)