I got the Magazine! Preview, First Impressions, Screenshots forthcoming!

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by EnochF on 04-27-2001 12:53 PM And seven civs is enough for anybody.

Definitely not! As I said, though, the other pieces of news are so good that I might be able to swallow it, despite it being a major constraint on my scenario making.

[Gramphos]

Is that Unit-information working yet? Seems to be the same info as in the other map screen.

[Roman]

There seems to be a double heart icon (one blue, one red) on the domestic advisor screen. The values for it are exactly the same as for food production. What does this mean?

[EnochF]

Pardon. Seven civs is enough for anybody... except Roman, who has made, what, four separate posts in this thread alone complaining about it.

The terrain graphics here are much better. They're not spectacular, but they're nice. I don't look at these forests and think "ug-leeeee."

I notice they're using placeholder graphics from Civ II for the citizens.

And placeholder city names for the more obscure civs. (Kerplekistan?)

For me, the most encouraging notion in all this is that the game is still a work in progress. The team is still open to new ideas and new ways of implementing things. That means we may still have an opportunity to make our voices heard.

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by EnochF on 04-27-2001 01:12 PM Pardon. Seven civs is enough for anybody... except Roman, who has made, what, four separate posts in this thread alone complaining about it.

Thank you.

[belusa]

Thanks Snapcase for the info! What you're doing is great!

[JamesJKirk]

The 7 civs could more than likely be the major civs, or major powers or what have you while there're smaller insignificant nations scattered throughout the globe. At least that's what I'll probably hope

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 04-27-2001 11:50 AM This is the worst piece of news I have heard about the game so far.

"If your children ask for a venomous snake to have as pet, would you as a parent give it to them?" (quote from the Bible, I think)

Please, dont interpret above as patronizing - instead, believe me then I say this:
Firaxis didnt choose max 7 simultaneously playing civs because they wanted to, but because they had to. Considering the multi-optional and open-ended nature of Civ-3, with its AI-burdening random maps amongst other things, they really didnt have any realistic choice. It really WAS an absolutely 100% necessary and correct decision to make.

Well, why not let the player choose for himself I here you say: Those who wanted to play against 16-32 simultaneously playing AI-civs could do so, while those who prefered only 4-6 AI-civs can choose that instead.
The problem here is that many very important heavyweight game-magazine reviewers would probably playtest this classic title with the new 32+ AI-civs feature right away - and base their game-reviewing AI-comments on above fact. And believe me, if they did; the AI response would be absolutely horrible. The AI in CTP-2 would be considered "quite strong" by comparison.

Please guys, you really dont know what your ask for if you stubbornly keep on demanding that this ridicules 32+ AI-civ idea should be included at all costs. I mean; at all costs??? No thanks!

The main "problem" is that Civ-3 isnt (and can never be) primarily a hotseat-game, exclusively developed for 16+ or even 32+ simultaneously playing human civers. If it where, the problem would "only" circled around the loong, looong; yes really loooong waiting turns.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 27, 2001).]

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by JamesJKirk on 04-27-2001 01:21 PM The 7 civs could more than likely be the major civs, or major powers or what have you while there're smaller insignificant nations scattered throughout the globe. At least that's what I'll probably hope

I wouldn't be so optimistic - the "minor civs" everybody is excited about are probably just these barbarian cities. I really hope Firaxis people change their mind on this limit and increase it to say, 15 civilizations per game.

[jglidewell]

quote: Originally posted by EnochF on 04-27-2001 01:12 PM The terrain graphics here are much better. They're not spectacular, but they're nice. I don't look at these forests and think "ug-leeeee."

Yes way better than any other. There is now a hint of a trunk. Perhaps now a hint of height would help. Making a tiled view of a forest and getting it right is very difficult.

[Roman]

Well Ralf, they could at least enable more civs through the text files, as Ctp2 did. That would stop the negative aspects which you describe, yet keep many of us wanting a 15 civilization limit placated. It would also be much better for scenario design.

[The diplomat]

Snapcase, you are our hero!

the domestic screen is amazing. I love it. it seems to present all the info in a very organized clean way.
I like the detailed info about where your income and costs are coming from. You can get tribute from other civs, you can get interests.
I am glad that there is only sliders for luxury and science. The tax rate slider is probably on a different screen. But this is better because it means that luxury and science is coming from taxes not the surplus. In civ2, your luxury and science actually came from the surplus after taxes. this was not quite accurate. The science and luxury should come from taxes which seems to be in civ3. good.

About only having 7 civs. I think 7 is enough. The more civs in the game, the more strain on the AI. Th number of civs also puts more strain on your computer processor. Having more than 7 civs is NOT realistic, people!

7 civs is enough.

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.
[This message has been edited by The diplomat (edited April 27, 2001).]

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 04-27-2001 01:30 PM Well Ralf, they could at least enable more civs through the text files, as Ctp2 did.

Well, maybe it IS possible to do that, although Firaxis cannot mention anything about it officially. We havent all cards on the table yet.

[Ceci n'est pas Snapcase]

O-o-kay, last installment of info, and it's a biggie (I should really split it up, but hey.)

(One thing I missed earlier- The Space Race is still in. In case anyone doubted that.)

New info on... Trade, Resources, Culture

Resources: "When you look at the map now, you don't see that many resources. That's because they don't appear until you've researched the technology that needs them. For example, you can't see iron until you've researched iron working. And you might already have some, but it might be somewhere else.

"What we tried to do is clump the stuff. It's not spread evenly over the map. The idea is that one player can corner the market on, say, iron and he becomes a powerbroker in the game. The same thing happens with uranium, so your diplomatic relations become really important. You definately want to have friends that have the stuff you need so that you can trade with them. If not the only way to get the stuff is to attack people.

"By the time you get to the end of the game you really needto have coal, iron, oil and rubber otherwise you can't build anything. The way you develop a civilization, to a large extent, depends on where you start the game and what kind of resources you have available. If you start in an area that has iron you're in good shape at the beginning, but later on in the game iron is not enough."

Trade: You can trade in Luxuries, and resources. Luxuries goods trade is vital to keep happiness up, and resource trade (as you can see above) will be exceptionally important. Keeping peace will be more important than before, because you need a constant supply of resources to build your units. Complex diplomatic treaties and trade agreements can be arranged.

Culture: Accumulated by long-time cultural city improvements (as in last preview). Three effects:

(a) In diplomacy, a high culture rating will make other civs admire you more, and positive outcomes are more likely as a result.

(b) A high culture rating will literally expand your borders, the Greater your civilization the larger it will become.

(c) The aforementioned effect of pacifying newly conquered cities. Cities can now resist in a variety of fun and interesting ways; citizens can refuse to work, lower the defense value of the city, or revolt and rejoin their original civ.

That's all, folks. If there's a great demand I can also scan in the blurred "Baltimore" screenshot from the CGW preview in greater detail...

[EnochF]

Re: the stadium. My thought is that these graphics represent "ancient" and "modern" pictures of the same improvement. So, what in ancient times would be a "Granary," in modern times would be a sort of farm silo. What in ancient times would be a "Colosseum," in modern times would be a stadium of some kind.

It's a forward-thinking approach. If you recall, Civ II had a very modern looking Granary, and it looked terribly out of place in ancient cities. (Y'know, for those of us who didn't get the Pyramids.) On the other hand, if I build a Colosseum in a city, I wouldn't necessary tear it down to make way for a stadium in the modern era. So maybe the way to go here is to make all Colosseums built in the modern era appear as stadiums, while the old Colosseums remain as they are. But Granaries automatically update to become silos. And perhaps Temples, if they are built in the modern era, would appear as churches, but the old Temples in the historic cities don't change. But Marketplaces automatically update to become modern shopping plazas or malls or something. And hey, maybe the more "old" Temples and Colosseums and Libraries you have in modern times, the more Culture points you have...