Any more expansion packs?

[Rasbelin]

I won't waste my dimes on more Civ III expansion packs. That would be just waste of money and time. Maybe I buy PtW for MP support, but that's it. As for the speculations, I really suggest to do the same as Gramphos. Wait for an official press release or a backstage leakage to Poly by Firaxis.

[Spiffor]

Rasbelin : will you do like Yin26, and buy the Gold version of Civ3, i.e the "end of the beta" as he says ?

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Its not real to move all your airforce to one base in one turn.

If a turn is a whole year, why is this not realistic?

[Rasbelin]

Spiffor,

I already have Civ III. That's enough for me.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by WarpStorm


If a turn is a whole year, why is this not realistic?

well then under that same definition, a warrior should be able to move around the world in a 50 year turn shouldn't it?

[Rommel2D]

If a turn is a whole year, why is this not realistic?

If you have a whole year, why can't you rebase _and_ bomb/intercept from any given city during the same turn?
Comparing range with the calander in Civ is a nasty Pandora's Box.

[Azeem]

I don't think it takes an entire year for a plane to travel around the globe.

[Kuciwalker]

It simply ISN'T possible to balance unit movement and have a playable game.

[Spiffor]

It is. If you're playing a scenario where a turn lasts less than a month.
But it is impossible to have realistic tactics on a game that spans over 6000 years. It would be infinitely too tedious, and any game would last years.

[Kuciwalker]

You know what I meant

[Panag]

Originally posted by Spiffor
It is. If you're playing a scenario where a turn lasts less than a month.
But it is impossible to have realistic tactics on a game that spans over 6000 years. It would be infinitely too tedious, and any game would last years.

hi ,

huh , there is a kid in the hospital thats been at it now for like 6 weeks or so , still the same game , about 6 hours a day , ..... 6 days a week , .....

" why not " > how many games are there that you could play for several months , ....

with the max map , the editor and the 24 civs , ..... well one could be at it for almost a year , .....

one turn equals one month seems to be in order with a whole bunch of people , ......

have a nice day

[Panag]

Originally posted by skywalker
It simply ISN'T possible to balance unit movement and have a playable game.

hi ,

, but you can get close to it

it all depends on time , what amount of time the player is willing to put in it , ......

who knows what lays ahead , ........

have a nice day

[Spiffor]

Panag :
The problem is that Civ must appeal to a wide public in order to sell, and in order to be updated. That's why the designers have to make the game such a way it doesn't bother too many people because of its length, and so that it doesn't disgust hardcore players who want to play on the same game for weeks.

I'm rather a "hardcore" player as I only play on huge maps or bigger, but I sometimes enjoy a short 6-hours-lasting game.

Firaxis would be very ill advised to force players to play a very long game. The addition of options to make the game shorter or longer depending on the player's whim is a good trend (hence the short game-modes shipped with PtW). But forcing the players one way or another by overhauling a major mechanic one way or another would be stupid IMHO, and would only hurt the sales.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Panag :
The problem is that Civ must appeal to a wide public in order to sell, and in order to be updated. That's why the designers have to make the game such a way it doesn't bother too many people because of its length, and so that it doesn't disgust hardcore players who want to play on the same game for weeks.

I'm rather a "hardcore" player as I only play on huge maps or bigger, but I sometimes enjoy a short 6-hours-lasting game.

Firaxis would be very ill advised to force players to play a very long game. The addition of options to make the game shorter or longer depending on the player's whim is a good trend (hence the short game-modes shipped with PtW). But forcing the players one way or another by overhauling a major mechanic one way or another would be stupid IMHO, and would only hurt the sales.

hi ,

agreed , they still have to learn the lesson of " on / off " , this way both sides shall be happy , ......

it has to be possible to offer players the option ; long micro man ptw game or regular high speed civ game , ....

do remember the game command & conquer , ..... > game controls , people who wanted to build or go slow would set the speed at low , experienced people would set it at high , build what they needed and BANG , ..... something like the above could be implemented in the game , ...... this way the game would draw more customers = more money , ....

have a nice day

[Rommel2D]

It simply ISN'T possible to balance unit movement and have a playable game.

Balanced? Do you mean synchronized with the calander?

Balance is very possible, it's what makes a stratagy game classic. To use MZs favorite example, Panzer General has (had?) a balanced movement system and is very playable. That's not because it's a highly tactical game and the turns are shorter, just that all unit movement is internally consistant.

The problem here is when people try to match movement with the Civ calender as a measure of realism. The timeline gives a good measure of technological progress, but I doubt Sid considered it when assigning ranges to units.

Revamping the movement system to make it more consistant (limited rebase and RRs, naval intercepts, etc.) would be nice, but there doesn't seem to be that much interest at Firaxis right now. With Soren off the project, I don't know if anyone could adjust the AI properly. :-(