christmas list for firaxis:

[Billster2k3]

Re: christmas list for firaxis:

Originally posted by ruby_maser
-the reputation system tweaked to account for how trade deals are broken and whether or not I had any choice in the matter (so I don't spend ours tiptoeing around only to have some AI goon screw it up)

In a recent game I had a MPP with Korea and the Chinese attacked me forcing the Koreans to declare war on them. Several turns after peace treaties had been signed all around I was in a trade negotiation with Korea and my advisor told me, "we know the Koreans have betrayed our friends the Chinese in the past...." Excuse me!? You're telling me I shouldn't trust them for having had my back? I can only assume that the AI is getting the same sort of advice about me after I am dragged into a conflict by MPP.

The biggest diplomacy fix I want to see is something like what we had in SMAC where I can ask one civ' to call off its war with another. This would go a long way toward being able to fulfill the terms of MPP's without having to declare war and would make this element of the game far more realistic. Most countries almost always try to end conflicts through diplomacy prior to joining in the fray.

[Traelin]

Re: Re: christmas list for firaxis:

Originally posted by Billster2k3
The biggest diplomacy fix I want to see is something like what we had in SMAC where I can ask one civ' to call off its war with another.

I have been begging for this one for a LOOOONG time. There's a ton of other things I'd add to diplomacy too.

[twilight]

Re: Re: christmas list for firaxis:

Originally posted by Billster2k3
In a recent game I had a MPP with Korea and the Chinese attacked me forcing the Koreans to declare war on them. Several turns after peace treaties had been signed all around I was in a trade negotiation with Korea and my advisor told me, "we know the Koreans have betrayed our friends the Chinese in the past...." Excuse me!? You're telling me I shouldn't trust them for having had my back? I can only assume that the AI is getting the same sort of advice about me after I am dragged into a conflict by MPP.

Okay, this is really really cool. What about that:

IN a time I tried to be the good boy, never be a traitor and so on I wanted to conquer a certain civ behind of my neighbour Japan. We agreed to a right passage treaty and my armies went through japanese territory. Then suddenly the Japans attacked me! Oh yes! These bastards!

In this time parts of my armies were in japanese territory. Later someone gave me answer to a plea of right passage treaty "We know what you have done to the japanese".

What had I done? I think its because my troops were on their land when the war begins wheter I was the agressor or not. Very very strange

Now I am really careful doin' such treaties.

[sprucemoose3311]

firaxis

Firaxis is just like microsoft

first: microsoft created an exceptional opertating system in windows 2000 Pro. pretty much all it needed was some tweaking and system restore. Windows Xp before the service pack had troubles competing with 98SE. So the people at microsoft decided to end support of 2000 and build off of 98SE. Why? you cant make people upgrade from a great OS to one that has almost no change. Why would you buy windows 2002 if windows 2000 is near perfect?

Second: Firaxis has always known people want diplomacy and governments like alpha centauri. But if you want people to buy civ 4 you cannot put those in Civ 3. Civ 3 is all the little tweaks everyone wanted minus the things that would make it an exceptional game. Expect better diplomacy in civ 4... Why build off of AC, which was only missing more civs and an updated Multiplayer when you can build off of civ 2 and make 3-5 "new, better" games (civ4,civ5,civ2012) afterwards. Lets just hope they dont make single player and multiplayer separate again

(note they dont call it civ 6, they give it a year, see the resemblence to microsoft?)

I think ile start a new thread with this...

[twilight]

Re: firaxis

Originally posted by sprucemoose3311
Firaxis is just like microsoft

EEEK!

Originally posted by sprucemoose3311
But if you want people to buy civ 4 you cannot put those in Civ 3.

You mean ... ?

I would like to see Firaxis or some of the programmer guys answering

I think they decided to be in old tradition to CIVII and forgot the one or another. To enable some diplomatic features can't be so difficult, others will be difficult. Don't know, but I could understand when they don't change this in a patch.

And I think they regrett some things like those forgotten features. Noone is happy when the own work which you are proud of is focus of many complaints.

I looking forward to 2030, perhaps then I will have a Civ that pleases me.

[sprucemoose3311]

clarify arguement

CLARIFY ARGUEMENT (yes it is opinion, I wont stress fact as opinion unless i become a college teacher): AC had a great foundation for good gameplay etc. Civ 2 was not as good. In my opinion firaxis decided to update civ 2 rather then build off of AC which already had what most people wanted in Civ3. They were thinking in terms of creating a franchise (which is another word for profit) as opposed to creating a single game. They are in no way the only company doing this.



Also I Agree with twilight that someone from firaxis should explain what they did during developement.

Link to thread wit comparison http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=67868

[Civfan]

Re: firaxis

Originally posted by sprucemoose3311
Firaxis is just like microsoft

first: microsoft created an exceptional opertating system in windows 2000 Pro. pretty much all it needed was some tweaking and system restore. Windows Xp before the service pack had troubles competing with 98SE. So the people at microsoft decided to end support of 2000 and build off of 98SE. Why? you cant make people upgrade from a great OS to one that has almost no change. Why would you buy windows 2002 if windows 2000 is near perfect?

Second: Firaxis has always known people want diplomacy and governments like alpha centauri. But if you want people to buy civ 4 you cannot put those in Civ 3. Civ 3 is all the little tweaks everyone wanted minus the things that would make it an exceptional game. Expect better diplomacy in civ 4... Why build off of AC, which was only missing more civs and an updated Multiplayer when you can build off of civ 2 and make 3-5 "new, better" games (civ4,civ5,civ2012) afterwards. Lets just hope they dont make single player and multiplayer separate again

(note they dont call it civ 6, they give it a year, see the resemblence to microsoft?)

I think ile start a new thread with this...

Interesting.

Good points made out.

I think you deserve an A for this report

[twilight]

Re: clarify arguement

Okay, probably you are right. Of course most companies act in this way, and there are even worse mehtods. But I am also thinking, that some people interested in CIV would be very very unhappy to programm things like that. It is like ... imagine standing right before the top of the mountain, no one was ever here, and then you go back because you can climb the top another time?

Let us make a compromise: Some programmers and the whole management wanted to do like you said and the Rest including Sid Meyer fight it but had lost. Do we have an agreement?

Don't let me loose my believes in Civ