Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Humanitas Game Details

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AoA
    replied
    hey snoopy and jimmyh
    Any thoughts on the number and type of basic resources?
    Civ's always had Shield, Food or Gold.
    I think it'd be more interesting to use the Colonization style with Wood and Ore being separate things necessary to build improvements.
    Maybe include needing Food to build living things, like soldiers, since I see birth rate is not tied to excess food.
    While you're at it, make it be possible to automatically transfer a percentage of a city's gathered resources to another city each turn and allow as needed transfers of bulk supplies.
    Unless you're planning on a national stockpile? nah.....
    That way, we're more like a nation, not a bunch of city-states and we won't have our bastard children of low shield cities.

    Special luxury resources like in Civ3 would be a waste, unless possessing them conferred some benefit more exciting than happiness or some money. Maybe have them be of low worth unless you construct [Resource] Workshop, then [Resource] Factory then [Resource] Plant which depending on the Resource will provide additional money, happiness, construction 'shields', culture or whatever.

    Thoughts?
    Last edited by AoA; September 30, 2005, 22:58.

    Leave a comment:


  • Addled Platypus
    replied
    ideas 1-14 are great

    and reading through the posts and reading the answers
    I am really getting to lilke the game


    will this be out after civ4

    Leave a comment:


  • LDiCesare
    replied
    But global extinction is not what is being modelled in the game. If you civ only has access to a certain resource in a certain area, then that resource can be exhausted. This is entirely consistent with the real world.
    Then why do you give an example of global extinction?
    If you can have access to horses on a continent, they cannot become extinct just in one place but on the whole continent. That is, if horses strategic resourcre disappears, all horse resources on the same continent should disappear. And Civ3 didn't model exhaustion in any sensible way. You could find a resource, not use it (just happened to have a road there, but have no unit built) and pop! it suddenly disappears. You can give weird rationales to that but it is just stupid. Exhaustion of resources should be linked to the player's actions, not random probabilities coming out of the blue. Civ3 handling of resources is, imo, pitiful, both by the choice of resources (iron, saltpeter are not scarce, horses once found in one place can be bred anywhere and are no longer linked to one source of production) and how they disappear for no good reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kinjiru
    replied
    But global extinction is not what is being modelled in the game. If you civ only has access to a certain resource in a certain area, then that resource can be exhausted. This is entirely consistent with the real world.

    Take a look at the American West. Once, buffalo herds were common in the western plains. And they were very much a strategic resource for the various tribes whom hunted them for food, shelter and trade.

    Overhunting and encrochment wiped them out. They still exist here and there, but are certainly no longer available as a strategic resource. And that statement would be true even if there were herds of buffalo in say, southern Germany. The 'American' civ would not have access to them execpt through trade. Which is exactly how it works in the game.

    Leave a comment:


  • LDiCesare
    replied
    How can you lose horses? Easy. Famine, human encroachment, sport killing, etc...
    That's ridiculous. If horses went extinct, they'd get extinct worldwide or on a whole continent, not on the single spot in the world where you bred them. As for iron being a strategic resource, it's also somewhat ludicrous, since it's the most common metal on earth. Not to talk about saltpeter, which is something you usually have more problems getting rid of rather than finding... If you have many mines of iron and they produce a limited quantity each, then it would make more sense...

    Leave a comment:


  • Kinjiru
    replied
    How can you lose horses? Easy. Famine, human encroachment, sport killing, etc....

    Leave a comment:


  • SystemError
    replied
    Sounds good. I was glad civ3 added resources but the way they did it sucked. One Iron mine supplying your vast empire? Horses? How can you lose horses?!

    But the main thing im wondering is with food. It always annoyed me that one city could starve as its surrounded by hills or being attacked but you have a big surplus in your other cities. They can trade iron and wine BUT NOT FOOD!!!!??

    I hope youve already thought of this but makes sense to ask.

    Leave a comment:


  • FrostyBoy
    replied
    Its actually quite deep, its something that would have to be worked out later in the game progression

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry Tuttle
    replied
    Hey Snoopy, I was thinking about the idea of having eras be "fluid", as in dependent upon certain factors in the current game, like we had talked about in another thread.

    If the idea were to work I think the data would be pulled the same way a histograph would gather data. If so, what would are the factors in the game that would allow this to happen? In other words, what are the main areas of play: Science, Military, Population, etc...?

    Leave a comment:


  • FrostyBoy
    replied
    Not sure yet.

    Maybe if you are on unclaimed land, you can claim all tiles in a 2 tile radius around the unit? But then to hold it you would have to leave that unit there (fortify) otherwise anyone else could take it.

    Seems complicated to me, but it may introduce new strategies and make the player think more about what territory it wants to own. For example, maybe you can't do anything with the land unless you have claimed it first?

    Leave a comment:


  • Ekmek
    replied
    Originally posted by Sn00py
    We have not touched on borders yet, but most likely we will, but borders will not be Civ3 style.


    I have been thinking of the idea of implementing force (army) to hold and expand your borders, so its not your culture that expands the borders but your force. (and no there are no Jedi's in the game).

    I have also thought that borders should only come when you reach a certain tech level and government level.

    WOuld it be that units have to capture tiles to make it part of your territory then?

    Leave a comment:


  • FrostyBoy
    replied
    Not sure yet kinjiru.

    And yes we are hoping to have rivers end at lakes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kinjiru
    replied
    Assuming that you have rivers, can they terminate in lakes?

    Can lakes act as coastal tiles in terms of allowing production of ports?

    Leave a comment:


  • Kaak
    replied
    that's a good idea

    Leave a comment:


  • FrostyBoy
    replied
    We have not touched on borders yet, but most likely we will, but borders will not be Civ3 style.


    I have been thinking of the idea of implementing force (army) to hold and expand your borders, so its not your culture that expands the borders but your force. (and no there are no Jedi's in the game).

    I have also thought that borders should only come when you reach a certain tech level and government level.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X