Civ3 EXPANSION PACK!!!! - Page 4

morb · May 2, 2002, 07:49

Quote:

Originally posted by ChaotikVisions
And morb, one more thing, if your getting beat that badly and having the AI build railroads in 1200s, your playing on too high a difficulty level. Warlord seems to best level to learn on, and its what most people I think started on. Though if you still have trouble you could go to Chieftain.

thanks chieftain, but you can save your advice for newbies.

morb · May 2, 2002, 07:51

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG

MarkG tries to remember a certain saying about exceptions and rules....

/me points out that MarkG is making excuses. hmm.

Gramphos · May 2, 2002, 09:51

So, when will COTW continue?

Venger · May 2, 2002, 09:55

Great, now you can pay for features that should've been in the frigging game out of the box. An editor that doesn't suck as the day is long. The ability to create scenarios. The ability to play another human frigging being (what YEAR IS IT Firaxis?).

Screw 'em. Civ4 won't contain the game CD, it'll be in an 'expansion pack'.

Venger
P.S. Playing SMAC this last week has opened by eyes to just how bad a regression much of Civ3 really is. They BRUTALLY ripped off the game engine of SMAC, but removed some of it's basic elements...

Nikolai · May 2, 2002, 10:17

Eh, when are E3?

Can't wait, can't wait, can't...

Theseus · May 2, 2002, 10:21

... looks forward to Chieftain and morb facing off in MPP...

Adm.Naismith · May 2, 2002, 10:34

Quote:

Originally posted by MidKnight Lament
Agreed. Glad to see some people on here can still maintain perspective.

MidKnight (BTW, hi MidKnight!), maintaining perspective is great, but if you look back to the recent history, you know how often Firaxis/Infogrames dropped away bits of relevant info as if they aren't relevant at all. It helps to manage the fans/customers reaction, let them free to make any last minute change without justifying it...

So, it's ok to wait and see the real facts and figures before to cry or applaude the XP, still any info we get can be debated because that's exactly the PR tactic the developers have chosen.

Unless we can just ignore them, that is

UltraSonix (BTW, hi UltraSonix!), it will be interesting to see a different approach to multyplayer game. I'd love to see a "simultaneous turn execution", not a "real time click fest". As for limited info we have, I can't judge if Firaxis is making a Civ III RTS with another name or is really developing something different.

Whatever method they'll use, I wonder if it will be a viable option for single player, too. I mean, if a "turnless method" works in MP, what's the show stopper for a SP, as a fresh change from Turn base?

Any opinion?

Hagbart · May 2, 2002, 10:36

My guesses at the 8! new civs...

It's going to be (completely sure):
1- Vikings (Europe) (they were in civ2)
2- Spanish (Europe/Medi) (civ2)
3- Mongols (Asia) (civ2)
4- Incas/Mayans (South America) (only one)

Not totally sure:
5- Carthage (Africa/Medi) (civ2 too)
6- Turks/Arabs (Middle East/Arabian Pen.) (don't think we'll get both of them)

The last ones:
7- One African Civ more (My knowledge of african civs is bad )
8- That leaves space for another Asian/(maybe pacific) Civ (dont know which -maybe Korea -maybe one of the small ones)

What do u think?

See u!

Alex · May 2, 2002, 10:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Cesa
UltraSonix, regarding you sig, neither do polar bears walk the streets in Sweden

Oh, and there are no monkeys walking down the streets in Brazil, despite what The Simpsons may say...

Movies. I want movies. Wonder movies, victory movies, easter egg movies... any movies.

(alas, that probably won't happen...)

LaRusso · May 2, 2002, 10:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Venger
Great, now you can pay for features that should've been in the frigging game out of the box. An editor that doesn't suck as the day is long. The ability to create scenarios. The ability to play another human frigging being (what YEAR IS IT Firaxis?).

Screw 'em. Civ4 won't contain the game CD, it'll be in an 'expansion pack'.

Venger
P.S. Playing SMAC this last week has opened by eyes to just how bad a regression much of Civ3 really is. They BRUTALLY ripped off the game engine of SMAC, but removed some of it's basic elements...

wow, venger is back with a vengeance
good to know that there IS a game that passes his stringent tests. i did not doubt it's the same game that have put me to sleep many many times...

Solver · May 2, 2002, 11:25

We will surely have at least one, possibly two new civ-specific abilities, as adding 8 new civs with the same abilities... nah.

ACooper · May 2, 2002, 11:31

With the current number of abilities there are 30 combinations before any need be repeated. I doubt we will see new abilities

lockstep · May 2, 2002, 11:46

Quote:

Originally posted by ACooper
With the current number of abilities there are 30 combinations before any need be repeated. I doubt we will see new abilities

No, there are only 15. Check out the Aztecs and the Japanese.

lockstep · May 2, 2002, 11:47

To be somewhat more specific, e.g. Militaristic/Religious and Religious/Militaristic isn't much of a difference, is it?

Stuie · May 2, 2002, 11:49

So if they add one more, there are 6 new unique combinations; if they add two there are 13 new unique combinations. I get the feeling we might get one new Civ Ability with some more overlap between civs.

But this is all speculation. Who knows. I'm just hoping the Ethiopians are in.

Gramphos · May 2, 2002, 11:51

To give each new civ an unique combination two new abilities would be needed.

Solver · May 2, 2002, 12:01

Exactly, 15 abilities currently, Aztecs and Japanese the same. This is why I say we're going to have *at least* one new - if there's one, though, some new civs will still match. What do you think these should be?

One I would like to see is Agricultural - +1 food each city or Metropolis, maybe something else, too.

Ideas for another one? Maybe we could introduce a Diplomatic trait? But we need to give the Foreign Advisor some range of mistake, then.

ACooper · May 2, 2002, 12:08

oops, your right. there is no difference between a with b and b with a.

What characteristic could they add?

SpencerH · May 2, 2002, 12:11

There are so many things that could be done. I think working ourselves up like this with such interesting ideas only leads to disappointment when it doesnt (or cant) happen.

Solver · May 2, 2002, 12:14

Quote:

There are so many things that could be done. I think working ourselves up like this with such interesting ideas only leads to disappointment when it doesnt (or cant) happen.

Right... but I can bet on my postcount there will be a new trait

.

SpencerH · May 2, 2002, 12:14

Quote:

Originally posted by ACooper
oops, your right. there is no difference between a with b and b with a.

What characteristic could they add?

a/b and b/a can be different if there are priorities set into the coding.

For example, miltarist/religious builds barracks before temple while religious/miltarist builds temple before barracks.

Solver · May 2, 2002, 12:19

There's nothing like that.

SpencerH · May 2, 2002, 12:21

I didnt think there was I was just suggesting how it could be done

civman2000 · May 2, 2002, 12:25

civ3.com doesnt have anything up about it yet....

A few q's people may have already asked (I'm not reading all 112 replies!):
1. cost?
2. version # of civ?

Solver · May 2, 2002, 12:30

Cost - estimated about 30$.
Version - no info.

centrifuge · May 2, 2002, 12:33

Everyone needs to just take a deep breath and relax. Calm down people, it's not here yet...

Solver · May 2, 2002, 12:36

Sure it's not

. But were we silent before the game got released

?

ChaotikVisions · May 2, 2002, 12:46

Hmm, more civ abilitys would be nice. Agricultural sounds like a good one, but how about Seafarers? Ships cost less to build and/or maintain, and they more from harbors. Diplomatic could be one too, enemy civs nicer to you/quicker to forgot past transgressions, deals more easily negotiated, etc... Dunno, but it'll be interesting to see what they choose. Oh and morb if your losing that badly its one of two things. A: Your not good enough yet. B: Your playing on too high a leve. Or its a combination of them both. Don't say the game is bad just because you can't start out winning on Diety.

Akka · May 2, 2002, 12:49

Am I the only one that think it's a shame to have an expansion in the work while the game isn't still finished ?

Come on, it's been six months since they released the game which was supposed to get an editor that would be better than Civ2, and you still can't even put the starting position in it !

Cesa · May 2, 2002, 12:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexnm

Oh, and there are no monkeys walking down the streets in Brazil, despite what The Simpsons may say...

Movies. I want movies. Wonder movies, victory movies, easter egg movies... any movies.

(alas, that probably won't happen...)

I think we have changed the way people look at enough contries for one day, we might get people confused

I'd like movies too, especially wonder movies, but I don't think there will be any in this expansion pack, I hope for the next...

Regarding the vikings, if they're included I hope they make them commercial/militaristic, that would be the most fitting. They were definitely not scientific or expansionists. And I'd choose militaristic before religous considering the reputation the vikings have of being warmongers (that is not entierly true though...) There is no doubt about the commercial trait, most of their travels were for trade, not fighting and stealing.

Their UU should be either a land unit replacing the warrior or swordsman or something, or a better tireme.

But I guess it's just wait and see...

edited for spelling, as always...