Thread Tools
Old April 30, 2001, 14:49   #61
Yog-Sothoth
Prince
 
Local Time: 01:56
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 431
I'm hoping we will get some feedback from Firaxis on this issue soon, before these threads become nothing more than name calling etc.

I think there are some things that should be clearified before this duscussion can move on:

Are there gonna be 1 civ spesific units per civ, or several?

Will these units have different stats or just different art?

Are there more civ spes things, or just units?

I also think the question on number of civs has some connection with this, as that will determin how much specific art etc has to be made, so:

Do we know for sure that the game is hardcoded to 7 civs?

Do we know if there are gonna be 16 civs to choose from?

In earlier threads Firaxis has quite often replied to clearify the topics in discussion. I'm starting to wonder why we don't hear anything now, especially in light of the rather heathed discussion's we're having.

Yog-Sothoth is offline  
Old April 30, 2001, 14:52   #62
Bereta_Eder
Settler
 
Bereta_Eder's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:56
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 65,535
quote:

Originally posted by Ralf on 04-30-2001 12:52 PMWell, then whats the big deal? [This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 30, 2001).]


Ralf please take the time and read the earlier posts.

Bereta_Eder is offline  
Old April 30, 2001, 15:28   #63
Bereta_Eder
Settler
 
Bereta_Eder's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:56
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 65,535
quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 04-30-2001 12:08 PM
Why ignore people wanting more Civs? Why ignore the many people who recognize the danger of co-called "unique" civs? Why, Firaxis? I'll tell you why: This isn't Civ3, it's SMAC 2.



Cyclotron7, I am begining to fear this too
Bereta_Eder is offline  
Old April 30, 2001, 15:45   #64
Cyclotron
Never Ending StoriesThe Courts of Candle'Bre
King
 
Cyclotron's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:56
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cyclo-who?
Posts: 2,995
Zylka: I agree with you about Civ-specific stuff, but take it easy on the minority here. This discussion has gotten somewhat out of hand, let's keep it civil...

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"
Cyclotron is offline  
Old April 30, 2001, 15:55   #65
Slax
Prince
 
Slax's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:56
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 657
I gotta agree. For better or worse (in my opinion worse), this is not the sequel to Civilization II.
Slax is offline  
Old April 30, 2001, 17:00   #66
ajbera
Prince
 
ajbera's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:56
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: of the Cookieville Minimum Security Orphanarium
Posts: 428
I just fired up SMAC for old times sake, and while there is no option to remove faction agendas/special characteristics, you can randomize them (Randomize Faction Leader Personality and Randomize Faction Leader Social Agendas.)

While this obviously won't mollify the civers totally opposed to civ-specific characteristics, it would at least present an element of unpredictability. Hopefully Firaxis will see fit to incorporate this option to randomize national traits, as well as an option to turn them off.
ajbera is offline  
Old April 30, 2001, 17:08   #67
Sirotnikov
DiplomacyApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization III Democracy Game
Emperor
 
Sirotnikov's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:56
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 7,138
I'm afraid you are right. This does indeed feel more and more like SMAC 2.
And I'm very sorry but I don't like SMAC. Why is Firaxis naming this Civ anyway? Just because they can?

Look at it. They're not there to make a game we like. They're out there to make a game which will be a huge hit for a short time just like Red ALert or AoE. Because that will bring them money and a huge fanbase of zealoted empty-headed fans.

I really wonder if all the new settlers appearing here are not someone's DLs. A certain someone which just loves unique civs but can't make any points to rationally support it.

Goodbye Firaxis. Goodbye Ci... SMAC 2.

Sirotnikov is offline  
Old April 30, 2001, 17:32   #68
Ralf
King
 
Ralf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:56
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,728
quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22 on 04-30-2001 02:52 PM
Ralf please take the time and read the earlier posts.


Paiktis22, heres a word of advice:
Before you post adrupt 1-liners telling people to read earlier posts in the subject, perhaps you should try to follow your own advice a little better yourself.

I have posted at least 4 lengthy replies in the very thread that started the whole damn debate: 14 Poll: "unique benefits depending on the civilization you choose" arguing vigorously against any SMAC-style benefits/trade-offs for each civ. Yes, my viewpoint have been downtuned somewhat since then, because A: the whole thing is likely optional anyway, and B: the issue in this particular thread (civ-specific units - yes, I have read the whole thread; some few talk about the original thing, but most people are ranting about those units) seems comparably much easier to swallow, then the original bigger issue.

Click on Poll result and see for you self. This is what the whole thing originally was about: having faction-style science-, trade-, happiness-, production-, combat-benefits & trade-offs, unique for each and every civ.
This is why I am a little surprised why you guys now over-emphasize the comparably minor issue of "Civ-specific units". Why does this steer up so much fuss? Civ-2 already had AI-civ unique temperament- and management emphasize differences, and you are upset that each civ now have its own set of unique units. WHY?

Each civ-specific unit can almost certanly be tweaked back and forth any way you like it through the text-files. And you can always duplicate the graphics for one prefered civ, over to the other civ-specific folders as well. Or download modpacks.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 30, 2001).]
Ralf is offline  
Old April 30, 2001, 17:55   #69
Zylka
Civilization II MultiplayerDiploGamesApolytoners Hall of Fame
King
 
Local Time: 00:56
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hidden within an infantile Ikea fortress
Posts: 1,054

Cyclotron: I think that a post of that calibre is required when someone insinuates you "can't count to 10" simply because you disagree with his/her opinions (and successfully undermine them with playful satire as well). Again, I stand by my reluctance to have cheesy attributes forced on all civ players because of the opinions of a tiny minority.

Zylka is offline  
Old April 30, 2001, 17:58   #70
Zylka
Civilization II MultiplayerDiploGamesApolytoners Hall of Fame
King
 
Local Time: 00:56
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hidden within an infantile Ikea fortress
Posts: 1,054
quote:

Originally posted by Sirotnikov on 04-30-2001 05:08 PM

I really wonder if all the new settlers appearing here are not someone's DLs. A certain someone which just loves unique civs but can't make any points to rationally support it.




Hehehehehehehehe
Zylka is offline  
Old April 30, 2001, 18:04   #71
The diplomat
King
 
The diplomat's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:56
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Terre Haute, IN USA
Posts: 1,285
This debate is really getting repetitive.

We have not even played the game yet. How do you folks know that unique civs is bad for the game? Aren't you all bashing unique civs purely on your stereotypical assumptions of how it will work in the game?
Firaxis is actually playing the prototype and obviously feel they have implemented unique civs in such a way that it makes the game better.

I personally trust Firaxis and look forward to how they implement unique civs. I think it sounds very promising.



------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.
The diplomat is offline  
Old April 30, 2001, 18:29   #72
markusf
King
 
markusf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:56
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 1,721
What a bunch of whiners... I actually like the idea, if i where to impliment it i would give every civ a special unit for each "age" So maybe 5 special units per civ.

ie germans would get.
a ship that moves 2 more squares then normal
a plane that has a stronger attack
a superpikemen
a big tank
a more powerful courthouse

I would extend this idea to buildings and production as well. For instance germans would only need 50 shields to build a tank instead of 60. Or a bank increases gold by 60% instead of 50% etc etc
markusf is offline  
Old April 30, 2001, 19:12   #73
Bereta_Eder
Settler
 
Bereta_Eder's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:56
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 65,535
Ralf,
Sorry! (I actually didn't read them now as well. The past... who cares?
ooops )
Bereta_Eder is offline  
Old April 30, 2001, 20:46   #74
yin26
inmate
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Born Again Optimist
 
yin26's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:56
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: This space reserved for Darkstar.
Posts: 5,667
Zylka:

Actually, the two games I'm most into right now are Europa Universalis and The Operational Art of War 2, which has a difficulty rating of "Impossible" according to Gamespot. Guess you have no idea what you are talking about, again...

Let's make this clear a second. Do you think Sid made his decisions because a minority of people here wanted it? Get real. I'd venture to say the man knows just a liiiiiitle bit more about making games than you do. Could you possibly admit that a moment? And if he has found a way to make this fun, why not trust the man?

Otherwise go find some other game that lets you play 64 exact same civs and pretend this somehow gives you more realism. I really have nothing more to say to you on this since you are ignorant in so many ways about ALL of this. Take care.
yin26 is offline  
Old April 30, 2001, 21:45   #75
Cyclotron
Never Ending StoriesThe Courts of Candle'Bre
King
 
Cyclotron's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:56
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cyclo-who?
Posts: 2,995
Why is it that the resounding chorus of Yin and his fellows seems to be "trust Sid"? If you guys are resigned to letting Sid do stuff for you, that's fine... but then I question why you ever came to this forum if you have decided that input isn't really necessary and you can just "trust Sid." I'm sorry, I don't share your trust or your blind faith in a game company, so I will continue to make suggestions and tell 'em what my opinions are.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"
Cyclotron is offline  
Old April 30, 2001, 21:54   #76
yin26
inmate
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Born Again Optimist
 
yin26's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:56
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: This space reserved for Darkstar.
Posts: 5,667
Two Reasons:

1. If any programmer in the history of gaming has proven himself, it's Sid. Don't agree? That's fine. We disagree on that.

2. I DID MAKE SURE OUR INPUT WAS HEARD! Moreso than for ANY other game EVER. Think about that a moment. Moreso than for ANY other game EVER. 500 pages. They tabbed it, marked all over and read it like a Gamer Feedback Bible.

Now, just because they seem to be going with a minority view on some controversial issues, does that mean they didn't listen or something? Maybe, juuuust maybe, the minority is right here. Ever consider that possibility? And maybe the majority will play the game and say:

"You know what, I'm awfully glad Sid was willing to take some risks and follow what I realize now were awfully damn good ideas."
yin26 is offline  
Old April 30, 2001, 21:56   #77
Cyclotron
Never Ending StoriesThe Courts of Candle'Bre
King
 
Cyclotron's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:56
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cyclo-who?
Posts: 2,995
In addition, Yin: Those 64 civs are only the exact same if you play them that way. We're not talking about realism; we are talking about gameplay. I personally feel that you civ should earn and develop that benefit, not just have it bestowed upon you like a gift from heaven. Like I said, those 64 civs are static if you play them all the same... if you take a different strategy to each one, and try different styles of play, I think that those 64 civs won't seem like one another, or even different because of their abilities... they will seem like your civs, that you created with your own decisions and your own mind. And that, my friend, is what Civ is all about.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"
Cyclotron is offline  
Old April 30, 2001, 22:13   #78
yin26
inmate
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Born Again Optimist
 
yin26's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:56
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: This space reserved for Darkstar.
Posts: 5,667
I understand your point. But how often does the COMP play a different strategy? For the most part, those 64 civs are played by the COMP exactly the same way most every game. Sure, if we all played against each other, I'd be on your side. But I want computer opponents with different tactics AND different units (to a reasonable degree) to keep ME working to watch them closely and adjust my tactics accordingly.

Now, if you never want YOUR civ (or COMP civs) to have any unique bonuses or units, I am more than sure Firaxis will give you the option to turn it off. If they don't that would be a mistake considering the majority opinion.

I still venture to say, though, you might darn well enjoy the way Sid pulls this off. Only time will tell...
[This message has been edited by yin26 (edited April 30, 2001).]
yin26 is offline  
Old April 30, 2001, 22:20   #79
Jon Miller
staff
ApolyCon 06 ParticipantsCivilization III MultiplayerCivilization II MultiplayerRise of Nations MultiplayerPtWDG Vox ControliC4DG Vox
OTF Moderator
 
Jon Miller's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:56
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 13,063
I agree iwth Cyclotron

Jon Miller
Jon Miller is offline  
Old April 30, 2001, 23:06   #80
Zylka
Civilization II MultiplayerDiploGamesApolytoners Hall of Fame
King
 
Local Time: 00:56
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hidden within an infantile Ikea fortress
Posts: 1,054

Fine Yin. Have fun according your life on what "Gamespot" tells you, and keep looking up to your hero Sid. No need to arrive at your own opinions. After all Sid will make sure everything is allright, he's Sid. Know something? I know what Sid is doing here and I DON'T like it, my oppinion is not going to change because "he knows what he's doing".

..yet I agree Sid knows a liiiitle bit more than me about making games (refer to previous sentence). He also knows a little bit more about making money these days. Ask someone what "selling out" or re-introducing an old product with unfitting bells and whistles means.

I'm glad you were the first to dismiss with the "I'm not even going to waste time on your ignorance anymore" method. Very original, you sure showed me

Have fun with Alpha Centari 2!


[This message has been edited by Zylka (edited April 30, 2001).]
Zylka is offline  
Old April 30, 2001, 23:07   #81
Cyclotron
Never Ending StoriesThe Courts of Candle'Bre
King
 
Cyclotron's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:56
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cyclo-who?
Posts: 2,995
quote:

Originally posted by yin26 on 04-30-2001 09:54 PM
And maybe the majority will play the game and say: "You know what, I'm awfully glad Sid was willing to take some risks and follow what I realize now were awfully damn good ideas."


This certainly is a possibility, Yin. But I consider it equally likely that you guys will play the game and say, "boy, Firaxis didn't do a very good job with that. Why ever did I want these silly unique units?"

Both scenarios are entirely plausible, but you can't blame a guy for speaking on what he knows. My experience is that this is a bad thing, and yours may be that it is a good thing. That's fine.

Yin, promise me you'll stick around long enough for me to buy this game and play it a bit... so at that time we can actually analyze this issue. In the mean time, all we can do is spout our opinions, so spout I shall!

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"
Cyclotron is offline  
Old April 30, 2001, 23:36   #82
Lawrence of Arabia
PtWDG Gathering StormMac
King
 
Lawrence of Arabia's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:56
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: California Republic
Posts: 1,240
The essence of Civ is to recreate history. To do this, you start with a generic civilization which you can modele to your style. It can be different each time you play because each time you can change styles. This is counter to AoK where when your the Brits, your forced to build Longbowmen to match up against the Teutonic Knights or whatever other UU. I just don't see how giving the Germans pazers at the beginning of the game will let you play that civ to your own style. It puts you down a certain path, just like AoK. UU are good, but not the way we think FIRAXIS has implemented it.

In the List i think that this was inclueded by Im not sure.

After the discovery of Armored Warefare, you have the option to research the tech called 'Panzer tanks'. If you want this UU, then you can research it.If you don't, then you don't have to. Each game, when you get to this point, you have the option to take it, or leave it. If you take it, its gives you an edge in armoured warfare, but you may fall behind in other aspects. Do you want to fight a war now and use this new tech, or wait for more advanced units? This choice in itself is more of an option than if you have panzers at the beginning. You will still have to look out to see which UU the other civs are using against you, but you still have the choice. Historically, the Babylonians were killed off a long time ago. In civ2, they can survive into the 21th century. This may seem wacky, but its alternate history. If they can survive that long, why not also let them research Panzer tanks? Why limit the Panzers to a single civ? This is my primary objection to UU assigned to certain civs. At the dawn of civilization, anything is possible. Did the German civilization know in 4000 BC that they were going to develop Panzers 6000 years later? No! Why give UU to civs, why put each civ down a certain path, when unpredictability is what civ is all about. i fear that veteran players of civ3 will learn how the AI uses panzers, and then the novelty has worn off because they know how to conteract. But if a whole different civ develops Panzers, you might know how to react to them.

------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now
Lawrence of Arabia is offline  
Old May 1, 2001, 00:08   #83
Cyclotron
Never Ending StoriesThe Courts of Candle'Bre
King
 
Cyclotron's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:56
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cyclo-who?
Posts: 2,995
I think that the only bonuses should be those that the player wins for himself. There is simply no other choice that is not completely destructive to Civilization strategy.

Which would you rather have? The "strategy" of picking one race or the real strategy of developing your Civ over time?

Civ-specific units that are bestowed no matter what at the beginning of the game will be the worst thing to ever befall this game. They are eliminating your own strategy for less "bland" Civs. What a joke!

If you guys scroll down the forum list of topics, it looks like a lot of complaining to me... much of which is justified! Firaxis has made some poor decisions that have many people asking "why?" and Firaxis doesn't seem to have an answer. Truly, "why?" Friaxis? Why ignore people wanting more Civs? Why ignore the many people who recognize the danger of co-called "unique" civs? Why, Firaxis? I'll tell you why: This isn't Civ3, it's SMAC 2. The same engine, looks like. The picture gets clearer: This game is going to suck. I've given my input, and many other people have too... and have been ignored. Well, when it comes out, and it DOES suck, at least I won't have myself to blame.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"
Cyclotron is offline  
Old May 1, 2001, 00:41   #84
yin26
inmate
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Born Again Optimist
 
yin26's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:56
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: This space reserved for Darkstar.
Posts: 5,667
cyclotron7: I was here when the forum started, and I'll be here a long time after Civ3 is released. I think you are absolutely right: I may well totally dislike the way things turn out. As you rightly mention, we must both play the game now to see...
yin26 is offline  
Old May 1, 2001, 00:51   #85
Chronus
Prince
 
Local Time: 00:56
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 371
Okay, I'm not exactly sure what all this hub bub is about. Is this an argument over Unique vs. Generic civs, or is it REALLY an argument about whether unique civs can be turned on or off with a "switch".

I think most of us "generic civ" folks would have no problem with unique civs as long as it is optional. Everybody is yaking as if it's going to be one way or the other (and, yes, I understand that SMAC can leave us with this impression). So then, can we all agree that making unique civs as an option is a good thing? And since there doesn't seem to be any official announcement, can we all wait and see if Sid (the master programmer, etc., etc.) will make it an option just as it is in AOK?

Voice our opinions? Yes. But it's a bit too early for all this whining and crying (not to mention silly).
Chronus is offline  
Old May 1, 2001, 00:52   #86
Ralf
King
 
Ralf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:56
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,728
quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 04-30-2001 12:08 PM
Civ-specific units that are bestowed no matter what at the beginning of the game will be the worst thing to ever befall this game.


What are we talking about here? Civ-specific units ONLY?

What I voted against in that "Civ-specific" poll, was the whole shebang: specific science-, trade-, production-, happiness-, combat-benefits/trade-offs for each and every damn Civ (ala SMAC). That I didnt like.

Still: if its checkbox optional I guess I can live with it. Barely...

If we instead are talking about civ-specific units ONLY; Well, then whats the big deal? The only thing I would recommend then is some easy way to determine the ADM-data for that forreign looking unit - for example by right-clicking the unit. I hate to be forced to load, and scroll through the civilopedia each and every time. Rightclick ADM-data is helpful for scenarios also - especially in SciFi & fantasy-scenarios with often very strange and indefinable looking units.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 30, 2001).]
Ralf is offline  
Old May 1, 2001, 01:06   #87
Cyclotron
Never Ending StoriesThe Courts of Candle'Bre
King
 
Cyclotron's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:56
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cyclo-who?
Posts: 2,995
Well Yin, I will buy it no matter how it turns out... First of all, I really want to see the final product... and second of all, Lancer's IHN declared me the second-best Civ3 player ever, and I can't pass that opportunity up!

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"
Cyclotron is offline  
Old May 1, 2001, 04:00   #88
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:56
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
First off, we know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about how this will be implimented. The Civ3 forums seem to be suffering from people who jump too soon to conclusions. I suggest a wait and see attitude.

Secondly:

quote:

Civ is all about strategy. What kind of fool would choose a civ that puts him/her in a strategic disadvantage? I expect the AI (or MP) to challenge me.


*cough*SMAC*cough*

Also, addendum to second point: For those that think this is SMAC2 or Sid 'selling out', you really don't get it, do you? Compare Civ1 to Civ2. I think all the new information we've recieved about Civ3 (which is still only 50% complete) shows that Civ3 from Civ2 (or SMAC) is a MUCH BIGGER jump than Civ2 from Civ1. Where were you saying Civ2 was a sell out? And if this is SMAC2 (different starting point, btw... you might have missed that), then so be it. I loved SMAC...

Thirdly:

Sid is the best game designer on the planet. If anyone can make anything work it is him. If it turns out to suck, Sid is 'man enough' to take it out of the game. It's SID we are talking about!!! While I do not like the idea of unique units, I'll see what Sid comes up with. I know I'll buy it, since Sid has never disappointed me.

And, Fourthy:

Zylka, do you know how annoying you are? Did you just come from Red Alert time? Yin, while I don't agree with him on everything, is a well respected poster who led the bug search in SMAC and led 'The List' project. You are nothing compared to him. While I do not agree with him here, I respect his view and see where he is coming from, and I don't have to call him names or question his intelligence. And, yeah, I'm a Deity.. though I don't see why Chieftans and Settlers can't join the debate.
Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old May 1, 2001, 04:41   #89
Ralf
King
 
Ralf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:56
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,728
quote:

Originally posted by Chronus on 05-01-2001 12:51 AM
Okay, I'm not exactly sure what all this hub bub is about. Is this an argument over Unique vs. Generic civs, or is it REALLY an argument about whether unique civs can be turned on or off with a "switch".


I agree! A while ago I understood better all the grunts against the original larger issue of SMAC-faction style benefits/trade-offs, although that also, an most certainly will be 100% optional ala AOK, IF its implemented that is. I however havent heard any final confirmations on this bigger version yet. Besides: if its optional; well, that means exactly what its says: OPTIONAL - a completely free choice. Dont like it? Dont choose it.

But the comparibly minor issue of civ-specific units? Hell, thats even easier for Firaxis to make that optional. Remember the huge selection of game-preference checkbox options in SMAC? Its likely that Civ-3 is going to have a similar broad range of checkbox options in Civ-3. And the text tweak-files are also likely to be even more advanced, extensive and accessible then the Civ-2/SMAC counterparts. So what the heck is all this fuss about?

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited May 01, 2001).]
Ralf is offline  
Old May 1, 2001, 05:44   #90
Il principe
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:56
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 14
I agree with the last post of Lawrence of Arabia
Il principe is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:56.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team