Jeff speaks out about the xp

[asleepathewheel]

Jeff Morris has answered questions regarding the expansion here on civfanatics.


Apprarently the new multiplayer system is like Fallout Tactics, with a few differences. Anyone played that?

They will do a civ of the week again, leading up to the release.

About game of the day/month : "Not sure what you're talking about here. There isn't any built in support for these types of tourneys, beyond what we've already released (no mods to scenario once the game starts, etc)."

Infogrames is in control of the release date, which has not yet been announced

Not much here, other than the Fallout tactics bit. How does that system work?

[Adagio]

Great! now does anybody know that game, how is it?

Anyway, I just hope they don't release the XP before June 22nd, I would like to finnish of my exams this year

[Zoid]

"Speaks out" isn´t entirely accurate, is it? He doesn´t reveal anything, he just refers to coming E3 and Civ3.com.

He answers like a politician, really...

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by ADG
Great! now does anybody know that game, how is it?

According to www.gamespot.co.uk review of Fallout tactics, the game has a real time movement, while has option for three different combat modes, one real time too, two turn based:

(As in gamespot review)
The turn-based modes are the best way to play the game, if only because they're the only modes in which you have much control. Of the two turn-based modes, squad-based is better. In this mode, the game plays much like Jagged Alliance or X-COM: UFO Defense--each member of your squad takes his or her turn, and then each member of the opposing squad does the same. In individual turn-based mode, characters move in order of their speed, much as in the Fallout role-playing games. This mode is less suited for a strategy game, if only because the lengthier firefights in Fallout Tactics require more team coordination.

The turn-based mode is valuable in difficult combat situations
For the most part, the real-time mode is the least appealing--the game calls it the "continuous turn-based" mode, a moniker that's either a bad attempt at humor or just plain wrong. The real-time mode is good in fights where your squad outnumbers the opposition, and it can be very useful when hunting down wounded stragglers. But the problem with the real-time mode is that you have little time to make decisions for your team. Because of this, there are sentry modes that let you adjust your squad members' attitude when facing opposition. They will then react automatically, and by the time you've set all their options, they're self-contained little killing machines. You won't have much to do but move them around. It works, but it isn't very engaging.

In turn-based mode, the combat is better, though the system does have some limitations. You can't jump fences or climb walls. You can get to rooftops, but only if there's a ladder provided. As a result of these restrictions, the game can be too linear at times, and the maps will often seem like mazes that you must navigate in a very specific manner. But Fallout Tactics has some great tactical features, like specifically targeted shots and the ability to specialize in various weapons and combat styles, and these options help to balance out some of the shortcomings.

Mentioning a game with three combat options, then throw in the presence of "some difference" is not a lot of info, IMO

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
"Speaks out" isn´t entirely accurate, is it? He doesn´t reveal anything, he just refers to coming E3 and Civ3.com.

He answers like a politician, really...

uh, yeah, I don't know what Iwas thinking when I typed that one

[Zoid]

It´s OK, but don´t do it again...

[Dom Pedro II]

Yeah, I checked out the Q&A before I came across this thread, and it seemed more like Jeff was not answering the questions as he was explaining why he couldn't answer them.

[Swissy]

The Official Fallout Tactics FAQ states that the game 's RT mode is a hybrid RT/TB called "Continous Turn-Based". Players have action points and expend then to do things, with the action points regenerating over time. Since Fallout is a tactical game, moving is not considered an action, but just about everything else is (shoot, reload, search, etc.)

Transfering this to Civ3, a units movement points would be its action points. Once a unit has expended all its movement points, it will not be able to do anything but defend until the movement points regenerate.

The question now should be; how does a unit regenerate its movement points? Fallout uses a continual system. To tranfer that to Civ3, a horseman (movement 2) would regenerate 1 movement point per half a turn. A player can move his horseman then wait half a turn and move it again. Players who are able to build to faster units will have an advantage (Aztecs can do that from the start).

[Grrr]

Interesting. Must find out more.

[player1]

Setting build queues and moving sliders would porbably be free actions, while all units actions would have cost.

[Grumbold]

If it works a bit like Tactics then turns would probably cycle at a steady rate. This seems more playable than having MP's regenerate during turns since many actions are not about moving units, unlike Tactics. Incidentally moving did expend AP's at a rate linked to whether your soldiers were running, walking or crawling. So this system is shifting some way toward the RTS approach of limiting your ability to micromanage by your ability to prioritise, your click rate and click accuracy. This really makes the ability to create mixed unit groups and assign them to hotkeys (along with key map locations) even more important.

questions:

- are the cycle rates dependent partly on players, i.e. will the clock start ticking immediately or only once at least some players indicate they have completed all their moves? Can it be paused to allow breaks in play for calls of nature or domestic crises?

- how will the turn length increase as empires get larger and more complex? One minute or faster turns would be appropriate at 4000 BC but unplayable well before 1000 AD.

- will four small empires be able to defeat a single empire that is more powerful than them combined simply because it will not have time to react properly to all their attacks?

- will a new skill be timing flip/flop atacks? i.e. launching an attack just before a turn cycle in the expectation of being able to move your units a second time before your opponent can appraise the situation and react.

I remain sceptical about how well this is going to work. Will defenders be able to spoil attacks by shoving in extra units after the attacker has finished bombarding? Will it even be obvious to a player that they are under attack if they are micromanaging on the other side of their empire since the view can hardly be shifting to show all visible troop movements? It will be interesting to find out.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Grumbold
questions:

- are the cycle rates dependent partly on players, i.e. will the clock start ticking immediately or only once at least some players indicate they have completed all their moves? Can it be paused to allow breaks in play for calls of nature or domestic crises?

"calls of nature or domestic crises" great point Grumbold , you show us that real life is still running outside the game (I have two children: I know the horror of a baby crying in the middle of the night, while I'm watching the enemy movement in a desperate need to find its soft spot to make a counterattack! ).

[Grumbold]

I always get urgent phone calls when I'm in the middle of the biggest team battle of the night in the MMORPG of the moment. No one calls when I'm idling away time on a single player game of anything

[Rhuarc]

Swissy, I like the way that you explained that, and I think that if that is what Firaxis is planning then it could turn out to be very fun. This would give an advantage to civs that concetrate more on smaller but faster units.