Anyone Want Civ 2.5? - Page 3

Centauri18 · January 26, 2003, 02:22

Farming and a Future age in Civ4. That and all the stuff currently in Civ 3 would be enough for me. And I've written in other threads about interesting small Wonders. To say nothing of my hopes for a different project to trigger the Spaceship Victory... In case none of you have read that thread yet, my idea is to make the Apollo Program increase Science and then be a requirement for another small Wonder near the endgame - the Mars Project. That ought to be what triggers the ability to build a spaceship. I mean, do they seriously expect me to believe that we could go straight from landing on the moon to colonizing Alpha Centauri? I don't think so.
But my Mars Project idea would take place in my new Future Age, and then only in Civ4. But hey, for now a person could just make the changes to Apollo and add Mars...
But maybe that's just me.

Dauphin · January 26, 2003, 10:19

Advancing to 2050 would be good, but I wouldn't want any techs that are off the wall. But given a choice between detailed future techs and a more diverse history/modern techs I would go with the latter.

Slowing the game down (yrs per turn) and having more details is preferable to extending it. It would allow you to have decent ancient era wars - normally you don't get into a decent barney until the middle ages when there is no free room to expand.

DarkCloud · February 9, 2003, 13:19

Quote:

In civ2 micro is making tweaks to your cities, and moving non-combat units around. I think people who complain there is too much micro need to play a different game.

But that's fun?

And you can ignore caravans if you want and still win the game- I NEVER use caravans! (then again, I play at chieftan level

)

If you don't like something, just don't use it in the game!

If you are good enough at playing, you can still win if you neglect diplomats, spies, and caravans! And even engineers!

DrSpike · February 9, 2003, 14:08

I agree with the guy you quoted DC....the level of micromanagement in civ2 is minimal. If it is too much for anyone then they shouldn't play TBS.

DarkCloud · February 9, 2003, 15:14

...Someone else was complaining about there being too much micromanagement. I disagreed. But thanks to the toher persons explanation I now know what micromanagement is... but then again, if that's his definition, then that is the entire game of civ- you don't do anything other than move units?

Andemagne · February 9, 2003, 16:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Andemagne
me wants Civ2½!

best in this is that before Civ3 was released, I firmly wanted Civ3 and not Civ2½.

DrSpike · February 9, 2003, 16:43

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud
...Someone else was complaining about there being too much micromanagement. I disagreed. But thanks to the toher persons explanation I now know what micromanagement is... but then again, if that's his definition, then that is the entire game of civ- you don't do anything other than move units?

Quite. Anyone that wants it simpler should just play Command and Conquer.