New XP announced - Page 6

The Templar · May 17, 2003, 15:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Aias
Thanks Sid! Just when I was starting to get burnt out on PTW! More time down the drain!

I want more units and more governments!

More governments would probably require governments to effect more aspects of the game. Of course, they could add a government like the one I added (Neoliberalism) in my mod. Just click below and check it out.

Oh no, I'll probably have to do my mod again!

vee4473 · May 17, 2003, 16:53

Quote:

Originally posted by statusperfect
anyone knows if we'll need PtW to run it?

cheers

That would be THE super-duper ultra-pooper cheese tactic of all time, and it will gaurantee that I don't buy the expansion.

Carver · May 17, 2003, 17:12

Also, I want more information:

We should be able to see the F11 screen data for any nation where we have an embassy or a spy.

If a civ is a democracy we should be able to see their budget, since that information would be public.

We should see the total number of cities in the world and the number for each civ.

Carver · May 17, 2003, 17:17

The National Reconnaissance Organization small wonder:

Available with satelites, this allows you to see all troop movements throughout the globe, and reveals the entire globe to you if you don't yet have a map of everything.

TOUGHUSAGUY · May 17, 2003, 19:29

USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA!!!

I DONT WANT TO SEE THE SAVAGES FOR THE PEOPLE WHEN THE CITY COMES UP! I WANT WHITE AMERICANS LIKE ITS THE WAY SUPPOSED TO BE!

UNITED WE STAND!
LETS ROLL!

TOUGHUSAGUY · May 17, 2003, 19:47

I JUST DONT SEE NO MORE NEED FOR THE CIVLIZATOIN 4 IF THEY GONNA MAKE IT THIS ONE GOOD!

USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA

ChrisiusMaximus · May 17, 2003, 21:03

TOUGHUSAGUY what is the point of your post here and for that matter all of the trash you have posted in various threads since you registered?

monkspider · May 17, 2003, 22:48

I agree that more info via f11 would be very welcome. What can I say? I'm snoopy.

Ming · May 17, 2003, 23:39

TOUGHUSAGUY is a DL, he has no point... don't worry, he's gone now

Captain Obvious · May 18, 2003, 10:45

I would hope they include war mobilization in the new XP.

Some people disagree because they argue that in the 'real world' allies can become enemies in a heartbeat.

OK..... but in the real world, you would also have some hints that a nation is going to war with you: troop buildup at certain areas, troop movement heading in your direction, info from scouts, later satellite images, and so on.

So thats why I would include war mobilization

Any thoughts?

Azeem · May 18, 2003, 11:20

White Americans? Savages? WTF? I have to be "white" to be "American"? What kind of KKK racist garbage is that?

Anyway, back to the topic before we were so RUDELY interrupted by that moron, I think our foreign advisors should drop a few hints every now and then that a paticular nation (that we have an embassy in) is sort of acting peculiar. There could be some hints that there will be war.

How about having a new option for units - "mobilization". With this option, you can select a few cities to "mobilize" their troops, which would activate all of their units.

Captain Obvious · May 18, 2003, 11:24

Quote:

White Americans? Savages? WTF? I have to be "white" to be "American"? What kind of KKK racist garbage is that?

Not necessarily. Look that guy was obviously (no pun intended) a moron but I think his point was that why are we seeing only Native American people in the American civ instead of "European looking" Americans???

Most of America's population is white and lets face it, the Native Civs had no comprehension of what "America" or "Americans' were.

Azeem · May 18, 2003, 11:27

Have you read this moron's previous posts?

Anyway, let's get back on topic here. What do you think about the "mobilization" idea?

Quasar1011 · May 18, 2003, 11:31

I want a battleship that can attack more than once per turn. Maybe I can mod that.

Somebody had mentioned the ability to build naval bases in your allies' territory. I guess that could be expanded to airbases. But what about your allies' cities being able to repair your units, a la Civ2? You could "put into" an allied port, and your damaged ship would be completely healed. The same could be done with land units and allied cities with barracks, a la Civ 2. I didn't use that feature much, but then I didn't need as many allies in Civ 2 as in Civ 3...

It would be nice if Conquests brought back that feature. But then, I'd like to see the refrigeration/supermarket/double-irrigation feature brought back too. Why make the game look great graphically, if you have to ruin your landscape by building railroads on every tile just to get extra food?
I always thought that was a step backwards.

P.S. How come I can't be a white savage? The Aztecs think I am one!

Captain Obvious · May 18, 2003, 11:37

Quote:

Somebody had mentioned the ability to build naval bases in your allies' territory. I guess that could be expanded to airbases. But what about your allies' cities being able to repair your units, a la Civ2? You could "put into" an allied port, and your damaged ship would be completely healed.

Wow. Never thought of that. Brilliant concept. You should write to Firaxis or something.

Quasar1011 · May 18, 2003, 11:45

Hey, it's not my concept. The "allied healing ability" was already in Civ 2, but was dropped for Civ 3.
They dropped plenty of good Civ 2 features, believe me!
And the foreign basing concept is from someone else on these boards, can't remember where I saw it.

Another thing they dropped from Civ 2 was the Sioux civilization. Seems if they need a new Civ for Conquests , the Sioux would balance out North America a bit.

Louis XXIV · May 18, 2003, 11:57

You can mobilize. It halves production, but you can only build military units (meaning you build them faster)

You can mod the game to give Battleships "Blitz" ability

The Templar · May 18, 2003, 16:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Quasar1011
I want a battleship that can attack more than once per turn. Maybe I can mod that.

Flag battleship with blitz in the editor and you can attack more than once with it.

player1 · May 18, 2003, 17:39

Of course with having such Battleship, you lose the usefullness of multiple Detroyers.

Randolph · May 18, 2003, 20:08

Sounds interesting, but I would have liked to hear more about improved AI. Even very cool new scenarios will only be moderately fun against the same annoying AI. At least make an option to make the AI more aggressive (big AI civs annex small ones, becoming more powerful), that wouldn't be too hard would it?

Panag · May 19, 2003, 07:34

hi ,

more UU's

, Japan could for example have both the sam and get in the modern era the Yamamoto or so

tirpitz > germany

de gaulle > france

minnesota > US

and so on

have a nice day

Spiffor · May 19, 2003, 09:09

Quote:

de gaulle > france

A carrier unit with 2 movement points, and which cannot carry planes

player1 · May 19, 2003, 11:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Randolph
Sounds interesting, but I would have liked to hear more about improved AI. Even very cool new scenarios will only be moderately fun against the same annoying AI. At least make an option to make the AI more aggressive (big AI civs annex small ones, becoming more powerful), that wouldn't be too hard would it?

Just to know that even this "annoying AI", Civ3 is miles ahead from AIs in Civ2 or SMAC.
So even with current AI, you will probably have more enjoyable civ experince then with Civ2 scenarios.

Of course, only in case if C3C get all modability of Civ2.

P.S.
Only sure thing for now is that it we'll get locked alliances (similar feature in Civ2 is added by first events editor in Civ2:CiC XPack, although it was more like "locked wars")

The Templar · May 19, 2003, 12:06

Quote:

Originally posted by player1

Just to know that even this "annoying AI", Civ3 is miles ahead from AIs in Civ2 or SMAC.
So even with current AI, you will probably have more enjoyable civ experince then with Civ2 scenarios.

I have to agree, the AI in Civ3 is pretty good. I'm always worried some of the tweaks will dumb it down to Civ2 or SMAC level.

statusperfect · May 20, 2003, 08:21

we need a military UU that can do worker actions.

or a settler/worker UU....

please firaxis

cheers

Panag · May 20, 2003, 10:13

Quote:

Originally posted by statusperfect
we need a military UU that can do worker actions.

or a settler/worker UU....

please firaxis

cheers

hi ,

, now that would be a great UU for Israel , .....

we have several units like that , nachal are workers & farmers with guns

Firaxis

have a nice day

Randolph · May 20, 2003, 12:44

There's still lots of room for improvement, and I certainly don't see the fact that Civ3's AI is better than 2's or SMAC's as any reason to be satisfied with it or to stop improving it.
What I was trying to say was that IMHO the quality of the AI makes the game boring before the structure of the game does.

CiverDan · May 20, 2003, 16:51

Regarding Fundamentalism. It was removed from the game for balance reasons before 9/11. No doubt it would have been removed after that if it hadn't already been removed by then though. I suspect the "islamic sultante" is just a "p.c." name for fundy but with different traits.

You wont see fascism since they want to sell the game in Germany.

Regarding natual events. About time..I suspect they held stuff like this back just so they could try to get us to buy another XP. I don't have RoN. bu at least it came with MP support.

Louis XXIV · May 20, 2003, 17:10

Maybe they could call it Junta instead of Facism (although a Junta and Despotism are very similar)

Azeem · May 20, 2003, 20:20

Quote:

Originally posted by CiverDan
Regarding Fundamentalism. It was removed from the game for balance reasons before 9/11. No doubt it would have been removed after that if it hadn't already been removed by then though. I suspect the "islamic sultante" is just a "p.c." name for fundy but with different traits.

A "sultanate" is not necessarily a "fundamentalist" government, but a Middle Eastern monarchy. Adding "Islamic" to the name isn't really necessary as "sultanates" generally refer to monarchies of largely Muslim nations. Basically, it's nothing more than a monarchy of a Muslim nation. In a "sultanate", clerics don't really have complete control over the monarchy as would a real "fundamentalist" government would have. You could compare an "Islamic Sultanate" with the Christian Monarchies of the Middle Ages. They're religious in tradition, but there is still a ruler who is not necessarily a clergyman. Calling an "Islamic Sultanate" a "fundamentalist" government is a bit of a misnomer.