Contents of Civ3-XP: Place Your Bets Here! - Page 2

Tiberius · May 19, 2003, 01:52

It seems to me that with this new XP Civ3 will be finally the game it should have been from the beginning.

Or, rephrasing it, we will finally get most of the features we were hoping for since the very beginning (at least I hope so!).

Many will say that paying for 1 game + 2 XPs is too much/expensive. I don't agree: 100 $ for 3 years of playing seems cheap to me (1 year Civ3 + 1 year PtW + at least 1 year of C3C).

The Emperor Fabulous · May 21, 2003, 00:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Louis XXIV
The Emperor Fabulous, you might want to change it back

Celts are already in the game

You'll have to excuse me. My head was in my rectum.

I change it to a Native American group.

The Templar · May 21, 2003, 03:06

Quote:

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous

You'll have to excuse me. My head was in my rectum.

How did THAT happen? (And did you get a picture?)

Master Zen · May 21, 2003, 03:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Tiberius
It seems to me that with this new XP Civ3 will be finally the game it should have been from the beginning.

Or, rephrasing it, we will finally get most of the features we were hoping for since the very beginning (at least I hope so!).

Many will say that paying for 1 game + 2 XPs is too much/expensive. I don't agree: 100 $ for 3 years of playing seems cheap to me (1 year Civ3 + 1 year PtW + at least 1 year of C3C).

And considering past experience that a new civ game comes out every 5 years, that's $20 a year. Not bad...

Still, that for no reason justifies Firaxis and Infogrames' irresponsability in releasing some of the buggiest software I have ever played.

Ribannah · May 21, 2003, 10:43

The Mesopotamia scenario suggests that possibly the Assyrians (Nineveh, Nimrud, Assur) are included as a seperate civ.

BigFurryMonster · May 21, 2003, 10:53

Isn't Nineveh a Babylonian city already?

Spiffor · May 21, 2003, 11:01

There are already Civs that share the same cities, with a different name. Lutetia and Paris, Lugdunum ans Lyons, Burdigala and Bordeaux, Byzantium and Istanbul. If the Firaxians find the Assyrian names of these cities, they'll work it out

Ribannah · May 21, 2003, 12:26

They may simply have split up the present Babylonian city list for the purpose of the scenario. Chances are that Sumeria and Assyria will NOT be available outside it.

If it's only Sumeria then that would be a way of preventing the problem of what to do with the Barbarians who now occupy the 32nd slot.

But if Firaxis are planning a third expansion pack they may want to leave several slots open.

Hagbart · May 21, 2003, 14:35

Nahh, assyria is to close to babylon i think. that would be like adding denmark to the game, where scandinavia already is present.

Hagbart · May 21, 2003, 14:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
There are already Civs that share the same cities, with a different name. Lutetia and Paris, Lugdunum ans Lyons, Burdigala and Bordeaux, Byzantium and Istanbul. If the Firaxians find the Assyrian names of these cities, they'll work it out

I cannot remember, but does the romans have londinium in civ3? i don't think so.

Btw: have any of you played ceasar III, that is where i've learned all the old roman citynames, and of course from playing civ too.
it's good you are learning something while playing.

Panag · May 21, 2003, 16:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain THC
New civs:

1) Incas
2) Mayans
3) Sumerians
4) Hittites
5) Poles
6) Portugese
7) Polynesians
8) Hebrews/Israel

hi ,

is that a fact

great list , but where do the poles fit , we need a bigger map

have a nice day

History Guy · May 21, 2003, 16:34

Captain, good list...except for the Poles...

Hagbart...my favorite is Sarmizegetusa.

I doubt that the Sumerians will be available only in the scenario. It seems highly unlikely, and I'm quite sure that they will be one of the 8 new civs. The Assyrians don't stand much of a chance of getting included.

Azeem · May 21, 2003, 18:58

Europe is really overcrowded with all those civs. I agree with Panag that we certainly need a bigger map.

Those extra civs would be great for a European scenario, though.

kring · May 21, 2003, 21:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Hagbart
Nahh, assyria is to close to babylon i think. that would be like adding denmark to the game, where scandinavia already is present.

The same is true for Sumerians being too close to Babylon as well unless they are only in a scenario, in which case having the Assyrians probably wouldn't be a problem.

Tiberius · May 22, 2003, 03:34

But this "too close to" is only true if you are playing on a world map, which never happens to me ... Maybe I'd try some scenarios (and probably will, when C3C comes out) on a WM, but then geographic proximity is not a problem anymore.

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen

Still, that for no reason justifies Firaxis and Infogrames' irresponsability in releasing some of the buggiest software I have ever played.

Absolutely true. Maybe this is why they are recruiting hundreds of beta testers for C3C.

Panag · May 22, 2003, 09:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen

And considering past experience that a new civ game comes out every 5 years, that's $20 a year. Not bad...

Still, that for no reason justifies Firaxis and Infogrames' irresponsability in releasing some of the buggiest software I have ever played.

hi ,

be happy they dont charge you for the patches and updates , .....

at least they try to fix it , ....

that cant be said for many other games , .....

have a nice day

Panag · May 22, 2003, 09:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Azeem
Europe is really overcrowded with all those civs. I agree with Panag that we certainly need a bigger map.

Those extra civs would be great for a European scenario, though.

hi ,

thanks , who knows , we might get it , ....

450 X 450 would do fine

there are way to many european ones , maybe a small nomad artic civ , ......

or an other asian one , .......

have a nice day

BigFurryMonster · June 3, 2003, 15:54

Bumping this. Anyone else want to bet?

The_Aussie_Lurker · June 3, 2003, 23:34

The eight (8) new Civilizations;

Sumerians; Assyrians; Dutch; Mayans; Incans; Soiux; Etruscans(?); Ethiopians.

The new Resources;

Tobacco; Exotic Birds; Chocolate; Coffee; Gemstones; Indigenous Populations (I HOPE!!!); Sheep; Copper; Natural Heritage sites.

The new Wonders;

Mount Rushmore; Statue of Liberty; Eiffel Tower; Statue of Zues; Geneva Convention; Parliament (Small Wonder); Magna Carta; Senate (Small Wonder); National War Memorial (Small Wonder); Slave Labour System (Small Wonder); School of Pythagoras (or Archimedes).

The new Governments;

Theocracy; Sultanate; Fascism; Democratic Socialism; Hagiocracy; Tribal; Classical Democracy; Classical Republic; Feudalist Monarchy; Empire.

The new Disasters;

Volcanoes; Floods; Earthquakes; Famine; Plague; Dark Ages; Civil War. Anti-Disasters, such as Population Boom; Mercenaries; Random tech advance; Renaissance.

"Other Things";

Events Editor; Building Dependant Units; Buidling Dependant Resources; Souped up Editor!!!; Civil War; SMAC-style UN with enhanced diplomacy options.

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

Daz · June 4, 2003, 04:06

Quote:

Tobacco; Exotic Birds; Chocolate; Coffee; Gemstones; Indigenous Populations (I HOPE!!!); Sheep; Copper; Natural Heritage sites.

Sheep increase happiness!

Any new units (aside UUs)? All the resources seem to be happiness increasing ones....

New govs are a must: F*** political correctness. I want Fundamentalism, Fascism and Socialism.

BulMaster · June 4, 2003, 15:23

I give my vote that they will include Bulgaria

And I think they will expand the UN like in smac

so that some decision can be made.
I hope they will implement to create some bigger alliances directly (I can always dream) like threee players meet and create an alliance or create an alliance and invite others to join like in EU2.
Finnaly I hope they remove the bug where when i try to make an alliance with the AI in the year 2000AD it dosn't say no because i betrayed the zulu 4000 years before

BulMaster · June 4, 2003, 15:56

Oooh yeah I know that the culture idea to defin borders is cool, but can't the implement an optiion to negotiate the country's borders ? I think it will be cool and make it possible for powerful countries to impose borders on some minor fighting between each other civ.

hehe you can go to war just to get a dman square of the map !!!

Hmm I think I suggested some too realistic stuffs and since today's game policy is to make games for dummies it will never happen

besides it will take some time for the laza programmers to write the code.

Aaaa i wish companies start making some drastic changes not only cosmetic improvements

BulMaster · June 4, 2003, 16:02

Ooh yeah i like the building dependant units

i was always wondering where does my ICBMs are kept since i have no silos build in my cities

this could also be used as a tile improvement build silos in your territory and maybe some trucks that can carry your missiles.

Hey does anyone think that since the new civ has also the space race the will make a new smac???

I should probably leave before more wierd and impossible ideas comeup

BulMaster · June 4, 2003, 16:18

Ooh yeah another idea

to make the AI not only compete against me but against each other like in GalCiv, it's kind of unfair that the AI trades tech between themselves and always avoid you cause you are human

Maybe they will add nationalism a more important role not just a tech, like when your ppl hate someone they could demand you to go to war with them.
Perhaps the will make the city expand in adjacent squares not a pic that overlaps the borders between them. And perhaps when you are at war and beat the AI good he comes to and dosn't say for the good of peace bla bla but he surrender to you and you can impose your price with some limits of course. So many ideas

this game i so in perfect

hey does anyone want to make a game developement company? Thing we can make a better game than them

.

And the last one for this night

they add tech time restriction like ok you research your techs but for example to be able to develope a tech you have to reach a lvl of developement or a specified year it really botters me when i inaved with tanks in the 1800

Maybe another thing from EU2 like ok you take over cities and so but they are under your control but neither you or the owner can use them. Then in peace negotiation agree on the new borders and transfer of the cities and then you can use them. of course if you take the last ai city then you take control since he isdead

Maybe i should make a wish list and send it to firaxis

gd

Azeem · June 4, 2003, 18:42

Quote:

Ooh yeah i like the building dependant units i was always wondering where does my ICBMs are kept since i have no silos build in my cities this could also be used as a tile improvement build silos in your territory and maybe some trucks that can carry your missiles.

I like this idea.

Having this would make it less easy to turn cities into unit farms. And it's really wierd that you could build an ICBM without a missile silo or launch a Fighter attack without any airfield of any sort.

The_Aussie_Lurker · June 4, 2003, 19:04

Yep, I'd definitely LOVE to see land, borders, units and cities all on the table for diplomacy!!! I know there are complaints that any of these could be used as an exploit but, seriously, it is an exploit that would ONLY work on the AI and, quite frankly, if a player wants to cheat in order to win, then they are the ones who miss out!!!! Why should the rest of us miss out on the full gamut of diplomatic options just because a few morons feel that winning is EVERYTHING!!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

BulMaster · June 5, 2003, 10:57

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
Yep, I'd definitely LOVE to see land, borders, units and cities all on the table for diplomacy!!! I know there are complaints that any of these could be used as an exploit but, seriously, it is an exploit that would ONLY work on the AI and, quite frankly, if a player wants to cheat in order to win, then they are the ones who miss out!!!! Why should the rest of us miss out on the full gamut of diplomatic options just because a few morons feel that winning is EVERYTHING!!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

I totaly agree