Sid Meier's Civilization III -- announced!
Brian Reynolds
Civ fans everywhere will, I'm sure, be interested to learn that we
have just announced (at E3 last night) that we will be developing Sid
Meier's Civilization III as one of our upcoming products, to be
published under the Microprose label by Hasbro Interactive!
This is a brand-spanking new development, so I'm not ready to go into
loads of detail just yet, but I do plan to stay in touch on the
newsgroups during the development of the game, because I think every
Civ fan has an idea in his/her head about what Civ 3 should be. We'll
do a "call for features" once we have a serious prototype we like.
To answer some of the most obvious and burning questions-- (1) yes,
many of the important strong points of Alpha Centauri will (where
appropriate) be incorporated into Civ3, so don't worry your little
(big?) heads about that. :-) (2) Yes, we're still working on Alpha
Centauri upgrades, expansions, etc. In fact, as Sid announced last
night, we see Alpha Centauri and the Civ 1-2-3 series as two members
of a broader Sid Meier "Sweep of Time" trilogy we want to create;
wherein your actions and success in one game can affect your situation
in the next. We'll talk about the third, yet-to-be-announced, member
of the trilogy later. (3) yes, we will be working with both
Hasbro/Microprose and EA as publishers of our various products. (4)
yes, we have some really exciting ideas about how to make Civ 3 the
best turn-based strategy game yet.
Brian Reynolds
VP Software Development
FIRAXIS Games
George Rozes, Jr.
This trilogy idea is really exciting,,, connecting one game to the next
means
not only "just one more turn", but could even mean "just one more game".
Plenty of ideas for Civ 3 here,,, when you ask, we'll all answer,,, some of
the Activision innovations
have merit,, but the details are for another time.
Brian Reynolds <brey...@firaxis.com> wrote in message
news:373fcdf0...@news.clark.net...
> Civ fans everywhere will, I'm sure, be interested to learn that we
> have just announced (at E3 last night) that we will be developing Sid
> Meier's Civilization III as one of our upcoming products, to be
> published under the Microprose label by Hasbro Interactive!
> {snip}
Andrew R. Gillett
> Congrats Brian!
> This trilogy idea is really exciting,,, connecting one game to the next
> means
> not only "just one more turn", but could even mean "just one more game".
Don't know about you, but I have that already with Civ 2 and SMAC - I
usually start a new game immediately after finishing the previous one...
--
Andrew Gillett http://argnet.fatal-design.com/ ICQ: See homepage
"Green! We're going to die! Help! Run away!" - Bonecrusher, Starship Losers
madtech
can't wait for Civ 3.
madtech
Brian Reynolds <brey...@firaxis.com> wrote in message
news:373fcdf0...@news.clark.net...
> Hi All,
>
> Civ fans everywhere will, I'm sure, be interested to learn that we
> have just announced (at E3 last night) that we will be developing Sid
> Meier's Civilization III as one of our upcoming products, to be
> published under the Microprose label by Hasbro Interactive!
>
> This is a brand-spanking new development, so I'm not ready to go into
> loads of detail just yet, but I do plan to stay in touch on the
> newsgroups during the development of the game, because I think every
> Civ fan has an idea in his/her head about what Civ 3 should be. We'll
> do a "call for features" once we have a serious prototype we like.
>
> To answer some of the most obvious and burning questions-- (1) yes,
> many of the important strong points of Alpha Centauri will (where
> appropriate) be incorporated into Civ3, so don't worry your little
> (big?) heads about that. :-) (2) Yes, we're still working on Alpha
> Centauri upgrades, expansions, etc. In fact, as Sid announced last
> night, we see Alpha Centauri and the Civ 1-2-3 series as two members
> of a broader Sid Meier "Sweep of Time" trilogy we want to create;
> wherein your actions and success in one game can affect your situation
Lars Andersen
capabilities, the subject of Civilization is really getting dull. We've
had Civ-1, Civ-2, Civ:CTP and SMAC, and while they are different(SMAC in
space) they are all about the same thing: Building a Civilization. We've
done it four times already(five if Test of Time doesn't go vaporware),
what is left to explore now? What could Civ-3(SMC3?) bring to the stage
that we haven't seen already?
I'm just jaded I suppose, but I remember Civ-1 as the first game I played
on a PC(11 years ago, I think I was 10) and have played everything
bearing the name ever since. To really catch my interest like with the
first game or even lately with SMAC would take something extraordinary,
like maybe totally rebuilding the game from scratch. Maybe that's the
solution, to rebuild from scratch and throw out the old system of cities,
city-improvements and wonders etc. for something _new_. That would
probably get me going again, if done "right".
Ah well, only time will tell.
Lars
In article <373fcdf0...@news.clark.net>, brey...@firaxis.com
says...
[snipped]
Andrew R. Gillett
> I think that while the Firaxis team have more than proven their design
> capabilities, the subject of Civilization is really getting dull. We've
> had Civ-1, Civ-2, Civ:CTP and SMAC, and while they are different(SMAC in
> space) they are all about the same thing: Building a Civilization. We've
> done it four times already(five if Test of Time doesn't go vaporware),
> what is left to explore now? What could Civ-3(SMC3?) bring to the stage
> that we haven't seen already?
>
> I'm just jaded I suppose, but I remember Civ-1 as the first game I played
> on a PC(11 years ago, I think I was 10) and have played everything
> bearing the name ever since. To really catch my interest like with the
> first game or even lately with SMAC would take something extraordinary,
> like maybe totally rebuilding the game from scratch. Maybe that's the
> solution, to rebuild from scratch and throw out the old system of cities,
> city-improvements and wonders etc. for something _new_. That would
> probably get me going again, if done "right".
In a way, I agree. I'd like to see something which is closer to real
life. There are a lot more than seven civs in the world today...
Fay McClennan
your city in was VERY welcome), so if they can pull out the magic one more
time, and better the greatest game ever made - then good on 'em.
je...@wargamer.com
Andrew R. Gillett <a...@whangomatic.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.11a7fa131...@news.freeserve.net...
> In a way, I agree. I'd like to see something which is closer to real
> life. There are a lot more than seven civs in the world today...
But only one, it seems, that would remotely qualify as a 6000 year reign --
the Chinese.
The only way to get even a little closer is to greatly restrict the scope
such as Imperialism. And Imperialism (I and II) cannot stand up to a
reality check any more than Civ can, but the period immersion gives a
greater illusion of realism.
--
Jeff Vitous
je...@wargamer.com
Check out our new Great Battles section!
www.wargamer.com
Thomas Le Gallais
>Hi All,
>
>Civ fans everywhere will, I'm sure, be interested to learn that we
>have just announced (at E3 last night) that we will be developing Sid
>Meier's Civilization III as one of our upcoming products, to be
>published under the Microprose label by Hasbro Interactive!
Brian,
Do the 'other products' list include a sequel to Sid Meier's Pirates! ?
--
Thomas Le Gallais
the lost tavern, website devoted to Sid Meier's Pirates!
<http://perso.easynet.fr/~kashmir/pirates/tavern.html>
Gerry Quinn
>I think that while the Firaxis team have more than proven their design
>capabilities, the subject of Civilization is really getting dull. We've
>had Civ-1, Civ-2, Civ:CTP and SMAC, and while they are different(SMAC in
>space) they are all about the same thing: Building a Civilization. We've
>done it four times already(five if Test of Time doesn't go vaporware),
>what is left to explore now? What could Civ-3(SMC3?) bring to the stage
>that we haven't seen already?
>
Maybe we could play the Barbarians and destroy all civilisations ;)
- Gerry Quinn
http://bindweed.com
Barry Gaudet
: Hi All,
: Civ fans everywhere will, I'm sure, be interested to learn that we
: have just announced (at E3 last night) that we will be developing Sid
: Meier's Civilization III as one of our upcoming products, to be
: published under the Microprose label by Hasbro Interactive!
Civ3 wishlist:
1] Bring back the empire summary from Civ 1. I really missed watching
the growth of my civilization at the end of a game in Civ2. It made me
really want to finish the end game; something that was lacking in Civ2.
2] Have the ability to create borders. I'm thinking that a 'border
patrol' unit with the ability to 'build' a border with certain
restrictions. Let's say that it could only build a border within 2, or
some number of squares of one of your cities. [maybe fortresses too]
Crossing the border with military units would be an act of war unless
it was an ally. Allies crossing the border would not build cities
inside an enclosed contiguous border. Coastline might automatically
be considered a border within x squares of a city. Incomplete borders,
allowing competitors to 'sneak around' would be a GOOD idea. It would
give incentive to secure your territory. I suppose the BP unit should
also have the ability to destroy older irelevent border lines if it cant be
done automatically. In capturing a city it's former owner's relevent
border would be destroyed. Also I think it should be possible to station
units on the border, supported by the nearest city, with out creating
unhappiness. [maybe only if they are in fortresses] Or perhaps
eliminate/reduce unhappiness if the units are within your national borders.
I would really, really, really really, like this feature!
3] Have the option; upon gaining an advance; to add the newly permitted
structure to the top or bottom of build queues in all your cities.
4] Have the option to automaticaly upgrade units [at a dollar & turn
cost] when a new unit becomes availlable. This could be done only when
the unit is stationary in a city perhaps.
Okay, okay this one is _not_ easy to do but it would be cool.
5] Expand the game into space with the ability to build space stations,
space craft, maybe even cities in orbit. Ideally you could continue to
expand to the Moon, Mars, asteroid belt.
6] A minor point: I dont think democracy should be corruption free. The
lowest level? Sure, but not zero.
--
'nihil ex nihil'
Peterson Joe Handjaja
empire in a far far future. ;-)
Peterson Joe Handjaja
Peterson Joe Handjaja <joe...@nospam.usa.net> wrote in message
news:7hld6v$1...@cocoa.brown.edu...
Brian Ahola
You've made life worth living again. . . thank you!
Now, if Sid is going to develop it, will it then be called "Brian Reynold's
Civilization III?"
Brian Ahola
Vancouver, Washington
Brian Reynolds wrote in message <373fcdf0...@news.clark.net>...
Lars Andersen
> The only way to get even a little closer is to greatly restrict the scope
> such as Imperialism. And Imperialism (I and II) cannot stand up to a
> reality check any more than Civ can, but the period immersion gives a
> greater illusion of realism.
>
No one says we need to get closer or further away, just different. A game
that separates itself further from its predecessors than Civ-2 did from
Civ-1 would be welcome since we can't get something _really_ new from
Firaxis.
Lars
Daniel Proost
Brian Reynolds wrote:
> Civ fans everywhere will, I'm sure, be interested to learn that we
> have just announced (at E3 last night) that we will be developing
Sid
> Meier's Civilization III as one of our upcoming products, to be
> published under the Microprose label by Hasbro Interactive!
That is good news!
Now I have to think about what I want in civ3. It will be a
long list!
:-)
--
Daniël Proost
pi...@shore.net.death.to.spam
>But only one, it seems, that would remotely qualify as a 6000 year reign --
>the Chinese.
Well, perhaps the Egyptians, too.
--
pixelATshoreDOTnet - http://www.shore.net/~pixel
An it harm none, do as thou wilt. Mind your mind or it will surely spoil
Free Kevin! MSN-IE4-AFM SBN2
Zodiac
Lars Andersen wrote in message ...
>I think that while the Firaxis team have more than proven their design
>capabilities, the subject of Civilization is really getting dull
You're right, what do they think this is - a Civ group or something?
Kevin B. O'Brien
kindly said (on Sat, 15 May 1999 23:25:52 +0200):
>I think that while the Firaxis team have more than proven their design
>capabilities, the subject of Civilization is really getting dull. We've
>had Civ-1, Civ-2, Civ:CTP and SMAC, and while they are different(SMAC in
>space) they are all about the same thing: Building a Civilization. We've
>done it four times already(five if Test of Time doesn't go vaporware),
>what is left to explore now? What could Civ-3(SMC3?) bring to the stage
>that we haven't seen already?
It is hard to tell, but I would bet on the proven design skills of
Meier and Reynolds to pull it off. I don't know about Test of Time,
which hasn't been released yet, but Civ2 never left my hard drive
and I still play it. I also play SMAC. CTP was a game I wanted to
like, but there were just too many problems and I finally decided to
take back my .5 GB of hard drive space. But CTP did introduce a few
things that might be worth picking up for a future game, such as the
point-and-click movement orders that I thought were far superior to
Civ2's Go To command, which seemed to misfire as often as not. And
if the SMAC advances are rolled into Civ3 (borders, designable
units, governors, etc.) I don't see how it can be a problem. Maybe
Civ3 will be the game that finally removes Civ2 from my hard drive!
--
Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL
ko...@ix.netcom.com
Men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all the other alternatives.
-- Abba Eban
Help fight SPAM. Join CAUCE. http://www.cauce.org/
Brian Reynolds
Actually, most if not all of these features are already present in our
latest game, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, which you should check out if
you haven't already. We will of course include them, where
appropriate, in Civ3 as well.
Brian Reynolds
FIRAXIS Games
On 15 May 1999 22:58:13 GMT, bga...@uoguelph.ca (Barry Gaudet) wrote:
>Brian Reynolds (brey...@firaxis.com) wrote:
>: Hi All,
>
>: Civ fans everywhere will, I'm sure, be interested to learn that we
>: have just announced (at E3 last night) that we will be developing Sid
>: Meier's Civilization III as one of our upcoming products, to be
>: published under the Microprose label by Hasbro Interactive!
>
David Sheets
Lars Andersen wrote in message ...
>on a PC(11 years ago, I think I was 10) and have played everything
>bearing the name ever since. To really catch my interest like with the
>first game or even lately with SMAC would take something extraordinary,
>like maybe totally rebuilding the game from scratch. Maybe that's the
>solution, to rebuild from scratch and throw out the old system of cities,
>city-improvements and wonders etc. for something _new_. That would
>probably get me going again, if done "right".
I agree... somewhat. I would probably pick up Civ3, even if it was just
Civ2 with the-best-of-SMAC and some extra doo-dads. BUT-- I would like to
see something that brought more than the same old stuff. I know that Brian
(I originally typed that as Brain, just a fruedian slip? :) said that they
weren't looking for idea-lists now, but one thing that I would like to
suggest is that you look into the possability of creating cities that
actually grow, instead of just taking up one square. I mean, you could have
a town, with some farms and some stores that takes up one square, but as you
add stuff, the center becomes more urban, and it expands, so farms move out
to the outlying squares (and increase food production there, suburbs develop
(and increase tax revenue), high-tech/low-tech commercial areas develop
(increasing tech/production and/or income) etc... I know that this is sort
of modeled by the area-of-control that is in Civ1-2 and the growth of
population, but I would really like a more robust modelling. I'm sure others
would disagree, but... just a suggestion.
--David Sheets
Jonesss
"Peterson Joe Handjaja" <joe...@nospam.usa.net> wrote:
> uh, for the third in trilogy, can I ask for MOM 3 ? building a
galactic
> empire in a far far future. ;-)
>
What's this about the future?? Why not the far, far past? Control herds
of idiot early-Homos. Then we can discover: fire, the wheel, plants as
food, dead animal skins can keep someone warm, sharp sticks hurt when
inserted into eyes, etc. Secret Projects might include, "The Fishing
Pond", "The Berry Bush (non-poisonous)" and "The Clay Pit". Think of
the fun we'd have keeping our "moron-citizens" from running away from
their first encounter with fire right off of a cliff like a bunch of
lemmings! And think of the intrigue as we try to coax them into
actually caring for the rest of their family, and not just treating
them like strangers.
Yes, this is it. Don't make CivilizationX, make Pre-Civilization!
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Rick M
civ2, i wont bother listing all these as Im sure you will be aware of them
all by now.
Make small changes, like allow building canals and playing different
periods/unit this choice being made at start of game.
Replace the unlimited railway moves with a 1/6th or 1/5th movement point
like ctp.
Add the option to remove all nuclear attacks from the game.
Perhaps add a few move terrain types also I dont think building hills is
within the realism of the game. Id be tempted to look at 4 production types
ie trade food shields and ?
Allow bigger maps. perhaps make a build pipeline option that has les
production cost than irrigation for getting water to remote areas.
Of course could always add super-factory improvement and spy builder academy
etc.
I think the period play is something many fans would like to see, like a
scenario but as a complete game, if that makes years seem too ridiculous
replace years with months in the turn dating? what about adding trenches as
a means of slowing down unit movements this could be a particularly good
early city defence.
Brian Reynolds <brey...@firaxis.com> wrote in message
news:373fcdf0...@news.clark.net...
> Hi All,
>
> Civ fans everywhere will, I'm sure, be interested to learn that we
> have just announced (at E3 last night) that we will be developing Sid
> Meier's Civilization III as one of our upcoming products, to be
> published under the Microprose label by Hasbro Interactive!
>
> This is a brand-spanking new development, so I'm not ready to go into
> loads of detail just yet, but I do plan to stay in touch on the
> newsgroups during the development of the game, because I think every
> Civ fan has an idea in his/her head about what Civ 3 should be. We'll
> do a "call for features" once we have a serious prototype we like.
>
> To answer some of the most obvious and burning questions-- (1) yes,
> many of the important strong points of Alpha Centauri will (where
> appropriate) be incorporated into Civ3, so don't worry your little
> (big?) heads about that. :-) (2) Yes, we're still working on Alpha
> Centauri upgrades, expansions, etc. In fact, as Sid announced last
> night, we see Alpha Centauri and the Civ 1-2-3 series as two members
> of a broader Sid Meier "Sweep of Time" trilogy we want to create;
> wherein your actions and success in one game can affect your situation
> in the next. We'll talk about the third, yet-to-be-announced, member
> of the trilogy later. (3) yes, we will be working with both
Rich
<joe...@nospam.usa.net> wrote:
>MOO3 sorry.
>
Actually, I could go for a new version of MOM, I liked that game, but
it's pretty outdated now.
Rich
************************************************************************
If vegetarians eat vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?
************************************************************************
Zan
> suggest is that you look into the possability of creating cities that
> actually grow, instead of just taking up one square. I mean, you could have
> a town, with some farms and some stores that takes up one square, but as you
> add stuff, the center becomes more urban, and it expands, so farms move out
> to the outlying squares (and increase food production there, suburbs develop
> (and increase tax revenue), high-tech/low-tech commercial areas develop
> (increasing tech/production and/or income) etc... I know that this is sort
> of modeled by the area-of-control that is in Civ1-2 and the growth of
> population, but I would really like a more robust modelling. I'm sure others
> would disagree, but... just a suggestion.
>
> --David Sheets
I've been hoping that one of the Civ sequels would implement the tiles like
this: you still get to work one square per city size, but each one must connect
to a previously developed square, starting at the city itself. In this way, a
city could get a 10 million population by taking up an inordinate amount of
space. On a properly scaled map, you could have the eastern seaboard of the US
taken up by the major cities.
BTW, the only idea in CTP that I really liked was not having a unit spending
time improving land. The implementation was awful, but I think that something
similar could work if restricted to forts, long-distance road & rail systems,
and other large-scale public works type projects. Allow the city tiles to
develop farms, transport, mines, etc. on their own by having the square in
continuous use for a certain length of time.
je...@wargamer.com
<pi...@shore.net.death.to.spam> wrote in message
news:yUn%2.36$RO1....@news.shore.net...
> While prying the lemmings from hir ankles, <je...@wargamer.com> wrote:
> >But only one, it seems, that would remotely qualify as a 6000 year
reign --
> >the Chinese.
>
> Well, perhaps the Egyptians, too.
Modern Egyptians are a substantially different culture (as are the Greeks).
The Chinese have been remarkably homogenous over the millennia.
eug...@tidalwave.net
> This is a brand-spanking new development, so I'm not ready to go into
> loads of detail just yet,
<snip...>
> To answer some of the most obvious and burning questions--
> (4)
> yes, we have some really exciting ideas about how to make Civ 3 the
> best turn-based strategy game yet.
Mr. Reynolds,
Forgive me if it's inappropriate to ask, but can you possibly
divulge what one of these "exciting ideas" might be? If just
to titillate the fans?
Do you or your development team ever appear at public conventions?
It will be an honor if you could autograph my copy of the Civ 2
game manual. Kind of like of a book signing by your favorite
author.
I think Civ 2 is tops and the Alpha Centauri demo is great too!
--
Eugene
helmet
would be fine, but what they really need to do is make somekind of
breakthoutgh with the diplomacy.
They could start by animating the opposing leaders. Rather
like the characters in fallout, when asked a question their facial expressions
change so its easier to gauge their mood.
The diplomacy also needs to be worked so that it dosent look
like they are all ganging up on you and i would like to see very
heavy penalties for someone breaking a blood truce.
I want to be able to make an alliance early on with my neighboor
and be fairly sure they wont break it at the drop of a hat.
For me interacting with the opposing factions should be the
central point in the game. Alpha centauri is a big step up from civ
but i would like it even higher if possible.
Apart from that more intelligence from automated formers,
nice green scenery with historical setting and events and we
will have a fantastic game.
Ian Wu
> Hi Barry,
>
> Actually, most if not all of these features are already present in our
> latest game, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, which you should check out if
> you haven't already. We will of course include them, where
> appropriate, in Civ3 as well.
>
> Brian Reynolds
> FIRAXIS Games
>
How about different resources, such as iron, coal, petroleum, and uranium.
For example, the maintenance cost of per turn of any modern army unit
would require a certain amount of petroleum and iron. This would make
economy and trade more important because countries that don't have
natural resources must trade for them.
Make it that the where the resources are located are predetermined but
remain unknown until the technology is developed to discover them.
So a country might be behind but suddenly by 1900 discovers an oil reserve
and
suddenly turns the game in his favor.
You can also give each country the ability to store resources like oil
in reserve. So if country A trades for oil from country B, but wants to
take it over, country A might want to build up a reserve before declaring
hostilies, country B on the other hand, might be forewarned of the attack
because of the oil build up.
I always felt that although CIV is a great game, it over emphasized the
military aspects and de-emphasized the economic aspects of history.
Ian Wu
Wesley Yap
Don't forget the looks of the game too. I'm not asking it
to be exquisite looking. Some what in high resolution with 16bit colours.
Please no more the SMAC low resoultion 256 colours on the units.
And, make sure the game doesn't require a huge chuck of memories
to run smoothly.
These complains have been heard before, take them as a reminder.
Carsten E.
>Actually, I could go for a new version of MOM, I liked that game, but
>it's pretty outdated now.
It can be updated, for sure. :-)
I think that a fantasy based 4X game could sell as well as SMAC.
All the improvements of SMAC could be integrated in Civ3.
No space cities, naturally.
-Carsten
Michael Sandy
> Brian Reynolds (brey...@firaxis.com) wrote:
> : Hi All,
> 6] A minor point: I dont think democracy should be corruption free. The
> lowest level? Sure, but not zero.
Nah, its just that most of the corruption takes places in the capital.
"Corruption" just means that regions farther from the seat of power
contribute less because of corrupt overseers. There is still
corruption, but its effect on trade is uniform with respect to
distance from the capital.
Under monarchies, you have governors appointed by distant rulers who
aren't very accountable for their conduct beyond forwarding the tax
revenues. Under a democracy, the governors are locally accountable
because they are elected.
Michael Sandy
Fay McClennan
>latest game, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, which you should check out >if
>you haven't already. We will of course include them, where
>appropriate, in Civ3 as well.
Oooh - what a plug! ;)
Fay McClennan
asked to gang up with someone - it just sounds so much better than "go
away"?
Jim John
a) rework SMAC, fix stuff that doesn't work so well, add some here and
a lil' there - then call it Civ3
b) make the game RADICALLY more simple, bung out all those boring
routine tasks from the gameplay so it becomes playable -online- -in
realtime- - then call it Civ3
c) in any case, make A HELL OF A LOT OF MONEY in the fastest growing
entertainment sector.
Jon Nunn
"Wesley Yap" <wesl...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> >Brian ,
>
> Don't forget the looks of the game too. I'm not asking it
> to be exquisite looking. Some what in high resolution with 16bit
>colours.
> Please no more the SMAC low resoultion 256 colours on the units.
>
> And, make sure the game doesn't require a huge chuck of memories
> to run smoothly.
>
as that's what they'll probably need to satisfy both of the above.
--
Jon Nunn
Programmer Analyst
Friends Don't Let Friends Do Cobol
http://members.home.net/jonnunn/
Andrew R. Gillett
> Don't forget the looks of the game too. I'm not asking it
> to be exquisite looking. Some what in high resolution with 16bit colours.
> Please no more the SMAC low resoultion 256 colours on the units.
>
> And, make sure the game doesn't require a huge chuck of memories
> to run smoothly.
I think these two are mutually exclusive - high colour graphics use
considerably more memory.
--
Andrew Gillett http://argnet.fatal-design.com/ ICQ: See homepage
If the baby won't drink raw milk, boil it.
George Rozes, Jr.
After colonizing one planet, Alpha Centauri, let's go colonize the galaxy!
Microprose has experience with this in MOO 3. I assume Peterson Joe meant
MOO 3 and not the
Masters of Magic variety :-)
On another note, I wonder where Space Empires 4 is these days.
Peterson Joe Handjaja <joe...@nospam.usa.net> wrote in message
news:7hld6v$1...@cocoa.brown.edu...
> uh, for the third in trilogy, can I ask for MOM 3 ? building a galactic
> empire in a far far future. ;-)
>
>
Alex
VMT wrote in message <373FB740...@dlc.fi>...
>
>Any hope to get a Linux port of those games?
>
I must agree. I don't use Linux, neither will I use it in the near future
but I think that the bigger the Linux market gets, the better the computer
games (and application and OS and utility) market gets. Better, is equal to
bigger and therefore more choice.
Simon de Vet
je...@wargamer.com wrote:
> Andrew R. Gillett <a...@whangomatic.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:MPG.11a7fa131...@news.freeserve.net...
>
> > In a way, I agree. I'd like to see something which is closer to real
> > life. There are a lot more than seven civs in the world today...
>
> But only one, it seems, that would remotely qualify as a 6000 year reign --
> the Chinese.
What about India? They've ben around for a long time, and I seem to remember
them as one of the first 4 civs on Earth (China, India, Egypt and Mesopotamia,
or something)
James E Sexton
: Hi Barry,
: Actually, most if not all of these features are already present in our
: latest game, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, which you should check out if
: you haven't already. We will of course include them, where
: appropriate, in Civ3 as well.
All except 1...
: > 5] Expand the game into space with the ability to build space stations,
: >space craft, maybe even cities in orbit. Ideally you could continue to
: >expand to the Moon, Mars, asteroid belt.
The latter part of that would be great. I'm not talking Moo3 (although I
loved the moo series), just expansion within our own solar system.
You could send off terraforming bots to Mars, and in the few hundred years
wait, start small mining colonies in the asteroid belt, and a few colonies
on mars and the moon. Bring in shades of colonization with taxation and
the eventual revolt of the space colonies!
Or maybe this is an entirely new game in itself.... Hey Sid, wanna do
Colonization2: The Martian Revolution? ;)
-jim
Simon de Vet
Jonesss wrote:
> In article <7hld6v$1...@cocoa.brown.edu>,
> "Peterson Joe Handjaja" <joe...@nospam.usa.net> wrote:
> > uh, for the third in trilogy, can I ask for MOM 3 ? building a
> galactic
> > empire in a far far future. ;-)
> >
>
> What's this about the future?? Why not the far, far past? Control herds
> of idiot early-Homos. Then we can discover: fire, the wheel, plants as
> food, dead animal skins can keep someone warm, sharp sticks hurt when
> inserted into eyes, etc. Secret Projects might include, "The Fishing
> Pond", "The Berry Bush (non-poisonous)" and "The Clay Pit". Think of
> the fun we'd have keeping our "moron-citizens" from running away from
> their first encounter with fire right off of a cliff like a bunch of
> lemmings! And think of the intrigue as we try to coax them into
> actually caring for the rest of their family, and not just treating
> them like strangers.
This sounds a little dull, actually, so why not take yet another step back?
Evolution! Life! Tectonics! A SimEarth that is actually a _game_ :)
Simon de Vet
Andrew Lee wrote:
> The second point is that IF Civ III is set on Earth, then no matter how good
> it is, I don't think there's much more room to get better. I don't want a
> Civ II plus bells and whistles, if only because Civ II has already been
> done. It would be an injustice to the franchise to have Civ 2.5. There have
> been some great suggestions here, some of which may be incorporated in a
> Alpha Centauri patch. To give Sid Meier an opportunity to take the best game
> ever and build on it, I think you need to give him an entirely new canvass
> to draw on... and that would mean taking humanity to the stars.
I disagree here. CIV does not have to get bigger and wider (space, etc) but can
get deeper.
In the previous CIV games, we fight to gain territory. Now look at our recent
history. Did America fight in WWII to gain territory? No, it was done for
political reasons. A CIV war without territory gaining is a failure, in RL, it
could be argued that WWII made the US into a superpower.
Similarly, the US fought in Vietnam for political reasons. The entire cold war
is something that cannot exist in CIV as is.
Look at what's going on today, in Yugoslavia. The US is attacking with planes
only. This would be stupid to do in CIV, yet it was done today for specific
reasons (good or bad, is irrelevant). The US, and Serbia have gotton in trouble
for attacking civillians, intentionally or not. Think of the depth this could
add to CIV, having your reputation sunk if you kill a settler, or an engineer.
Think of the possibilities of having refugees in the game. Think of the
possibilities of more interesting type alliances, like NATO, the Warsaw Pact, or
the UN.
History is facinating, and CIVIII could be a major innovation if made deeper,
not bigger.
Simon de Vet
Jim John wrote:
> There's only 2 ways to go from where we are now:
>
> a) rework SMAC, fix stuff that doesn't work so well, add some here and
> a lil' there - then call it Civ3
>
> b) make the game RADICALLY more simple, bung out all those boring
> routine tasks from the gameplay so it becomes playable -online- -in
> realtime- - then call it Civ3
I wouldn't want too much of an online emphasis. Yes, make is POSSIBLE to
play simply online, but retain the complexities for solo play... I like
playing single player games...
Stefan Blomskog
> But CTP did introduce a few
> things that might be worth picking up for a future game, such as the
> point-and-click movement orders that I thought were far superior to
> Civ2's Go To command, which seemed to misfire as often as not. And
> if the SMAC advances are rolled into Civ3 (borders, designable
> units, governors, etc.) I don't see how it can be a problem.
Err, dont know if I misunderstood you, but the point-and-click
movement is present in SMAC (and I think maybe in Civ also).
Actually, I think the point-and-click version of SMAC is better than
the one in CTP (as is most other things)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stefan Blomskog
s...@canit.se
"In an insane world, the insane is sane."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kjetil Aavik
> 1] Bring back the empire summary from Civ 1. I really missed watching
> the growth of my civilization at the end of a game in Civ2. It made me
> really want to finish the end game; something that was lacking in Civ2.
Amen.
> 2] Have the ability to create borders. I'm thinking that a 'border
> patrol' unit with the ability to 'build' a border with certain
> restrictions. Let's say that it could only build a border within 2, or
> some number of squares of one of your cities.
..and the northern coast of Russia, for instance..? Hm?
--
-Kjetil
Kjetil Aavik
> I think that while the Firaxis team have more than proven their design
> capabilities, the subject of Civilization is really getting dull.
You are accused of herecy on two counts! Herecy by word! Herecy by thought! Herecy by deed! ..Three
counts. And Herecy by.. four counts. Oh, whatever.
> what is left to explore now? What could Civ-3(SMC3?) bring to the stage
> that we haven't seen already?
So, Civ2 was just Civ all over again for you then, right? Same concept and era, now, innit? ;)
Thoughtful bit:
We've been on this planet for quite a while now, and people are still exploring. (Oh, yes they are.
The seas, for instance.) People are still writing books, although there are only so many letters in
the alphabet and we ought to have used up most of the comprehensible combinations by now.* :) If we
run out of creativeness, we ought to have run out a few hundred thousand years ago.**
*Same goes for paintings and music. That's where modern art comes in.
**Or ten thousands. I didn't look at my watch much in the beginning of mankind, I was too busy
building settlers and expanding. Besides, those early years really fly by, don't they. Not like the
years you get nowadays. Several turns a year, I don't know. And they're bloody long, too.
--
-Kjetil
shadows
>What about India? They've ben around for a long time, and I seem to remember
>them as one of the first 4 civs on Earth (China, India, Egypt and Mesopotamia,
>or something)
Sumerians were the first AFAIK. They were in Mesopotamia.
--
Thamer Al-Herbish <URL http://www.whitefang.com/>
[ The Secure UNIX Programming FAQ <URL http://www.whitefang.com/sup/ > ]
Thomas Le Gallais
>Civ3 wishlist:
7] Special units should not be invisible. The way Call to Power handles
stealth units is a nightmare : you often have to rush build special
units to spot the {clerics,lawyers,corporate branches...} sent by your
enemies.
--
Thomas Le Gallais
the lost tavern, website devoted to Sid Meier's Pirates!
<http://perso.easynet.fr/~kashmir/pirates/tavern.html>
Thomas Le Gallais
>But CTP did introduce a few things that might be worth picking up for a
>future game, such as the point-and-click movement orders that I thought
>were far superior to Civ2's Go To command, which seemed to misfire as
>often as not.
No, no, no ! CTP's UI looks like the interfaces used for real time
strategy games. I hope Civ3 will support full keyboard-driven play, the
obvious choice for turn by turn strategy games. Civ2's Go To command was
a good idea but the algorithm used sucked. Of course, Firaxis could
implement point-and-click movement orders as an option.
Thomas Le Gallais
>Allow the city tiles to develop farms, transport, mines, etc. on their
>own by having the square in continuous use for a certain length of
>time.
Interesting idea, but I played Civ2 so much that I think I really need
settlers to improve the tiles ;-)
And I would appreciate an option to auto-adjust city workers when a new
tile improvement has been completed in the city radius.
Leejay Wu
planet named Earth? Gotta be dealing with those odd, two-legged creatures
running around as if they own the planet and such...
<jk>
--+-- Leejay Wu <fu...@cmu.edu> ---+- <lw2j@[andrew|cs].cmu.edu> -+--
| No electrons were harmed in the making of this message. |
--+-- CMU SCS, '98 ----------------+------------------------------+--
pi...@shore.net.death.to.spam
>In the previous CIV games, we fight to gain territory. Now look at our recent
>history. Did America fight in WWII to gain territory? No, it was done for
>political reasons. A CIV war without territory gaining is a failure, in RL, it
>could be argued that WWII made the US into a superpower.
Well, Germany and Japan certainly fought WWII to gain territory. I suppose
it could be argued Russia did as well.
--
pixelATshoreDOTnet - http://www.shore.net/~pixel
An it harm none, do as thou wilt. Mind your mind or it will surely spoil
Free Kevin! MSN-IE4-AFM SBN2
Lars Andersen
> Lars Andersen wrote:
> > I think that while the Firaxis team have more than proven their design
> > capabilities, the subject of Civilization is really getting dull.
>
> You are accused of herecy on two counts! Herecy by word! Herecy by thought! Herecy by deed! ..Three
> counts. And Herecy by.. four counts. Oh, whatever.
Ah huh? If that's the case, then I'm on the other hand accusing you all
of lacking any creative vision. :-) (I'm not trolling, just kidding) I'm
baffled by some of the response seen here though, while I know that BR
didn't exactly ask for a features-wanted list, what I have seen seems to
suggest that all that is wanted is a SMAC conversion. I think that's a
huge case of under-kill. I recently said in another setting that I think
we are currently seeing something like the C&C cloning phenomenon on Civ-
games. I like the damn game, no doubt about that, but I think that we've
seen rather visionless(SMAC, ok so I'm exaggerating but get my point) and
some innovative but so far(where is that patch?) badly implemented ideas
in Civ:CTP.
> > what is left to explore now? What could Civ-3(SMC3?) bring to the stage
> > that we haven't seen already?
>
> So, Civ2 was just Civ all over again for you then, right? Same concept and era, now, innit? ;)
Maybe my memory is fogged, but Civ2 was not _that_ different. I'm not
talking graphics(I couldn't care less about those) but rather about the
game concepts which never changed. I'm of the opinion that SMAC and Civ2
took the design as far as it'll go.
> Thoughtful bit:
> We've been on this planet for quite a while now, and people are still exploring. (Oh, yes they are.
> The seas, for instance.) People are still writing books, although there are only so many letters in
> the alphabet and we ought to have used up most of the comprehensible combinations by now.* :) If we
> run out of creativeness, we ought to have run out a few hundred thousand years ago.**
I'm sure you're right but it's kinda besides the point. :-)
I'm not asking for a new world history, we all know that's not possible,
but rather to have an entirely new way of creating it. Let's see Sid
Meier and Brian Reynolds do something new, something that will stun us
again. Really, tear the system down and rebuild from scratch, but keep
the topic. Why not??? I think that the current civ-system could be made
far more flexible than it is today.
I hope Firaxis didn't sell out and become commercial above creative. Any
Sid Meier civ-game will sell loads of copies regardless of whether it's
brand-new or not, whether Firaxis is then willing to spend money on
further developing a game that will sell anyway is the challenge. They
are certainly capable though and I'm sure I'll buy the game no matter
what.
Lars
PS. Just because I seem to be posting against the flow of the NG, please
don't consider it a troll, it's just my honest opinion.
2BMe
Leejay Wu <lw...@andrew.cmu.edu> skrev i en
nyhedsmeddelelse:YrDkLE_00UwH0C=g...@andrew.cmu.edu...
Samuel Hogarth
writes
> I think diplomacy is the key. The game engine of alpha centauri
>would be fine, but what they really need to do is make somekind of
>breakthoutgh with the diplomacy.
>
<snip>
How about taking the concept from CTP, and doing it well? :-)
SH
'Wake up! You're just having a nightmare - of course,
we are still in hell.' (to reply, replace 'up' with 'down')
Guido den Broeder
galaxy, as in Master of Orion (but then differently)? If so, please make
space 3-dimensional, not 2! And I'd love to see a globe in Civ3.
Regards,
Guido
Brian Reynolds wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Civ fans everywhere will, I'm sure, be interested to learn that we
> have just announced (at E3 last night) that we will be developing Sid
> Meier's Civilization III as one of our upcoming products, to be
> published under the Microprose label by Hasbro Interactive!
>
> This is a brand-spanking new development, so I'm not ready to go into
> loads of detail just yet, but I do plan to stay in touch on the
> newsgroups during the development of the game, because I think every
> Civ fan has an idea in his/her head about what Civ 3 should be. We'll
> do a "call for features" once we have a serious prototype we like.
>
> To answer some of the most obvious and burning questions-- (1) yes,
> many of the important strong points of Alpha Centauri will (where
> appropriate) be incorporated into Civ3, so don't worry your little
> (big?) heads about that. :-) (2) Yes, we're still working on Alpha
> Centauri upgrades, expansions, etc. In fact, as Sid announced last
> night, we see Alpha Centauri and the Civ 1-2-3 series as two members
> of a broader Sid Meier "Sweep of Time" trilogy we want to create;
> wherein your actions and success in one game can affect your situation
> in the next. We'll talk about the third, yet-to-be-announced, member
> of the trilogy later. (3) yes, we will be working with both
> Hasbro/Microprose and EA as publishers of our various products. (4)
> yes, we have some really exciting ideas about how to make Civ 3 the
> best turn-based strategy game yet.
Andrew R. Gillett
> ko...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >But CTP did introduce a few things that might be worth picking up for a
> >future game, such as the point-and-click movement orders that I thought
> >were far superior to Civ2's Go To command, which seemed to misfire as
> >often as not.
>
> No, no, no ! CTP's UI looks like the interfaces used for real time
> strategy games. I hope Civ3 will support full keyboard-driven play, the
> obvious choice for turn by turn strategy games. Civ2's Go To command was
> a good idea but the algorithm used sucked. Of course, Firaxis could
> implement point-and-click movement orders as an option.
CTP's point and click movement system was necessary for two reasons:
1) It made it easier to move large stacks (consisting of lots of units
with different movement points) around.
2) Due to the way Railroads and Magtubes worked, it would not have been a
good idea to display the current remaining movement points, or it'd be
showing all kinds of nasty fractions.
--
Andrew Gillett http://argnet.fatal-design.com/ ICQ: See homepage
"You're right there, Murray." - Martin Brundle, F1 97
Guido den Broeder
completed, a new game could be allowing players to create AI's and have
these compete with each other in the three stages of evolution.
Regards,
Guido
Jim John wrote:
>
> There's only 2 ways to go from where we are now:
>
> a) rework SMAC, fix stuff that doesn't work so well, add some here and
> a lil' there - then call it Civ3
>
> b) make the game RADICALLY more simple, bung out all those boring
> routine tasks from the gameplay so it becomes playable -online- -in
> realtime- - then call it Civ3
>
Jonathan Dalton
Great! If you can make this game brilliant, then I'm with you all the way.
However, it'll be hard - the touble is, you won't really be able to get
away from the 'been there, done that' feel of the game. C:CTP had this
problem - it felt like the first half of the game, on earth, was just Civ
2 all over again. SMAC was a welcome break (and a great game), but it was
still Civ 2 on a different planet. As has been mentioned before, I think
you'll need to start from scratch to really make this the next greatest
game of all time (the first one was civ 1).
Suggestions? Definately...
1) stick with the civ theme - i.e. building a civilisation from scratch.
That is what the civ series is about - you can't scrap that.
2) this is the big change that I think will define it as different (And
I'm sure I will be flamed for this): make the game real time. Not C&C,
'click click click' real time, but real time never-the-less. Ok, the real
time clock will tick by slowly, but it will still be continuously going.
It would be really hard to keep track of all your units and what
everything is doing in each town without some spectacular AI aswell - have
units in a war manoveoar themselves about attacking units unless given
express orders to wait for your command and instructions, have a great
interface so it's easy to tell who's building what (large screen res
needed for this), the game will slow down even further during diplomatic
talks (minutes go by instead of weeks or months)...it'll be really hard to
retain the complexity of Civ turn based in this way, but I DO think it's
possible. And it's the only thing that I can think of that will make this
Civ suffieciently different from the rest to make it really stand out.
jon
Rob Lancaster
Simon de Vet <sde...@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:373EF644...@istar.ca...
>
> Look at what's going on today, in Yugoslavia. The US is attacking with
planes
> only. This would be stupid to do in CIV, yet it was done today for
specific
> reasons (good or bad, is irrelevant). The US, and Serbia have gotton in
trouble
> for attacking civillians, intentionally or not. Think of the depth this
could
> add to CIV, having your reputation sunk if you kill a settler, or an
engineer.
> Think of the possibilities of having refugees in the game. Think of the
> possibilities of more interesting type alliances, like NATO, the Warsaw
Pact, or
> the UN.
>
population was removed
and made into Refugee units. They would look like Engineers, but the only
thing you could do with
them would be to move them to a friendly city and add them to the
population.
As a refinement, this could possibly cause unhappiness in a large city. Of
course, it would damage
your reputation to attack someone elses refugees.
Rob
Rob Lancaster
Andrew Lee <andr...@student.usyd.edu.au> wrote in message
news:7hmks9$fpm$1...@toto.tig.com.au...
>
>
> The first point comes from the clue - 'Sweep of Time'. In my mind, the
> logical 'sweep' is firstly the progession of mankind from wide-eyed
> cave-dudes to a space-faring civ (Civ I and Civ II). The second step is
the
> colonisation of a new planet (Alpha Centauri). The third and final step is
> presumably then, the colonisation of the Galaxy ala MOO2.
>
Maybe the third step would be that after you had settled on and colonised
AC, you
send back a group of colonists to find out what had become of the Earth, and
set
about rebuilding it.
Rob
Jon Nunn
> What about India? They've ben around for a long time, and I seem to
>remember
> them as one of the first 4 civs on Earth (China, India, Egypt and
>Mesopotamia,
> or something)
>
India's cluture changed a lot over it's history,
the Muslems at their peak swept thru all of Northern India,
and are still predomaint in Pakinstan and Bangledash.
Also the British forciably changed India culture while they
owned it, for instance outlawing their practice of burning the
wife alive alone with the husband's body.
Eqyptian culture has changed several times during it's existance,
and the territory that was Mesopatia is bascally South Eastern
Iraq, Kuwait, and parts of SW Iran.
--
Jon Nunn
Programmer Analyst
Friends Don't Let Friends Do Cobol
http://members.home.net/jonnunn/
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Jon Nunn
sha...@whitefang.com wrote:
> Simon de Vet sde...@istar.ca wrote:
>
> >What about India? They've ben around for a long time, and I seem to
remember
> >them as one of the first 4 civs on Earth (China, India, Egypt and
Mesopotamia,
> >or something)
>
>
And it didn't take long for the "faction erradicated" message
to appear over them.
Jon Nunn
Guido den Broeder <bro...@bart.nl> wrote:
> There also is the ultimate way. Maybe after the trilogy has been
> completed, a new game could be allowing players to create AI's and
>have
> these compete with each other in the three stages of evolution.
>
Of course those who program computers in OO langagues for a living would
have an unfair advantage over those that don't in such a competion.
Jon Nunn
>the
> galaxy, as in Master of Orion (but then differently)? If so, please
>make
> space 3-dimensional, not 2! And I'd love to see a globe in Civ3.
>
about the units can go in any direction. (Which is probably neccesary to
acheive a globe)
And area avable to be worked around a city should bassaclly be a circle
instead of the standard 20 square pattern with distorts for difficult to
move squares (size 1 city in the plains can work more area than size 1
city in the mountains), which grows as the city population does and
shrinks when the population decreases.
Have cities whose work area is completly contained within another city
be automatcly absored into the biger city. Then someone can early in the
game found many tiny cities, which latter merge and become a big giant
metropolis.
**remove to email**
NO, NO, NO! It is the ruination of any strategic level game to make
it RTS. It doomed Pax Imperia and Rebellion, among others. With RTS,
you have no concept of how you are doing over time. And when you get
reports on events, they tend to overwhelm you.
When turn base games you can easily determine over time how you are
doing, and you can measure your progress overtime. With RTS on a
strategic level game, it becomes very hard to do so. I detest
strategic level games that try to do this.
RTS for tactical battles with a Civ3 would be fine - but I won't be
buying a RTS strategic level Civ!
Grifman
Daniel Giaimo
news:OYSMXN9n#GA....@nih2naaa.prod2.compuserve.com...
> Some time back I suggested that when a city was captured, part of the
> population was removed
> and made into Refugee units. They would look like Engineers, but the only
> thing you could do with
> them would be to move them to a friendly city and add them to the
> population.
>
> As a refinement, this could possibly cause unhappiness in a large city. Of
> course, it would damage
> your reputation to attack someone elses refugees.
It should only damage your reputation with countries that either don't like
you in the first place, or which have a "freedom of the press" bill.
This is one thing that I think could be made better in civII, namely being
able to customize your government through certain "amendments" to the laws.
After all, no two republics, even today, have the same set of rights. In
England, there is no right to bear arms, no freedom of the press, and there is a
state religion. In America, the exact opposite is true, even though, under the
civII system, both would be considered republics.
>
> Rob
>
>
--
--Daniel Giaimo
Remove nospam. from my address to e-mail me. | dgiaimo@(nospam.)ix.netcom.com
^^^^^^^^^<-(Remove)
|--------BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK--------| Ros: I don't believe in it anyway.
|Version: 3.1 |
|GM d-() s+:+++ a--- C++ UIA P+>++++ | Guil: What?
|L E--- W+ N++ o? K w>--- !O M-- V-- |
|PS? PE? Y PGP- t+(*) 5 X+ R- tv+(-) | Ros: England.
|b+@ DI++++ D--- G e(*)>++++ h->++ !r |
|!y->+++ | Guil: Just a conspiracy of
|---------END GEEK CODE BLOCK---------| cartographers, you mean?
shadows
> sha...@whitefang.com wrote:
>> Sumerians were the first AFAIK. They were in Mesopotamia.
>>
>
>And it didn't take long for the "faction erradicated" message
>to appear over them.
Well the message appeared to the Babylonians after they took out the
last Sumerian base. Still the Sumerians discovered "Irrigation,"
"Literacy," and "Pottery." But, like, they spent too much time
locking servants in tombs with their masters. So they got what they
deserved.
Andrew R. Gillett
> 2) this is the big change that I think will define it as different (And
> I'm sure I will be flamed for this): make the game real time. Not C&C,
> 'click click click' real time, but real time never-the-less. Ok, the real
> time clock will tick by slowly, but it will still be continuously going.
How do you propose to make a game in which time passes at a rate of years
work in real-time?
Brian Reynolds
You read my mind... ;-)
BR
On Sun, 16 May 1999 01:30:43 -0500, "Ian Wu" <wuz...@idt.net> wrote:
>
>Brian Reynolds <brey...@firaxis.com> wrote in message
>news:373e3298...@news.clark.net...
>> Hi Barry,
>>
>> Actually, most if not all of these features are already present in our
>> latest game, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, which you should check out if
>> you haven't already. We will of course include them, where
>> appropriate, in Civ3 as well.
>>
>> Brian Reynolds
>> FIRAXIS Games
>>
>
>How about different resources, such as iron, coal, petroleum, and uranium.
>
>For example, the maintenance cost of per turn of any modern army unit
>would require a certain amount of petroleum and iron. This would make
>economy and trade more important because countries that don't have
>natural resources must trade for them.
>
>Make it that the where the resources are located are predetermined but
>remain unknown until the technology is developed to discover them.
>So a country might be behind but suddenly by 1900 discovers an oil reserve
>and
>suddenly turns the game in his favor.
>
>You can also give each country the ability to store resources like oil
>in reserve. So if country A trades for oil from country B, but wants to
>take it over, country A might want to build up a reserve before declaring
>hostilies, country B on the other hand, might be forewarned of the attack
>because of the oil build up.
>
>I always felt that although CIV is a great game, it over emphasized the
>military aspects and de-emphasized the economic aspects of history.
>
>Ian Wu
>
Brian Reynolds
BR
On Sun, 16 May 1999 01:36:53 -0500, "Wesley Yap"
<wesl...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>Brian ,
>
> Don't forget the looks of the game too. I'm not asking it
>to be exquisite looking. Some what in high resolution with 16bit colours.
>Please no more the SMAC low resoultion 256 colours on the units.
>
> And, make sure the game doesn't require a huge chuck of memories
>to run smoothly.
>
>These complains have been heard before, take them as a reminder.
>
ScottZf
news:7hnb5m$7an$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> > What about India? They've ben around for a long time, and I seem to
> >remember
> > them as one of the first 4 civs on Earth (China, India, Egypt and
> >Mesopotamia,
> > or something)
> >
>
> the Muslems at their peak swept thru all of Northern India,
> and are still predomaint in Pakinstan and Bangledash.
Plus the "original" Indus culture was wiped out by the Aryans @1500 BC
<snip>
> Eqyptian culture has changed several times during it's existance,
> and the territory that was Mesopatia is bascally South Eastern
> Iraq, Kuwait, and parts of SW Iran.
IE... all are "arabic/muslem" now, not "egyptian/mesopotamian".
Thus only "china" is close to the original civ.
David Sheets
Jonathan Dalton wrote in message <373F1DE2...@globalnet.co.uk>...
>2) this is the big change that I think will define it as different (And
>I'm sure I will be flamed for this): make the game real time. Not C&C,
>'click click click' real time, but real time never-the-less. Ok, the real
>time clock will tick by slowly, but it will still be continuously going.
>everything is doing in each town without some spectacular AI aswell - have
>units in a war manoveoar themselves about attacking units unless given
>express orders to wait for your command and instructions, have a great
>interface so it's easy to tell who's building what (large screen res
>needed for this), the game will slow down even further during diplomatic
>talks (minutes go by instead of weeks or months)...it'll be really hard to
>retain the complexity of Civ turn based in this way, but I DO think it's
>possible. And it's the only thing that I can think of that will make this
>Civ suffieciently different from the rest to make it really stand out.
I agree with you, I think a slow-real-time civ game would be a great
change. I always loved playing Settlers 1-3 which were
slow-real-time-economic-simulations. I think Civ 3 could try a similar
system. And like X-com it could have a system that allows you to slow down
the action when you need to, or speed it up when there is nothing happening
and you're just waiting for that next new advance to come along.
I also agree with you that most people will probably just flame you for
such a suggestion... And I doubt very much that the game would go into that
direction just because so many people would be screaming bloody murder,
BUT-- I really think that if done correctly it could bring new life into a
genre that has seemed a bit bogged down lately. I mean, for myself, and
judging from posts, for a good number of other people on this newsgroup,
SMAC was fun, but it just seemed like it was more of what I'd been doing all
through high school... Civ 1-2.
I could imagine a scenario where the Japanese send some artillery to
bomb your city, with supporting infantry, effectively laying siege to your
capital. So you slow down time, go to another city and quickly change
production to some cavalry, which will hopefully be built before your city
starts starving to death and your citizens decide to open the gates to the
enemy (well, sure your citizens can do that!) :) So you run your cavalry up
there, and attack the artillery from thr rear (getting your bonus for speed
and suprise), forcing the infantry to untrench and fall back to defend the
artillery.
Of course, while all of your little pieces are doing their little dance,
you are negotiating with the Visagoths to attack the Japanese, which they
will do for the paltry sum of 100 gold (since the Japanese stabbed them in
the back 35 years ago at that nasty battle of Nanjing). So by the time your
cavalry is dead, and the infantry have dug themselves in again, re-starting
the siege, the Visagoth come in with their two tanks and decimate the
Japanese attacking forces.
Of course, it's a lot easier to visaualize in my head than it is to
program, BUT-- I really do feel like a slow-real-time element would really
bring new life to this sort of game. Just my opinion of course.
--David Sheets
Brad Wardell
I was hanging outside the press room (where all the constumed people were
milling about before the announcement), the announcement definitely was the
best news I hard at E3.
I also got to see Civilization II: The test of Time. Hopefully Civ3 won't
follow in its footsteps too much. What makes a good Civ game to me is the
AI. The feeling of building a civilization and trying to outthink the
computer players. Civ2: Test of time, which has nice graphics also has a
LOT of new features that I imagine will be difficult to do a good AI for
(comes with fantasy scenarios where there's underground, underwater, earth,
and sky layers that you have to conquer).
I'd be happy if Civ3 jus thad updated graphics, expanded diplomatic features
and remained turn base. If someone wants to make a real time Civ, then call
it something else. ;)
Brad
---
Brad Wardell
Stardock - http://www.stardock.com
Alex
Daniel Giaimo
news:KCK%2.6831$Sl6....@nnrp2.clara.net...
>
> . In
> >England, there is no right to bear arms,
>
Really? you like the idea that the government is the only one with the
guns? Personally, I'd feel very uncomfortable living in a country like that.
After all, you never know when some megalomaniacal loon is going to get into
power and decide to declare himself dictator.
>
> no freedom of the press,
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
> Have you ever been to the fucking UK?
Yes I have. But that has nothing to do with the point. If the UK
government wished to it could enact all sorts of anti-press laws. In the US
that simply isn't true. If the US government wished to suppress the press, (at
least legally), it would have to alter the constitution which is an
extraordinarily difficult thing to do.
>
> and there is a
> >state religion.
>
> MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
> So fucking what? This is a true multi-cultral society and anyone can worship
> what they like, you don't have to agree with the C of E - you sad man!
No, but it _is_ a state-sponsored religion which every tax-paying citizen of
the UK contributes to.
>
> In America, the exact opposite is true
>
> AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!
>
> Freedom of the press... that's a good one! I thought Big Bill controlled
> them - and their mothers! He tells everyone what to do.
Have you read any US papers lately? A lot of stuff that is printed in them
is quite anti-Clinton. I seriously doubt that Clinton has any power over most
of the newsmedia in the US.
>
> Now why don't you fuck off and stop talking about stuff you obviously hate,
> you child of Europe you!
What does that mean?
>
> even though, under the
> >civII system, both would be considered republics.
>
> >
>
>
--
Achim V.
>
> And I'd love to see a globe in Civ3.
Yes! Like the one in "UFO - Enemy unknown"!
--
Achim Voß
"We only use a third of our brain to think with it. The question is:
what do we do with the other third?"
VMT
Any hope to get a Linux port of those games?
Brian Reynolds wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Civ fans everywhere will, I'm sure, be interested to learn that we
> have just announced (at E3 last night) that we will be developing Sid
> Meier's Civilization III as one of our upcoming products, to be
> published under the Microprose label by Hasbro Interactive!
>
> This is a brand-spanking new development, so I'm not ready to go into
> loads of detail just yet, but I do plan to stay in touch on the
> newsgroups during the development of the game, because I think every
> Civ fan has an idea in his/her head about what Civ 3 should be. We'll
> do a "call for features" once we have a serious prototype we like.
>
> To answer some of the most obvious and burning questions-- (1) yes,
> many of the important strong points of Alpha Centauri will (where
> appropriate) be incorporated into Civ3, so don't worry your little
> (big?) heads about that. :-) (2) Yes, we're still working on Alpha
> Centauri upgrades, expansions, etc. In fact, as Sid announced last
> night, we see Alpha Centauri and the Civ 1-2-3 series as two members
> of a broader Sid Meier "Sweep of Time" trilogy we want to create;
> wherein your actions and success in one game can affect your situation
> in the next. We'll talk about the third, yet-to-be-announced, member
> of the trilogy later. (3) yes, we will be working with both
> Hasbro/Microprose and EA as publishers of our various products. (4)
> yes, we have some really exciting ideas about how to make Civ 3 the
> best turn-based strategy game yet.
>
> Brian Reynolds
> VP Software Development
> FIRAXIS Games
Andrew Lee
Peterson Joe Handjaja wrote in message <7hld6v$1...@cocoa.brown.edu>...
>uh, for the third in trilogy, can I ask for MOM 3 ? building a galactic
>empire in a far far future. ;-)
>
>
>> night, we see Alpha Centauri and the Civ 1-2-3 series as two members
>> of a broader Sid Meier "Sweep of Time" trilogy we want to create;
>> wherein your actions and success in one game can affect your situation
>> in the next. We'll talk about the third, yet-to-be-announced, member
>> of the trilogy later. (3) yes, we will be working with both
Great point PJH. My guess is that this is EXACTLY what Civ III will be all
about based on two points <speculation time>.
The first point comes from the clue - 'Sweep of Time'. In my mind, the
logical 'sweep' is firstly the progession of mankind from wide-eyed
cave-dudes to a space-faring civ (Civ I and Civ II). The second step is the
colonisation of a new planet (Alpha Centauri). The third and final step is
presumably then, the colonisation of the Galaxy ala MOO2.
The second point is that IF Civ III is set on Earth, then no matter how good
it is, I don't think there's much more room to get better. I don't want a
Civ II plus bells and whistles, if only because Civ II has already been
done. It would be an injustice to the franchise to have Civ 2.5. There have
been some great suggestions here, some of which may be incorporated in a
Alpha Centauri patch. To give Sid Meier an opportunity to take the best game
ever and build on it, I think you need to give him an entirely new canvass
to draw on... and that would mean taking humanity to the stars.
Andrew
David O'Selznick
weed, utterly under the domination of mighty trees and barely able to
survive on a planet of lush rainforest. Using mind-control techniques, you
have to forge an alliance with a bunch of simians, who mindlessly chop down
the forests in order to propagate your total domination of the planet??
Nah! Could never happen here.
Leejay Wu wrote in message ...
><chuckle> How 'bout playing mindworms/locusts, trying to colonize a strange
>planet named Earth? Gotta be dealing with those odd, two-legged creatures
>running around as if they own the planet and such...
>
><jk>
>--+-- Leejay Wu <fu...@cmu.edu> ---+- <lw2j@[andrew|cs].cmu.edu> -+--
> | No electrons were harmed in the making of this message. |
>--+-- CMU SCS, '98 ----------------+------------------------------+--
>
>
Kevin B. O'Brien
kindly said (on Sun, 16 May 1999 10:31:44 -0500):
>
>VMT wrote in message <373FB740...@dlc.fi>...
>>
>>Any hope to get a Linux port of those games?
>>
>
>
>I must agree. I don't use Linux, neither will I use it in the near future
Well, you sure know how to make a compelling argument for a Linux
version, you sweet-talker you.
--
Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL
ko...@ix.netcom.com
"Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than going to a
garage makes you an automobile." -- Billy Sunday
Help fight SPAM. Join CAUCE. http://www.cauce.org/
Jason Sorens
Some people in this immensely long thread have argued that Civ3 should not
occur principally on earth, to avoid the "been there, done that" feel. I
would ask, though, would you never play any strategy game set on earth
again? I think there are ways to alter the strategic formula radically,
while keeping the game set on earth. I personally prefer, in general,
games set on earth, because they necessarily have a rich historical and
cultural backdrop. Colonizing some made-up planet and fighting aliens is
somehow... sterile.
On another point, at least one person has suggested making the game
real-time. I disagree with this, but maybe there's a way to make *part*
of the game tactical in nature, rather than broadly strategic. I remember
an old game called Centurion that did this by making the battles real-time
(you could move your battalions around) while the broad sweep of the game,
including whole army movements, was turn-based. Of course, this solution
would definitely not please those who think that a Civ game takes too long
already. ;)
___________________________________________________________________
Laissez vivre, The Christian Libertarian Metalhead
Celtophile Avenger: jason....@yale.edu;
Jason P Sorens http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35
___________________________________________________________________
"Freedom is well worth a dying
Come we'll fight with heart and steel"
GRAVE DIGGER, "William Wallace" (libertarian Celtic metal)
Zodiac
>On another point, at least one person has suggested making the game
>real-time
I couldn't agree less - each turn would take 12 months to complete.
Steve Bartman
Reynolds) wrote:
Since most of what you'll want to include in a Civ3 is already coded
for SMAC <g>, can we expect an Xmas 99 ship?
Steve
>Hi Ian,
>
>You read my mind... ;-)
>
>BR
>
>On Sun, 16 May 1999 01:30:43 -0500, "Ian Wu" <wuz...@idt.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Brian Reynolds <brey...@firaxis.com> wrote in message
Zodiac
. In
>England, there is no right to bear arms,
Thank God.
no freedom of the press,
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Have you ever been to the fucking UK? We have the most free press in the
world - they can do what ever the hell they like and no one (not even the
goverment) can really stand up to them. They are allways breaking the law...
here's an example:
Recently there was a race killing and 5 young men were *heavily*
suspected of the crime, yet there was never quite enough evidence (so they
say) to bring them to justice. Well, a national paper, soon after the trial
colapsed, stated on it's front page that 'These men are murderers - sue us
if you dare'. No one did.
and there is a
>state religion.
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
So fucking what? This is a true multi-cultral society and anyone can worship
what they like, you don't have to agree with the C of E - you sad man!
In America, the exact opposite is true
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!
Freedom of the press... that's a good one! I thought Big Bill controlled
them - and their mothers! He tells everyone what to do.
Now why don't you fuck off and stop talking about stuff you obviously hate,
you child of Europe you!
even though, under the
AcK!
some Viagra® on Sun, 16 May 1999 13:45:56 -0300, and here's what popped up
instead:
>In the previous CIV games, we fight to gain territory. Now look at our recent
>history. Did America fight in WWII to gain territory? No, it was done for
>political reasons. A CIV war without territory gaining is a failure, in RL, it
>could be argued that WWII made the US into a superpower.
Well the way you can help your allies in SMAC is a definite improvement...
>Similarly, the US fought in Vietnam for political reasons. The entire cold war
>is something that cannot exist in CIV as is.
Can't it? I've often played games (especially in Civ2) where I'd be a state of
war with another civ, but it wouldn't be a hot war, rather a cold war. Forming
alliances vs. the other civ, covert ops, maybe some odd aircraft encounter, but
to real fighting. Fun.
>Look at what's going on today, in Yugoslavia. The US is attacking with planes
>only. This would be stupid to do in CIV, yet it was done today for specific
>reasons (good or bad, is irrelevant). The US, and Serbia have gotton in trouble
>for attacking civillians, intentionally or not. Think of the depth this could
There's a bit of this in Civ, bombing terrain improvements, etc.
>add to CIV, having your reputation sunk if you kill a settler, or an engineer.
>Think of the possibilities of having refugees in the game. Think of the
>possibilities of more interesting type alliances, like NATO, the Warsaw Pact, or
>the UN.
Refugees and different reputations (unhappiness linked to your conduct in war
for a democracy-type government?).
TTYL
... I'm not tense. I'm just terribly alert...
krup...@yahoospa.com
remove "spa" to email
AcK!
Sexton) was slipped some Viagra® on 16 May 1999 12:26:56 -0500, and here's what
popped up instead:
>All except 1...
>
>: > 5] Expand the game into space with the ability to build space stations,
>: >space craft, maybe even cities in orbit. Ideally you could continue to
>: >expand to the Moon, Mars, asteroid belt.
>
>The latter part of that would be great. I'm not talking Moo3 (although I
>loved the moo series), just expansion within our own solar system.
Yeah, this isn't the same as connecting Civ 3 to SMAC 2 (or whatever), which
seems to be an idea I remember seeing...
>You could send off terraforming bots to Mars, and in the few hundred years
>wait, start small mining colonies in the asteroid belt, and a few colonies
>on mars and the moon. Bring in shades of colonization with taxation and
>the eventual revolt of the space colonies!
Revolting space colonies might be a little trickier to simulate (given my idea
of those things being fairly vulnerable, but that could change with enough
FutureTech, I suppose). Col2 would be one of the hugest leaps in a sequel ever,
though, if it were to follow this plan: no Indians, different planet, etc.
Interesting, though.
>Or maybe this is an entirely new game in itself.... Hey Sid, wanna do
>Colonization2: The Martian Revolution? ;)
That'd be cool.
TTYL
... No matter what you achieve, someone has helped you.
AcK!
some Viagra® on Sun, 16 May 1999 12:37:43 +0800, and here's what popped up
instead:
>I reckon the primary task should be to fix all the samll bugs/problems with
>civ2, i wont bother listing all these as Im sure you will be aware of them
>all by now.
>Make small changes, like allow building canals and playing different
>periods/unit this choice being made at start of game.
Agreed.
>Replace the unlimited railway moves with a 1/6th or 1/5th movement point
>like ctp.
Many people will violently object to that one.
>Add the option to remove all nuclear attacks from the game.
Ooh, not only remove, but also expand on nukes. A bit of variety, from city
busters, to the tactical variety.
TTYL
... I won't have any aggressive condiment passing in this house.
r...@ecn.ab.ca
:> Jonesss wrote:
:> Why not the far, far past?...
:Simon de Vet (sde...@istar.ca) wrote:
:This sounds a little dull, actually, so why not take yet another step back?
: Evolution! Life! Tectonics! A SimEarth that is actually a _game_ :
--
<bit of a snarkiness from me, but oh well...>
i disagree. i think a pre-civilization game would be a very good idea. but
it would be difficult to accomplish. the emphasis on survival would be
more direct, the importance of technical growth would be FAR more
significant. stressors within the tribe would be more important for much
of the time. "barbarian" attacks would be much more dangerous to a tribes
stability.
it would definitely be "mundane", but so are a lot of decisions made in
Civ2. build a granary? research horseback riding? irrigate land? this is
excitement? Civilization ("soap-box please!") isn't about adrenaline. i
find it a very stimulating, absorbing game. the game design has been well
thought out and i suspect that if anyone could take a "dull" subject like
the prehistory of mankind and make "something wonderful" (as David Bowman
says) out of it, these are the people who could do it. (alright, you can
take the soapbox away now).
oh, i had a bunch of other stuff to say, but i'm getting annoyed with my
writing now. sorry if it looks like i ripped into you there, but i happen
to find anthropology (particularly from 30000BP onwards) quite
fascinating and felt compelled to leap up and make untoward remarks...
Kornelis Sietsma
are a couple of my thoughts...
1) A hex-based map. Or anything non-square, in fact. Square grid maps
have inherent problems with distance movement - any movement along the
'diagonal' is much faster than movement along the grid, with some weird
results, and a continual suspension of disbelief required by the player.
Civ2 and AC did this better than Civ1, by rotating the map so you almost
always moved along the diagonal - but you still had a square grid
underneath.
2) Move away from the 21-square fixed city radius. This has been a core
part of all civ games so far, but it has real limitations imho, as can be
seen very clearly in AC. AC added supply crawlers, so you could extend a
city's boundaries, but you still had a basic city 'control' area of 21
squares, no matter how large or how small the city.
How about having cities with a 'view radius' that starts at 1 square
(hex?) and grows with city improvements, or more slowly with city size.
Possibly you could also extend the actual metropolitan area to more than 1
hex, which then leads to further expansions in the area the city controls.
This would let you model cities all the way from primitive villages (with
their 1-radius control of local fields and farms) up to modern multi-city
industrial areas, where several cities have merged into one large entity
(such as the New York area now).
3) Throw out your 'goto' algorithm and start from scratch. Why the bugs in
the 'goto' command from Civ2 propagated to Alpha Centauri is beyond me.
This is a vital game feature, especially when used by the otherwise
excellent AIs in AC. While you are at it, throw out all the code that
treats the 'date line' differently from the rest of the map...
If you were really keen, you could try changing to a spherical map system
instead of the current rectangular world. I'm not sure that this would be
practical, but it would certainly be very cool if it could be done.
Several of these changes would involve large code changes from Civ2 or
Alpha Centauri - but they would be worth it, in my opinion, if you really
want to produce a new game worthy of the title Civilization 3.
If you just change the graphics and the tech tree of Alpha Centauri back to
earth, you will have a good game - but it will be Civ 2.2 not Civ3. :)
-Korny (dreading another Sim City 3k)
--
Kornelis Sietsma http://zikzak.net/~korny icq: 2039172
e-mail: ko...@zikzak.net or ko...@eisa.net.au
Cyberspace Buddha
If you say so.
>>and there is a state religion.
>
>MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
>So fucking what? This is a true multi-cultral society and anyone can worship
>what they like, you don't have to agree with the C of E - you sad man!
Not the point. There *is* a state religion. Whether or not it's
mandatory is not relevant.
>In America, the exact opposite is true
To quote someone on this newsgroup:
"MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
You must be kidding. You can believe in whatever religion you like,
and in most cases you can even use sacraments of said religion even if
it is otherwise prohibited by law. Get real, will you?
cheers,
cb
--
Cyberspace Buddha /(0\ What's on, your mind?
mailto:c...@io.com \1)/ http://www.io.com/~cb
Not your fathers buddha.
Cyberspace Buddha
>I think Civ 2 is tops and the Alpha Centauri demo is great too!
You think the demo is great, you should go get the real thing, much
more fun.
Lars Andersen
a...@whangomatic.freeserve.co.uk says...
> In alt.games.civ2, Jonathan Dalton wrote:
> > I'm sure I will be flamed for this): make the game real time. Not C&C,
> > 'click click click' real time, but real time never-the-less. Ok, the real
> > time clock will tick by slowly, but it will still be continuously going.
>
> work in real-time?
>
Lars
kre...@usq.edu.au
wrote:
>Ok, as everyone else is jumping the gun and adding wish-list entries, here
>are a couple of my thoughts...
>
>1) A hex-based map. Or anything non-square, in fact.
Agree
>
>2) Move away from the 21-square fixed city radius.
Agree strongly. The radius should depend on transport and
communications technology as well as infrastructure. Yes, there there
should be a radius that a city draws supply from but it changes due to
terrain technology and improvements.
Some examples would be - The radius for Thebes on the nile starts as a
radius of 1 but after some tech advances to do with sailing etc it
extends 3 up and down river.
- Rome establishes a road network that allows for a longer
supply distance as well as mercantile trade of basic goods allowing a
pool of supply from the whole empire. A farm in north africa supplies
grain to rome, etc
Once several small towns near to each other grow to a cumulative size
they join into a single city entity. The various towns, villages and
counties around ancient londinium were absorbed by london. Then the
various small cities of the modern period were absorber into the
metropolis of london. This has even started to take on a regional
aspect where by the cities start to become so intermesched that they
become a single economic entity. Just look at the Bos-Wash corridor,
areas of coastal China, the Ruhr and the industrial city conglomerates
of Japan.
Maybe there is a need for city structure technology. The various
results could be the city, the metropolis, the mega city. Each stage
could allow for greater tax/production, as well as allowing the number
of small cities to decrease as they are combined into the larger
cities. This will simplify the later game by cutting down on micro
management.
My own special idea is the multiple construction lines. Why not have
the ability to build more than one thing simultaneously. Maybe pay
for a extra production line / capacity and then have multiple queues.
This would be better than being stuck building one thing for a long
period.
I like the concept of civic improvements from CTP but thought the
implementation could still be improved.
Trade could also be improved through the elimination of caravans and
instead using trade routes/lines that link cities. They cost a lot to
start up but they will produce money etc. If a city is trading with
the producer of a commodity then it can be considered a source of the
product for other cities that can not reach or even know of the
original producer. This trade city then gains more money. This
allows for the establishment of spice/salt/copper/iron trade routes
where the goods travel between countries that do not even no of each
others existence.
Just my opinions and ideas for a better civ.
Fay McClennan
Kevin D. Foster
>
> Zan <zant...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Allow the city tiles to develop farms, transport, mines, etc. on their
> >own by having the square in continuous use for a certain length of
> >time.
>
> Interesting idea, but I played Civ2 so much that I think I really need
> settlers to improve the tiles ;-)
I'd like to see military units able to make roads and such. The
Romans kept their armies busy during peacetime improving roads and such.
> And I would appreciate an option to auto-adjust city workers when a new
> tile improvement has been completed in the city radius.
That would be a very welcome addition that I doubt anyone would argue
against.
--
-=[ Keeper ]=- ICQ# 8105495
kee...@lycosmail.com kdfo...@home.com
http://members.home.com/keepershaven/
Kevin D. Foster
>
[snip - refugees]
>
> As a refinement, this could possibly cause unhappiness in a large city. Of
> course, it would damage
> your reputation to attack someone elses refugees.
Or damage your reputation for attacking any refugees (even your own)
with specific nations instead of with all nations.
Kevin D. Foster
>
> And area avable to be worked around a city should bassaclly be a circle
> instead of the standard 20 square pattern with distorts for difficult to
> move squares (size 1 city in the plains can work more area than size 1
> city in the mountains), which grows as the city population does and
> shrinks when the population decreases.
I'd like to see Civ move to a hex map. Still easy enough to program,
but much better IMO.
> Have cities whose work area is completly contained within another city
> be automatcly absored into the biger city. Then someone can early in the
> game found many tiny cities, which latter merge and become a big giant
> metropolis.
This is an excellent idea! Good thinking.
Mick
> Jon Nunn <jn...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
> news:7hnb5m$7an$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> >
> > > What about India? They've ben around for a long time, and I seem to
> > >remember
> > > them as one of the first 4 civs on Earth (China, India, Egypt and
> > >Mesopotamia,
> > > or something)
> > >
> >
> > India's cluture changed a lot over it's history,
> > the Muslems at their peak swept thru all of Northern India,
> > and are still predomaint in Pakinstan and Bangledash.
>
> Plus the "original" Indus culture was wiped out by the Aryans @1500 BC
>
> <snip>
>
> > Eqyptian culture has changed several times during it's existance,
> > and the territory that was Mesopatia is bascally South Eastern
> > Iraq, Kuwait, and parts of SW Iran.
>
> IE... all are "arabic/muslem" now, not "egyptian/mesopotamian".
> Thus only "china" is close to the original civ.
What about the Hebrews? ( No I am not Jewish ) According to one well read,
popular history book (Bible) they were one of the first nations. And they
still exist today, fundamentally unchanged apart from moving along with
technology.