|
Author
|
Topic: Terrain and what it should do Current Date/Time:
May 25, 2000 22:20:33
|
Christantine
Settler
May 2000
|
 |
posted May 25, 2000 19:15
  | 
 |
 |  |
I think terrain should have a bigger part than just saying how much food your city gets and how fast you can build units/improvements/wonders. I think it should effect what types of units/improvements/wonders you can build. Sorry if you don't understand. Here is a example: A city is surrounded by a desert. There is no water source nearby. Should your city be able to grow to a size 8 before it needs an aquaduct? Should it even be able to build an aquaduct before a water source is found? Another example is: You have a city surrounded by the ocean (A one square island). No fish in sight. You have built about ten units using that city. Do you really have enough food to feed the troops and the city? Say what you think the terrain should do! ------------------
I came, I saw, I conquered...my allies!! |
SilverDragon
Chieftain
Bethesda, Maryland
Apr 2000
|
 |
posted May 25, 2000 19:39
|
|
| |
I think that units should require food for support, instead of sheilds. Also, resources should be split into wood, metal, + cloth stuff (wool, silk etc.) That way you could build a galleon in a forest city, and not an ironclad. Mountain cities could build ironclads, but not galleons. Maybe you could use caravans to give a mountain city wool or something |
Youngsun
Warlord
Darwin,NT,Australia
Jan 2000
|
 |
posted May 25, 2000 21:45
|
|
| |
I posted similar idea sometime ago. quote:
Settlers should not be produced by
accumulation of sheilds but by overcrowding or some other reasons(lack of food,etc)so I agree with your point up there.For building infra-structures like a road/irrigation, I wanna see "labourer units" like formers in SMAC. This levies of workers shouldn't be too difficult to mobilise from your city and once mobilised they will consume food just like settlers in Civ2. I really didnt like public work account thing in CTP. Personally I think settlers should not eat up the food produced by the parent city. Why? just think about it! if you leave long away from your home wouldn't you prepare some provisions for the long journey? Just like that, settlers should carry some food from the city granary. I never heard of some supply wagons constantly supplying settlers from its mother city. For the exact opposite, military units should consume food and I don't want supply mechanism in the game becomes too complicated so attached one unit of supply wagons for 6 to 7 mil units will do the job. The supply unit don't need to travel all the way to the city and the front but staying with the mil units should be enough. If the supply wagon unit is destroyed by enemy attack, the friendly invading mil units would starve(this will be represented by reducing hit points by turns)and eventually have to be reatreated. This requires extensive protection for supply units and will add new strategic element.
|
|
Par4
Warlord
Land o Golf
May 2000
|
|
posted May 25, 2000 22:20
 |
|
| |
I don't know about the water thing, but trade man trade, the cities will trade food in civ3 so that little island city won't starve after all. I want to see terrain change civ peoples ideas some, ie if you want to build some polluting or smelly or ugly industry that your civ doesn't want in the forests they might want it in the desert. I see the desert as endless possibilites for advanced civs which can transport water to that city, lots of room for expansions, flat easy to change terrain, nothing to look at so no fish kissers whining, a classic industry blue collar money making research producing kinda town very good for the ole empire.------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse | |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
