quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 12-16-2000 04:59 PM Am i the only one in this forum feeling this way?

I'd swear for 100% keeping of those (already done) Units.
But i won't.
Give me... a >>SPACE CRAFT<< instead?
But i don't.

How about another kind'a Submarine? Deep sea able.

With that that 80% figure i only refered to the amount of units, city-improvements and wonders taken from the old Civ-2 game. I expect however, that Firaxis will enlarge the overal number of available unit-types, city-improvements and wonders, by at least 20%. In practice this means:

- 2/3 old units vs 1/3 new fresh ones
- The same ratio (more or less) goes for city-improvements and wonders.

DARKCLOUD:

I dont mind (and i expect) a graphic facelift (but TOT was unfortunately not a good example, of that). It is the type- and naming convention that i think should remain, mostly the same.

Perhaps it was the latter you refered to, then you wrote "graphics". Well, if so lets hope you are wrong about that. I dont want Samurai instead of Legion, Shrine and bazaar instead of temple and marketplace and Sphinx instead of Pyramids. Again; dont change for the sake of change.

TO ALL OF YOU:

I forgot about the Civ-2 techs:

The Civ-2 tech-tree should be enlarged by 20-25%. Some good rearrangements of course. About 2/3 of this new tech-tree should consist of old familiar Civ-2 techs. The remaining 1/3 should be new fresh ones, give or take.

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 12-17-2000 05:32 AM NO SMAC-style beyond 2040AD techs. Let SMAC be SMAC, and let Civ-3 be Civ-3 - dont mix them togeter in the main game. For futuristic Civ-3play; tailor-cut someting nice with the scenario-editor instead, or play the future scenarios, im sure Firaxis is going to include together with the main game.

i agree... civ2 goes far enough into the future as it is. i dont want to see loads of unrealistic sci-fi techs popping up; i see civ3 as being a realistic game, based on history, and a resonable assumption of what may be possible in 20-40 years time. 'future techs' fill in for the sci-fi advances.

What we need to do here is work out all the AI, diplomacy, SE, etc. internal workings of the game. Also, we should work out the unit workshop ideas for if that is included in the game.

quote: Originally posted by orange on 12-17-2000 01:29 PM This is a "do you want Civ 3 or Civ 2.5" question.

Its not about that, Orange. Its instead about "quality before quantity". Its about concentrate developing resources on issues that really matters.

(And i dont think that spending countless hours trying to figure out unnatural and dubious unit-, tech-, city-improvement- and wonder replacements, easily falls in in the "really matters" -category).

Firaxis should always remember, that once the Civ-3 game is released, there are only two potential player/game-magazine complains, that towers highly above anything else:

- "This interface/game-feedback really stinks!"
- "What a piece of crap this AI is".

For some, better units/wonders/techs may be the core issue.

Personally I would much rather see a better diplomatic system set up before I see better AI (though I do want that as well)

Everyone has a different ranking of what they want and don't want in this game.

By Civ 2.5/3 I mean do you as a person want to see Civ 2 with the tweaks necessary to make it better, or do you want to see a completely reworked game - ala Civ 1 to Civ 2. I know some people would be happy with an upgrade...I personally would feel cheated. How you or others feel is a different story, but I respect that.

What Firaxis needs to do is find a way to bring in new players while satisfying the old gurus like us I agree with you on one thing Ralf...

quote: If your try to please everybody, then you might end up pleasing nobody".

quote: Originally posted by orange on 12-17-2000 04:03 PM By Civ 2.5/3 I mean do you as a person want to see Civ 2 with the tweaks necessary to make it better, or do you want to see a completely reworked game - ala Civ 1 to Civ 2.

I think we are talking past each over, Orange!

An upgrade ala Civ-1 to Civ-2 is exactly what i want to see. A large part of the units, wonders, techs and city-improvements from Civ-1 re-appeared in Civ-2 as well. STILL it was pretty massive upgrade!

The trouble is what many in these forums dreaming of a game that converts Civ-2 into Civ-10 instead. Below i copied from a previous thread:

"Its also a question of what is workable and feasible solution for the programmers point of view, as well. Many gamers just take this or that Civ-2 or SMAC solution, and then try hard to come up with much more complicated and more "accurate to our real world" type of suggestion, as a replacement.
They just dont understand what exponentially increasing AI-calculation problems and AI-developing and debugging problems, that adding this or that complicated suggestion, actually would create for the developers".

quote: Originally posted by orange on 12-17-2000 04:03 PM Personally I would much rather see a better diplomatic system set up before I see better AI (though I do want that as well)

A diplomatic system before a better AI, is like asking for a faster car before a stronger engine, or a more streamlined design.

It doesnt make sense. A diplomacy system without an AI, is just an empty shell.

quote: A diplomatic system before a better AI, is like asking for a faster car before a stronger engine, or a more streamlined design. It doesnt make sense. A diplomacy system without an AI, is just an empty shell.

I don't think you understand. I want to see better options, as in trading land a better system of embassies, better ways at expressing the interaction between the two.

The AI improvement is certainly important to this. But if the diplomacy stayed the same as it is in Civ 2, I wouldn't even care. I need the best of both worlds, and to me the first is more important.