|
Author
|
|
Topic: Appearance... |  |
|
GaryGuanine
Chieftain
Los Angeles, CA
Feb 2001
|
 |
posted March 17, 2001 13:58
  | 
 |
 |  |
I"m sure this has been mentioned, but I would like to see an option to change the look of the game. I preferred the way Civ1 looked to Civ2 (which I thought, and still think, was an ugly game), but I had to play with isometric brown instead of those neat little tiles. I want to play with the Civ1 look. It would be really easy to implement, I would imagine, and I would apreciate it.Gary
|
tmarcl
Chieftain
Pasadena, MD USA
Feb 2001
|
|
posted March 20, 2001 13:57
 |
|
| |
Agreed. I'd definitely like to see more options when it comes to the display. Maybe five or six different city screens to choose from, more than the standard four city types, and possibly even different unit styles (ie, if you choose Roman, all of your units are dressed in Roman style, American for American, etc). Terrain would be difficult to choose styles for, though I suppose it could be done. Why you would want to, though, I don't know. Marc |
Sirotnikov
King
Israel
Feb 2000
|
|
posted March 20, 2001 19:24
 |
|
| |
huh?why should your units look roman if they are chinese?
I agree that we should have general sets for a few main types (far east, classical, american etc) that should modernize with time to have two basic modern sets (what I call dictator look and modern look).
But having each civ with it's own units is too much IMO. |
tmarcl
Chieftain
Pasadena, MD USA
Feb 2001
|
|
posted March 21, 2001 00:55
|
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov on 03-20-2001 07:24 PM
huh?why should your units look roman if they are chinese?
I agree that we should have general sets for a few main types (far east, classical, american etc) that should modernize with time to have two basic modern sets (what I call dictator look and modern look).
But having each civ with it's own units is too much IMO.
|
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying have each civ have it's own units, but more like your first sentence, have a choice in the beginning for how you want your units to look. It's the same as with the city styles in the beginning-you can have them look like the default, or have the Romans building Far East Pavillions. Marc |
airdrik
Warlord
Boise, ID, USA
Oct 2000
|
|
posted March 21, 2001 12:33
|
|
| |
Actually, he's not talkinig about having varying unit looks depending on civ (though I support that 100%), he is talking about being able to play on a map composed of squares rather than diamonds (or even hexagons and pentagons  ). |
GaryGuanine
Chieftain
Los Angeles, CA
Feb 2001
|
|
posted March 21, 2001 22:57
|
|
| |
Although I also agree with the unit appearance things, I like the simple elegance of the Civ1 board. It's effectively the same as the diamonds, they each have 8 outlets, but I just think it looks nicer. I thought (and still think) that the Civ2 board is ugly. I love the game, and this will have no effect as to whether I play it or not, but I just like it more.Gary
|
GaryGuanine
Chieftain
Los Angeles, CA
Feb 2001
|
|
posted March 21, 2001 22:58
|
|
| |
Although in a perfect world, of course, Civ3 would be played on a globe. I bet you could do it without THAT much difficulty, and it would be the most realistic. Although I realize it only affects the end of the game, but I want to send bombers and nuclear weapons "over the top". That's how it'd work anyway.Gary
|
airdrik
Warlord
Boise, ID, USA
Oct 2000
|
|
posted March 22, 2001 13:00
|
|
| |
How about, you can switch between squares, diamonds and hexagons and pentagons (for spherical maps) just by switching terrain.bmp files, or even set it up so that you can have a terrainSq.bmp (with square terrains), a terrainDi.bmp (w/ diamonds) and terrainSph.bmp (w/hexagons and pentag0ons for spherical maps) and in the game have an option to choose between them. Scenarios would automatically set which terrain set to use, so you don't end up with a spherical scenario on a square map. | |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
