|
Author
|
|
Topic: how long will each era last for? |  |
|
Gammaray fan
Chieftain
Apr 2001
|
 |
posted May 18, 2001 09:14
    | 
 |
 |  |
In Civ1, the ancient age rushed by and a player had knights before they knew it. The Medieval age then lasted for most of the game, with the game then rushing straight through renaissance to modern, and the game ended with a blaze of tanks, bombers, battleships, and of course nukes!
By contrast, CTP (I know its not a Sid game) had next to no medieval age (they combined knights into ancient age) and an extra long renaissance age!
.
What will happen in Civ3? From my comparison of the two extremes (Civ1+CTP), I believe that the ages should get progressively shorter (except for the modern age which should be as long as the first age). This makes the game fun because it gives the player a sense that he is being pushed towards the end of the game by something akin to inertia!
However, it also has the side effect of accommodating civ specific units because most of them will be ancient units (because so many civs rose to power in the ancient age), and if the ancient age is the longest, this gives time for different civs to gain power and lose it, and allows the time offsetting of units like the Greek special unit, and the Roman one, so that the Greek one can have its heyday, before the Roman one is buildable!
.
Consequently, I believe turns in the ancient age should be a decade or so, medieval age - 15 years, renaissance age - 20 years, modern - 10 years. |
Captain
Settler
Kingston, Ontario
May 2001
|
|
posted May 18, 2001 18:27
|
|
| |
I think the era lengths need adjustment too, though not in the same way.
in gneral I agree that the ancient age needs more turns so we don't skip right by it.
ther eras are kindof fuzzy anyways, and there should be transition periods too. these don't need to be specified I don't think. It should just be that the tech advances have set values, and aren't always increasing. Since your beakers pile up faster, you research faster. I'm in favour of a linear timescale as well. Just let yourself govern your own progress. If you want to advance to another age faster, then research more, build infrastructure and trade, and do all the things to research quicker. If not, then play in that age all you want. These 'eras' should be dependent on individual civs, not one person gets it and everyone has to tag along. eg. in civ 2 you got industrialization and all your bldg grfx changed, same for automobile, but not everyone was forced along with you.
|
Lawrence of Arabia
Warlord
San Francisco, CA, USA
Apr 2001
|
 |
posted May 18, 2001 19:50
|
|
| |
In civ2, i never build any units. I'd just have a warrior defending each city which would then be upgraded to a riflemen. I think this strat should be impossible in CivIII because otherwise it leds to quicker AC times.------------------
Nothing can stop the course of History. |
Gammaray fan
Chieftain
Apr 2001
|
|
posted May 18, 2001 23:10
|
|
| |
Lawrence,
How on Earth do you defend your cities if they are invaded, if you only have a warrior to defend! |
Maxxes
Warlord
Amsterdam
Oct 2000
|
|
posted May 19, 2001 01:08
|
|
| |
He apparently built Leonardo's Workshop Gammaray fan, the question is did he ever attack? |
Gammaray fan
Chieftain
Apr 2001
|
 |
posted May 19, 2001 01:20
|
|
| |
Yes I infered as such Maxxis, but does he never get invaded? Maybe he only ever does the AC ending, and not the conquer the world ending? Lawrence, where are you... | |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
