Jump to content


Civ III the "new port"


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#21 Janichsan

Janichsan

    Jugger Bugger

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8075 posts
  • Steam Name:Janichsan
  • Location:over there

Posted 18 January 2006 - 05:25 AM

View PostDamien, on January 18th 2006, 10:36 AM, said:

Do we know how fast is it yet?

Especially at later levels
See above. Brad Oliver already answered that question.

"We do what we must, because we can."
"Gaming on a Mac is like women on the internet." — "Highly common and totally awesome?"


#22 eschatz

eschatz

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 788 posts
  • Location:Baltimore, Maryland

Posted 18 January 2006 - 04:52 PM

I've noticed some odd behavior with this game versus the old version. Perhaps these are intentional changes. There are no longer animations for units being killed or cities being founded. Also, I've noticed missing sound effects (again, perhaps intentional) like that of archers when using them in combat. The game also crashed on me once right as I was coming out of anarchy.

10.4.4
Dual 2Ghz June 2004 G5
RADEON X800
1.5 GB RAM
Edward

#23 PeopleLikeFrank

PeopleLikeFrank

    Uberspewer

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2690 posts
  • Location:The Republic of Soviet Canukistan
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 18 January 2006 - 05:05 PM

View Posttotallywhacked, on December 19th 2005, 02:40 AM, said:


3) Navy and aircraft: I hated the changes from civ II.......in my opinion, navies in civ III were worthless. As for aircraft...
well you need fighters to protect from enemy bombers. But bombers were usless. They could damage cities...yes...but I don't want to damage cities...I want to occupy them with all their improvements. They could damage roads....and that was okay...but not really worth the cost. they were terrible at attacking units.

Is this changed in Civ III complete? is it changed in civ iv?

I appreciate input from anyone who actually knows something

In CivIV the situation with artillery and aircraft is a bit different - as a unit is stationed for a longer time in a city, they will "dig in", creating defenses that improve their fighting odds when stationed in that city. This is shown by a percentage number above the city name that applies to the units fighting in it.

Artillery that is stationed in a adjacent tile can bombard the city, which destroys these fortifications, not the buildings in the city. Aditionally, when the unit gains a level, you can give it the collateral damage promotion, which lets it do some damage to other units in the area it bombards.

Bombers can be given different orders - air strike or bomb. The former damages units, and the latter fortifications. They can be given the collateral damage upgrade as well. Fighters can attack ground targets as well, though not as effectively as bombers.

I found artillery and air units extremely useful in CivIV - a city with powerful production can produce a bomber in just a couple of turns, and they're great for softening up enemy targets while your troops make their way to the city you're attacking. You can do the same thing with a carrier full of fighters, if the city isn't in bombing range, and they're still good for strafing units, though not as effective at weakening fortifications.

Navy units are pretty useful as well - I don't remember CivIII well enough to compare (didn't use them much in that game), but there's a lot of water-based economy in IV that can be destroyed just like land improvements, so defending that is helpful. A couple of subs running around is murder on enemy troop transports.
The dork formerly known as nobody
---
MBP: C2D @ 2.66 Ghz | GeForce 9600M GT 256Mb | 8GB RAM | 120GB SSD + 500GB HD | 10.6.2 / W7 x64
PC: Q9550 | 6950 2GB | 8GB RAM | 80GB SSD + 750GB HD | W7 x64

#24 Janichsan

Janichsan

    Jugger Bugger

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8075 posts
  • Steam Name:Janichsan
  • Location:over there

Posted 19 January 2006 - 05:52 AM

View Posteschatz, on January 18th 2006, 11:52 PM, said:

I've noticed some odd behavior with this game versus the old version. Perhaps these are intentional changes. There are no longer animations for units being killed or cities being founded. Also, I've noticed missing sound effects (again, perhaps intentional) like that of archers when using them in combat. The game also crashed on me once right as I was coming out of anarchy.
It's quite a while since I saw the Windows version of CivIII with the expansions, but I cannot remember these things missing. Sounds like a bug to me.

"We do what we must, because we can."
"Gaming on a Mac is like women on the internet." — "Highly common and totally awesome?"


#25 Kanamit

Kanamit

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 19 January 2006 - 03:32 PM

View Posteschatz, on January 18th 2006, 02:52 PM, said:

I've noticed some odd behavior with this game versus the old version. Perhaps these are intentional changes. There are no longer animations for units being killed or cities being founded. Also, I've noticed missing sound effects (again, perhaps intentional) like that of archers when using them in combat. The game also crashed on me once right as I was coming out of anarchy.

10.4.4
Dual 2Ghz June 2004 G5
RADEON X800
1.5 GB RAM
The animations and sound effects are still there, they work on my computer. I would make sure that your preferences aren't set to something like don't show animations, and if they aren't you should reinstall.

#26 JonboyDC

JonboyDC

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 38 posts

Posted 20 January 2006 - 10:26 AM

Quote

Artillery that is stationed in a adjacent tile can bombard the city, which destroys these fortifications, not the buildings in the city. Aditionally, when the unit gains a level, you can give it the collateral damage promotion, which lets it do some damage to other units in the area it bombards.
Like planes in Civ IV, the artillery can either bombard or attack.  If they bombard the city, they reduce the defensive bonuses of the units in the city.  If you order them to attack, they fight a unit in the city.  Artillery will generally lose to any unit of equivalent tech level, but in doing so they will cause damage to that unit and other units in the city (collateral damage).  So after reducing the defensive bonuses of a city, I often throw a couple of artillery (or catapults or cannons at earlier levels) into a suicide run that softens the enemy units up for my real troops.

One of the interesting things about planes in Civ IV is that while they can be used to attack troops, they will never reduce any unit to less than 50% of their starting strength.  So again, they're good for softening up a city (or a stack of troops), but you still need firepower on the ground. (On the other hand, artillery and other siege units can destroy enemy units completely).

(And many ships in Civ IV can also bombard a city, reducing the defensive bonus for units in the city).

#27 totallywhacked

totallywhacked

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 117 posts

Posted 23 January 2006 - 07:11 PM

View PostDamien, on January 18th 2006, 03:36 AM, said:

Do we know how fast is it yet?

Especially at later levels



Ooh! Yes, could we get someone to report on the speed? Someone who played the original and has now played the new port? Preferably on the same machine?

#28 totallywhacked

totallywhacked

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 117 posts

Posted 24 January 2006 - 09:28 PM

Could we get confirmation on whether "Play the World" is unsupported in this port? That was a bizarre and worrisome suggestion.
I hope it isn't true.

#29 Zab329

Zab329

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 106 posts

Posted 24 January 2006 - 09:29 PM

This is a bit off topic.. but what the hell... i got this crazy idea.. make a Civ IV a role playing game... Online of course... You create an empire... and expand... by beating everyone in your server... you then move to the next server and so on... at the top you have the people playing 15 hours a day and at the bottom you ahve the casual players... it involves everyones skill levels/time playing and makes for a more compedative atomosphere...  i know i'd play
"So we went to Atari and said, 'Hey, we've got this amazing thing, even built with some of your parts, and what do you think about funding us? Or we'll give it to you. We just want to do it. Pay our salary, we'll come work for you.' And they said, 'No.' So then we went to Hewlett-Packard, and they said, 'Hey, we don't need you. You haven't got through college yet.'" -- Apple Computer Inc. founder Steve Jobs

#30 eschatz

eschatz

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 788 posts
  • Location:Baltimore, Maryland

Posted 24 January 2006 - 09:54 PM

View Posttotallywhacked, on January 23rd 2006, 08:11 PM, said:

Ooh! Yes, could we get someone to report on the speed? Someone who played the original and has now played the new port? Preferably on the same machine?

Per the speed, I have not noticed any marked difference between the last official update from Macsoft (not the beta one released) and the current Aspyr version. Playing on a large map the game gets pretty slow during turns by the middle of the 17th-18th century and then gets incredibly long in the 20th century. Going to war late in the game is the worst. The computer has to process so many movements. I go so far as to turn off "show enemy/friendly moves" but it is still interminable.

10.4.4
Dual 2Ghz G5
1.5GB of RAM

(if you were wondering)
Edward

#31 dojoboy

dojoboy

    DJJ is the greatest!

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3449 posts
  • Steam ID:dojoboy65
  • Location:Tanasi (USA)
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 24 January 2006 - 10:20 PM

View Posttotallywhacked, on January 24th 2006, 10:28 PM, said:

Could we get confirmation on whether "Play the World" is unsupported in this port? That was a bizarre and worrisome suggestion.
I hope it isn't true.

It is unsupported.
"There is no end to sorrow."  ---Van Gogh

#32 Janichsan

Janichsan

    Jugger Bugger

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8075 posts
  • Steam Name:Janichsan
  • Location:over there

Posted 25 January 2006 - 09:59 AM

View Postdojoboy, on January 25th 2006, 05:20 AM, said:

It is unsupported.
What??? :blink: The box shot on aspyr.com says it includes PTW. What the hell is going on here?

"We do what we must, because we can."
"Gaming on a Mac is like women on the internet." — "Highly common and totally awesome?"


#33 Eric5h5

Eric5h5

    Minion Tormentor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7160 posts

Posted 25 January 2006 - 10:34 AM

View PostJanichsan, on January 25th 2006, 10:59 AM, said:

What??? :blink: The box shot on aspyr.com says it includes PTW. What the hell is going on here?

"Included" and "unsupported" are two different things.  That is to say, they are not mutually exclusive.  (Not quite ideal, however.)

--Eric

#34 Brad Oliver

Brad Oliver

    Awesome Developer Dude Guy

  • Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1692 posts
  • Steam Name:hoserama99
  • Steam ID:hoserama99
  • Location:Glendale, AZ
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 25 January 2006 - 11:42 AM

View PostJanichsan, on January 25th 2006, 08:59 AM, said:

What??? :blink: The box shot on aspyr.com says it includes PTW. What the hell is going on here?

PtW is included, however there wasn't enough time in the beta to fully test it, so it is marked as "unsupported". In practice, I've found that it's every bit as stable as Complete/Conquests.

If no one reports any bugs on PtW, then we could certainly un-unsupport it in the future. ;) I should also add that you can play the PtW content in the "Complete" app although saved games created in Complete will not load in PtW (and the rules are slightly different).
Brad Oliver
bradman at pobox dot com

#35 Janichsan

Janichsan

    Jugger Bugger

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8075 posts
  • Steam Name:Janichsan
  • Location:over there

Posted 25 January 2006 - 12:22 PM

View PostBrad Oliver, on January 25th 2006, 06:42 PM, said:

PtW is included, however there wasn't enough time in the beta to fully test it, so it is marked as "unsupported".
Ah, *pff* I was worried for a moment.

By the way: is suppose the game is not yet a UB, or is it?

"We do what we must, because we can."
"Gaming on a Mac is like women on the internet." — "Highly common and totally awesome?"


#36 Maestro

Maestro

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Steam Name:kgmoome
  • Location:Boston

Posted 25 January 2006 - 01:29 PM

View PostBrad Oliver, on January 25th 2006, 11:42 AM, said:

PtW is included, however there wasn't enough time in the beta to fully test it, so it is marked as "unsupported"

you can blame dojoboy with that one  :D
Tortillas are sleeping bags for ground beef.

#37 GlendaAdams

GlendaAdams

    Maverick Software

  • Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 579 posts

Posted 25 January 2006 - 02:23 PM

Brad has clarified it for me, but to make it absolutely clear- all of the multiplayer functionality and content in Play the World is fully supported in Civ 3 Complete.  You just access it through the main Civ 3 application, not the special 'PTW' variation in the unsupported folder.

We included the PTW app in case people wanted to play without the rule changes added in Conquests.  

Glenda
Glenda Adams
Maverick Software

#38 totallywhacked

totallywhacked

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 117 posts

Posted 25 January 2006 - 02:35 PM

Okay....Hmm..

1) So we have a user with a G5 dual processor with 1.5 GB ram saying the game runs just as slow as it ever did. There were no promises on a speed boost, so....not TOO dissapointing. But still, it gives me pause.

2) The idea that they would release a $50 game where they "didn't have enough time to playtest Play the World in beta" is NOT reassuring. We should expect better from Aspyr. Don't you all think so? This seems kind of outrageous. I mean, $30, maybe, if they were being completely upfront about "supported vs. included" .

3) Since this is a completely new port, done exclusively for OS X, and not only that, for 10.3.9 or above only, we would hope for quite a bit more optimization.

4) For instance, it should have been Universal. Right? They knew they were going to have to start universalising their games...why not this one?

*sigh*

Who agrees with me?

Oh...heh.. okay. Glenda just showed up and answered #2 above, JUst as I was posting. So. Good. But still there are #1, 3, 4

#39 Maestro

Maestro

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Steam Name:kgmoome
  • Location:Boston

Posted 25 January 2006 - 02:55 PM

Quote

So we have a user with a G5 dual processor with 1.5 GB ram saying the game runs just as slow as it ever did. There were no promises on a speed boost, so....not TOO dissapointing. But still, it gives me pause.

Civilization isn't a game that "runs fast", it isn't Quake or Doom. It is a turn based game, it takes time in between turns (especially when the you see the entire map). It may seem "slow" but that is the design of the game.

Quote

For instance, it should have been Universal. Right?

no, Civilization isn't all that demanding. It will run just fine under Rosetta. I hope one of the devlopers can confirm this.

Quote

Since this is a completely new port, done exclusively for OS X, and not only that, for 10.3.9 or above only, we would hope for quite a bit more optimization.

what kind optimization are you looking for?
Tortillas are sleeping bags for ground beef.

#40 dojoboy

dojoboy

    DJJ is the greatest!

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3449 posts
  • Steam ID:dojoboy65
  • Location:Tanasi (USA)
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 25 January 2006 - 05:44 PM

View PostGlendaAdams, on January 25th 2006, 03:23 PM, said:

We included the PTW app in case people wanted to play without the rule changes added in Conquests.  

Glenda

And we're thankful Glenda, as it also allows us to play the GOTM PtW version over at CFC.   :thumbsup:

View PostMaestro, on January 25th 2006, 02:29 PM, said:

you can blame dojoboy with that one  :D

Well, hello there Pot, it's me - Kettle.   ;)
"There is no end to sorrow."  ---Van Gogh