posted
Hello to All, After finishing "Shadow of the Giant," I realized that the war is perfect to be made into a civ scenario. My first scenario will consist of the war in the last book of the series where Virlomi is with Caliph Alai (as well as the Russians) fighting the FPE and China. I'm really excited about this and it will be a lot of work. so, long story short, i need help. What i need is military information. Just information on where the Caliph's armies are all, what major cities are important (like the one's in india, etc.) So any help you have would be more than appreciated. Also any ideas, anything, just email me at Tshouse@sjs.org
posted
So, I'm not the only one who gets civilization flashbacks while reading OSC novels...
I seriously have to think that he may the first famous author in the history of writing whose works have been significantly influenced by a computer game. (Someday some literature scholar will write a dissertation on it...) Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pfffft, I don't play Civ enough to equate it with Civ BUT I do equate it with Hearts of Iron which I say is far more moddable and far more realistic in formulizing your strategy and stuff.
The thing about it (before KoM jumps in and calls me a newb again ) is that its far more closely resembles the modern era then any other paradox game does and follows modern warfairly well though partisan /geurrilla war isn't in my opinion good enough yet.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, but Civilization did not influence the Shadow series at all. I did not LEARN any of this from playing Civ ... I played Civ only because it was the first decent computer simulation of the kind of mental world-creation, nation-building games i had played in my mind since childhood.
As a kid, I would go to sleep mentally going through the nations of the world, imagining that this nation conquered that one, or negotiated a merger of nations, etc.; what the competing empires might be; where the great battles would be fought and who would win; how rival cultures might be absorbed ... and on and on. I was already doing that before I first encountered Risk, the first world-conquest game I heard of, let alone saw. So apparently the Napoleon complex took root very early ... <wince>.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And speaking of Sid Meier, why is it that the more accurate the simulation, the less interesting the game? Sid Meier's original Railroad tycoon, for instance, was playable precisely because you didn't have to micromanage everything in order not to go bankrupt. It was EASY, so the game wasn't trying not to fail, but rather building railroads and running them like the greatest train layout an old model railroader like me had ever played with.
But all the later Railroad Tycoon games were tedious, because i couldn't build railroads at all, I had to follow somebody's business-school model and study business management.
Ditto with the original Rollercoaster Tycoon - it was so boring, because I had to be involved in amusement park administration when what I WANTED to do was build cool rollercoasters and then take a 3-D ride on them. THAT would be fun.
Sometimes, the makers of "simulations" need to forget that word and think GAME. As with SimAnt. Who cares that in real anthills, individuals don't amount to much? PLAYERS aren't ants, they're humans, and so they need to have a persistent identity. So it was a complete failure as a game.
Sid Meier seems to understand this, so you aren't constantly kept from having any fun by the accuracy of the simulation, you're allowed to get into the GAME of it.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC, has anyone ever told you that you're a nerd?
I once built a scenario based on the first C&C: Red Alert game. It was pretty ghetto; I used scanned images from the instruction manual for the units.
I also did Star Trek, Star Wars, X-Com, Mechwarrior and attempted a Babylon Five scenario.
I played a Lord of the Rings scenario someone else made, long before I read the book or saw the movies, and thought it was the stupidest thing ever. Some dumb ring taking the place of nukes? Yeesh.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not entirely sure if Mr Card is praising me or the "other guy" but ya, C'mon I prefer playing with people no matter how many times they try to screw me over. AI gets boring humans at least are quasi entertaining. And currently its hard getting a good game a civ going, since I prefer games with MORE then 2 people. Civ 4 is gonna be amazing.
Now as for sims, I agree that sometimes the complexity is just too much sometimes, usually if you have good micromanagement AI and a smoothlined inteface you wont notice it, thats why I like Hearts, 1 screen essentially and very simply controls your economy which is 5 slider bars to distribute your industriel capacity and a production menu where you set what you want built.
Their are other screens but even more simple such as reserch, diplomacy and the world map. Its only complex when you want it to be complex.
Civ eventually gets tedious if I have to micromanage every city thats like I liked the auto managers in civ3, but Civ4 should definatly rejuvinate my love for Civilization. Though I'll have to choose between civ4 and Call of Duty 2... Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: As a kid, I would go to sleep mentally going through the nations of the world, imagining that this nation conquered that one, or negotiated a merger of nations, etc.; what the competing empires might be; where the great battles would be fought and who would win; how rival cultures might be absorbed ... and on and on. I was already doing that before I first encountered Risk, the first world-conquest game I heard of, let alone saw. So apparently the Napoleon complex took root very early ... <wince>.
I was the exact same way as a kid! I used to trace maps out of the atlas and then play with the boundaries and imagine that the nations were going to war and forming alliances. The Shadow series definitely resonated me because of that.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ah, but Civilization did not influence the Shadow series at all. I did not LEARN any of this from playing Civ ... I played Civ only because it was the first decent computer simulation of the kind of mental world-creation, nation-building games i had played in my mind since childhood.
Oh come on... you must have been at least a little bit tempted to introduce one of Alai's advisers as the guy who just yells out "BUILD CITY WALLS!"
quote:AI gets boring humans at least are quasi entertaining. And currently its hard getting a good game a civ going, since I prefer games with MORE then 2 people. Civ 4 is gonna be amazing.
Yeah, Civ multiplayer! Bring it! I've only ever failed to win multiplayer once - and that was only because it was king mode and in my sheer arrogance I made the Sauron-ish blunder of paying too much attention to the complete obliteration of my foes on the front lines, and not enough attention to a desperate attack against all odds in the heart of my homeland... Arrrrgh.....
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
) is that its far more closely resembles the modern era then any other paradox game does and follows modern warfairly well though partisan /geurrilla war isn't in my opinion good enough yet.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I used to trace maps out of the atlas and then play with the boundaries and imagine that the nations were going to war and forming alliances. The Shadow series definitely resonated me because of that.
