The Yin and Ven(ger) of what Civilization III should have been like

[Deornwulf]

OK, here's the thread. Are you willing to put in a complete list of what is wrong with Civ III, including the new patch? I know that if I culled all of the posts, I could find the ideas but I'd rather receive them from the source.

Fanboys are not welcome. This thread is only for what is wrong and proposed solutions for those problems. Maybe we can hope for a Civ IV Development team to implement them.

To whom it may concern - I don't care if similar threads have been started. If you don't like this thread, don't view it.

[Venger]

Man oh man, don't have time, but here's the rundown -

Combat
Armies provide +1 attack/defend per included unit. Units can be removed or loaded from an army. Armies can attack once for every two units in the army.
Rebalance Imperial age units (early gunpowder)
Bombard units have a 50% chance to destroy a unit with one HP if they successfully bombard (hence, a 50% chance to successfully bombard coupled with the 50% destruction means a 25% chance to destroy)
Cavalry movement down to two, or 1 with treat all squares as road (rough thinking here)
Mech Inf move to 3
Nukes more powerful
Enhance naval play, change destroyer to 8/8/6, battleship to 16/16/5, other changes, add couple units, move AEGIS and other units lower and further apart in tech three (may need new tech or two)
More probably, just can't think of it offhand

Resources
Resources no longer required for units, only for improved units:
Tank - with Mobile Warfare (or whatever)
Improved Tank - +1 attack + 2 defense with resources of Iron and Oil
More luxuries but fewer of them, add cocoa, sugar, tobacco, coffee, but only between 1 and 3 in the game. Gives civs a chance to get one or 2 luxuries and have maybe 1 or two to trade. (Now you can horde nearly all of a luxury)
Slightly adjust resource traits (long story)

Diplomacy
Improve AI decision making (real long story)
Allow Non-Agression treaty
Allow user to break MPP with diplomatic penalty
Allow democracy to "declare peace" or force envoy visit
Other stuff I aint got time for...

Gameplay
Remove or reduce chance of government collapse
Allow removal of culture defection in startup rules editor
Improve AI warmaking massively (it stinks right now, partly due to resources being as they are)
Stacked movement
Add piracy - a privateer or enemy warship withing 5 hexes of a coastal city blocks trade via harbor (food still same though)
BIG ONE - two new city improvements: highway and railyard. Highway adds +1 trade to every hex, railyard adds +1 shield or food for mine/irrigation. This allows you to build a REAL map that isn't covered with crap like the Elephant Man. Roads and Railroads are now for city connectivity ONLY.
Please provide for keyremapping - and PLEASE allow r to create railroad if road is already present.
General improvements to the UI (more on screen information)

And a whole lot of other stuff not at the top of my mind. Alot of this has been suggested by others, however the railway/highway, piracy, and new resources model are pretty much trademarked by me.

There are so many more, some of which just occur during a game and slip off until I play it again...other which I just can't think of right now.

Venger
P.S. Note that scenarios and MP are not mentioned. I don't play either of them, but think they are very important to be included in Civ3...

[Zealot]

Yin said he returned the game few days after purchsing it, so I doubt he will comment on the patch.

He also did contribute a lot (so I think) on the list for Civ 3. So I don't think he will be talking much about Civ IV.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Deornwulf
Fanboys are not welcome.

what's next - 'settlers are not welcome'?

[Venger]

Originally posted by LaRusso


what's next - 'settlers are not welcome'?

How about 'LaRusso is not welcome'. Damn, I think that's my new sigline...

Venger

[Daveraver]

I like those ideas... how about this:

Combat:

Instead of units having simple scores for attack and defense, have them be more proficient at different types of attack. For example: certain units fight better in jungle, some better against cities, some better against other types of units. Tanks would fight better out in the open, while infantry can wage war better in forests and jungle.

Firepower? Why not... or at least more hit points... I say both... make combat actually strategic, instead of just sending your units haphazardly across the map.

Have armies fight together. Dinstinguish ranged units... allow for catapult support in armies... make them a fun unit.

Have certain techs give bonuses to combat. A +1 attack sort of deal... that would of course require... *gasp* more techs.

Terrain:

I love the highway idea... I sort of assumed that this would be a part of the game... instead of building rr's all over the place... workers start this city-to-city only project from a city... once there, the option pops up.

General terrain graphics: I think they should have hired Sn00py. 'nuff said.

FARMLAND, advanced mines... something.

Jungle... reduce the amount and time of clearing process.

FINALLY: why not make Civ IV NON tile based? hmmmmmmm?

[yin26]

Ouch, this thread hurts my brain, but it's cool you found an inventive way to cause me pain and suffering. Bravo!

First, as Zealot said, I returned the game after my 4th complete run. So I can't comment on the patch.

Anyway, I have said this a few times now, so sorry if it's not news: Civ3 rewards mediocrity and inflicts endless tedium.

"Rewards Mediocrity"

In an odd twist of fate, it would seem Firaxis' attempts to make the game more challenging for verteran players has actually just resulted in flattening out the graph. Civ3's Tech progression, for example, has made it vitually impossible to research faster than 4 turns per. That's not so bad in and of itself ... until you realize that even if you have VAST sums more to spend than does the computer, the tech progression has been rigged (in my view) to keep the computer more or less even or ahead of you in tech. I think if you've done the hard work to afford faster tech progression, you should be able to pay for it, but Firaxis has put in place an artificial system to prevent or seriously hinder that. And slowing down the tech progression even more post patch shows me that Firaxis sees its primary method for making the game challenging is to slow the pace so the comp can leverage its advantage further into the game.

But doesn't that help keep the game close and exciting, Yin? The computer AI is only so capable...

I understand that point, but to raise up the comp by hacking off the legs of the player is not satisfying. In other words, I lose motivation if I know I can get more or less the same results with half or a third of the 'work.' I think that the fact that obsolete units carrying a disproportionate amount of power into later ages is another example. True, the weaker computer now doesn't need to worry so much about losing to superior troops. Great, that keeps the comp in the game.

But that also makes me lose a lot of motivation to seek those superior troops when I can simply pile on vast numbers of cheap troops that I don't worry too much about upgrading. And with the (welcome) change in unit support done by empire and not city, it's all that much easier to go the 'More is Better Even if Its Obsolete' route.

Not a particularly spell-binding goal or way to play, yet the game rewards doing so. The game is geared to make the middle of the road the easiest one to victory. It rewards mediocrity. Hey, I *don't* want the ability to conquer the world with 5 tanks, but when my 5 tanks can't take one city defended by some spearmen (yes, even after lots of bombarding), one begins to fill the thrill of having made those tanks fade rapidly.

"Endless Tedium"

Is it me, or does Civ3 have a LOT more units and cities all over the place? Might just be me, but the sheer number of units / workers on the map that CANNOT be stacked begins to just wear a person down. If you understood where I was coming on the mediocrity part, then you'll understand where this kind of tedium just puts a nail in the coffin.

If superior play were more intuitively rewarded, I could stand more tedium. Or if there were a lot less tedium, I wouldn't mind the 'pro-computer' changes made in Civ3 gameplay so much. But I can't have both together. No way.

And I haven't even touched the sounds and graphics, which, while I find them terribly lacking, I don't consider very important to a strategy game of this sort to begin with. I do often wonder, however, how much it must have cost to make 3D bobbing heads. More than it would have cost to make the game more challenging without imposing artificial limits? More than it would have cost to add another programmer or two explicity to add stacked movement and combat? Would be close, I'm sure.

So the question for me now is: Can these be 'fixed'?

Ultimately, if Firaxis gives this community the right tools, some amazing mods will come out. This combined with MP could make for some seriously challenging and fun games of Civ3. But for my money and based on my experience, that won't be until Gold Edition time. I refuse to by the first release just to play the expansion pack, which will no doubt finally have a workable version of MP in it.

I won't pay twice just to get MP purely because of the way Firaxis handled that issue.

Thus, I'm waiting and watching. Trying to be positive but often failing. But despite my gloomy posts here and there, I have great faith in the fans to work it all out if they were to only get the support they deserve.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Venger


How about 'LaRusso is not welcome'. Damn, I think that's my new sigline...

Venger

before you start foaming, please note that 'threads just for this or that category of people' are prohibited by the forum rules. that way no one can prohibit you and yin to join any discussion on the subject matter and say whatever you want to say.
now calm down and apply a (nicotine) patch....

[Venger]

Originally posted by Daveraver
I like those ideas... how about this:

Combat:

Instead of units having simple scores for attack and defense, have them be more proficient at different types of attack. For example: certain units fight better in jungle, some better against cities, some better against other types of units. Tanks would fight better out in the open, while infantry can wage war better in forests and jungle.

Complicated, but variety is the spice of life - I will never argue against adding a feature that can be selected or removed.

Firepower? Why not... or at least more hit points... I say both... make combat actually strategic, instead of just sending your units haphazardly across the map.

Been there done that, I left it out because it's patently obvious that isn't going to happen in Civ3. HP/FP SHOULD be back, but won't be.

[qutoe]Have armies fight together. Dinstinguish ranged units... allow for catapult support in armies... make them a fun unit.[/quote]

CTP did this pretty well...

General terrain graphics: I think they should have hired Sn00py. 'nuff said.

Agreed, I use them (though I had to reload due to a damaged file, so I lost the damn mods, havent reloaded them yet).

Jungle... reduce the amount and time of clearing process.

Agreed - it should take less time than it does.

FINALLY: why not make Civ IV NON tile based? hmmmmmmm?

I'd prefer smaller hexes with large numbers, that is, more hexes with double movement, etc. Still the tiles are okay by me...

Making alot of smaller hexes makes for increased game overhead however...

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by LaRusso

now calm down and apply a (nicotine) patch....

Heh, that was pretty funny...

Venger

[gachnar]

I know some people will think that I shouldn't be posting here, but:

Why would I ever send archers against swordsman? Good god, I would have had archer-limbs all over my nice lawn. If I'm a ancient/medieval age warlord, I'm sending those archer-pansies in with some support. This is one of the things that (gasp) CTP2 did well. I want spearmen protecting my archers. Archers shoot swordsman, swordsman attack spearmen. Archer-pansies safe. This is what combined arms is supposed to be.

I'm all for Vengers artillery model. However, I think (perhaps) the chance to kill should be based on the bombard power of the unit. Catapults should destroy the unit rarely, radar artillery should be fairly good at it.

I've done some testing of my own, and you know what? Bumping HP levels from 2/3/4/5 even up to 3/4/5/7 (what I use all the time now) decreases the number of battlefield anomalies. This seems a much better balance than the lower numbers. Units get wore down by several attacks, and eventually lose when isolated. Weak units still dont have a chance. As a nice side effect: Elite units stick around longer, making it possible for you to see more leaders (instead of mabye seeing 1 per game.

Again Venger has a good idea of making all units available, but applying bonuses if resources are available also. Swordsman = 2.1.1, with Iron: 3.2.1, with Iron & Coal: 3.3.1, with Iron & Coffee: 3.2.2. Or for some units make the sheild cost go down: Musketman 60 shields (dunno what it really is), with Saltpeter: 40 sheilds. Or even: Guerillas (at 4.2.1/all road) cost (e.g.) 4 gold upkeep, but with Heroine (yes I added that as a luxury) 1 gold. This makes resources worth fighting a war over, but not impossible to win a war over.

I like Venger's Non-Aggression Pact, but I also want a low grade war. Like what the US has been doing with Iraq. If a rifleman jumps across my boarders without asking, I wanna shove a tank down his throat and not be forced into a war. Sure, it might make people mad and it could start a war, but I want it to not be automatic. This could simply be the grey area between "war" and "peace".

Finally, and this would take quite a rewrite: I want to play on actual hexagonal tiles.

(NOTE: I might have more... we'll see)

[Ozymandous]

Great idea on boosting a unit according to what resources are available, but (you knew that was coming), how do you balance every possible combination in the game vs. everything else?

Having a swordsman available at 2.1.1 without iron is fine and even 2.2.1 with iron (assume the iron would go for defensive things like shields and armor so they can live a little longer, since any small quantities of iron would already be in their weapons), is fine but what if you get some weird combinations?

For example, what if you had iron, coffee and furs, would you then get an ancient version of the "alpine warrior" who can treat all terrain as roads?

How would your "regular" swordsmen (2.1.1) compare to a swordsman that has twice the defense and can escape with a fast attack (2.2.2)?

The complexities become even more apparent when you try to code an AI that has the ability to understand every possible combination and to use them effectively. Hell, it's hard enough to get an AI to just compete without giving them some sort of production or science bonus as it is!

Not to knock this thread because it's a good idea (and yes has been done more than once, if you don't like that fact then quit spamming the board Deornwulf!), but since ou have very little chance of changing how the game is now wouldn't the effort be put to better use suggesting things in Civ4? Or maybe Moo3? Or any other TBS game currently in development?

I'd love to be able to tell people to get out of my territory twice and then blast them to pieces without going to war as well (maybe "arrest" them and have them all convert to workers?) but that's not in the game or possible so why ***** about what can't be changed?

Just playing devils advocate, but I am sure someone will see some attack here that's non-existant and start posting personal atacks or something.

BTW, for those who want a hex based system, how do you propose to have a "workable city radius" with that????? If you want a tactical and strategic game based on a hex grid then go pick up Steel Tigers 3 or even Panzer General 2, those are much better WAR GAMES, not turn based strategy empire building games.

[GeorgeG]

Two opinionated thoughts:

a) Why is there no combat bonus for veteran, or elite troops?
Stupid that it was removed. To think that green troops have the
same chance to inflict damage as veterans is an offensive thought.
Hit points shouldn't go up with combat experience, SKILL level does!
THIS IS OBVIOUS.

b) In my opinion, the combat resolution needs to be rethought as follows:

I think I understand the odds of winning a combat round to be calculated using a fraction of the attack and defend factors.
The attackers chance to "win a round" is A/(A+D), the defenders chance to "win" is D/(A+D).


The combat system that I would love:
Attack and defend factors must be redefined:
SMAC combat was so close to perfect, and it was right on the edge of what I'm about to suggest:

A: refers to the units attack factor
D: is the armor value of the defending unit (remember silksteel armor? it doesn't shoot back, it just protects)

Each round, both attacker and defender are attempting to hit the other.
My tank fires at the opponent tank, and his tank fires at mine.
His armor value (D) has no impact on whether he hits me. Its really his Attack factor that matters.

The factors would still show up as A-D-M, however, veteran level would add bonuses to the attack power in a manner like SMAC. (maybe regular=0%, veteran=12.5%, elite=25%).

Both the attacker and defender have A and D factors that are used in an attack
The attackers chance to score a hit against a defender is:
(A of the attacker) divided by (attackers attack + defenders armor value)
The defenders chance to score a hit (counter fire) against the attacker is:
(A of the defender) divided by (defenders attack + attackers armor value)

Therefore a regular knight 4-3-2+0% attacking an elite spearman 1-2-1+25% on open ground has the following odds of scoring a single hit against the spearman:
(4*1(regular)/(4+2) = 4/6 = 66%.
The odds of the spearman scoring a hit would be:
(1*1.25)/(1+3) = 1.25/3 = 41.66%.

Note its possible that both, or neither combatant can score a hit in a single round.

Terrain would figure in by reducing the attackers attack power, so now if the elite spearman is unfortified on a hill (100% reduction in attackers attack power):
Knight's odds are [(4*1)/2] /(4+2) = 2/6 = 33%.
The spearmans odds to score a hit should be the same.

This system would require some heavy rebalancing of A-D-M numbers.
So far I've thought this out for early units (the thinking needs some work because the defense of ranged units (riflemen) is partially based on their weapons.
Would it make any sense that knights could do anything but minor damage to riflemen?)

They might look something like this:
Attack factors:
Stone axe/wood spear: 1 Warrior
Brone weapons: 2 Spearman/Hoplite/Chariot/Horseman/Archers
Iron-based weapons: 3 Swordsman/Legion/Knights/pikemen
Early gunpowder: 4 Musketmen

Armor values:
Unarmored: 1 Warrior/archers/musketmen
Bronze-based armor: 2 Spearman/Hoplite/Swordsman/chariot
Iron-based armor: 3 knight/pikeman/legion

So some new numbers:
Warrior 1-1-1
Archer 2-1-1
Spearman 2-2-1 Hoplite 2-2-1 +25% to attack factor
Chariot 2-1-2 (horses)
Horsemen 2-1-2 (horses) (cheaper than chariots)
Legion 3-3-1 (iron)
Pikemen 3-3-1(iron) (cheaper than legions - less intensive training)
Longbowmen 3-1-1 (make archers obsolete - same cost)
Musketmen 4-1-1 (saltpeter)
Knights 3-3-2 (iron+horses)

How many hit points should units have? I'll leave that one for someone else to chew on, but I know there should be many more than five.

Regarding catapults - bombardment is the right idea for artillery units.
But they need to have much greater effect, iron-based armor is largely irrelevant under cannon fire.
Those darned hoplites keep laughing at me and my five catapults when I *try* to hit them.

Industrial and modern-age units would need some tweaking to make sure that modern units have the advantages that they SHOULD have.
I realize that Isandlewanna was a defeat for the British in the Zulu wars, but it did not happen very often.
"Unarmored" infantry shouldn't get over run by knights - I would suggest additional attacks per round for many modern units.
Longbowmen 3-1-1, would get maybe one hit in before infantry cut them down (three attacks per combat round for infantry? Two for riflemen?)

I'm sure it *could* be done.
That's my $0.02 on combat.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Hey Gachnar, your limited war idea got me thinking (but not much at 8am in the morning!). How about "border disputes", where conflict is an option only near a shared border with a Civ that continually violates your lands. You could actually have units attacking each other there without all-out war, but only if inter-Civ relations have degraded significantly. Perhaps this should only be available after a certain timeframe or after the UN.

Or how about an option for one of your units to expel any others from your territory, and that Civ has the option to declare war instead of being expelled (once again only if relations are way frosty). You could also have patrolling units with automated orders to expel any units of certain Civs. Surely major improvements to the bloodly invasion-without-war problem that don't drastically alter the game?

Qu'est-ce que vous en pensez?

[cutlerd]

My comments (and I will preface by saying I LOVE CIV3):

1. CTPs combat model was very nice IMO, as it adequately factored in the various uses of combined arms, both with ranged attacks IN combat and in CTP flanking units. If I had my druthers CIV3 would just plagerize CTP's combat model, including stacking.

2. I would like to see different aged units (i.e. Industrial versus Middle Ages) more differentiated, but not as much as in Civ2. In Civ2 an older unit NEVER beat a more modern unit. That's just not historically accurate nor very balanced for game play. However, the separation could be more than it is now in CIV3. Solution? Maybe a modified firepower system with 5hp instead of 10 per.

3. I do not like the idea of strategic resources being blunted. I like strategic resources the way they are now. It is exciting, motivating, makes every game different, and is VERY realistic (why do you think Japan started WW2?).

4. I do not like the suggestion that bombardment kill units with 1 hp. It is nopt historically accurate (rarely if ever did pure bombardment ever kill units or take ground...even in Iraq). I think a distinction needs to be made between ground and naval units. Bombardment should only cause damage to ground units...never kill them. Bombardment SHOULD be able to kill naval units (both cannons and coastal fortresses and air units).

5. Coastal fortresses need to fire on enemy ships moving into range. Right now they only fire when enemy ships move from one ZOC square to another, which rarely happens as the AI is smartly fond of bombarding and then leaving with any movement points it has left.

6. I like how cities revolt now, but I think when a city revolts successfully, the occupying power should lose 1 unit (randomly determined) for each resister at the time of revolt. The other units should be placed outside the city with a chance of damage on them to simulate the fight that took place.

7. The AI needs to learn to upgrade units. This should not be too hard to program.

8. The cost for spying needs to be lowered a bit. Spying was WAY too powerful and easy in CIV2, and CIV3 has the right idea IMO, but the cost should be cut in half.

9. The space ship techs need to me moved out farther, so that a space win comes later in the game. Right now you can get a space win without ever having modern armour or robotic artillery or paratroopers or helicopters. I like to play with all wins enabled, but this too often means a space win.

10. Barbarians need to move up in tech like they did in CIV2. Up to and including riflemen and cavalry and cannons.

11. Manhattan Project should be a small wonder.

12. Armies (if you don't go with CTP stacking) should be upgradable or be able to have units replace others in them and they should get some sort of army bonus for attacking.

13. What about late game resources appearing at sea? At least oil! And an option to build a sea colony (an oil platform) to get oil at sea. You could base troops on this platform, which would need marines to take it.

14. World map viewable with the satellite advance.

15. Nukes more powerful, but the rep hit for using one should be amazingly high if used against a civ that YOU declared war on.

16. A farmland improvement (i.e. mega irrigation).

That's it for now.

Devin

[gachnar]

Wow... um... hmm...

Ozymandous and whoever it was that showed how to fix upgrade paths around the UUs just gave me an idea...

I could actually make a mod where the availability of resources changes the available units. You'd have to upgrade, but it might be free.

Here's the idea:

Swordsman 2.1.1 (No resources required) (Presumably using Bronze)
upgrades to:
Iron Swordsman 3.2.1 (Requires Iron) (Standard)
upgrades to:
Modern Swordsman 3.3.1 (Requires Iron & Coal) (Presumably using Steel)

(I dont know any good names for the Modern Swordsman. Perhaps "Bayonette Pansies" or "Machinegun Targets"...)

So long as you set up the upgrade path correctly, the game will pick the best unit. The AI has already shown the ability to handle things such as this.

I'll see what I can do tonite. Anybody interested?

(Sorry, I know I'm supposed to be complaining... but people might enjoy this...)

[nato]

When you increase units hit points, doesn't this devalue bombard units? Don't they still only take off one hit point a shot?

Sorry if this has been dealt with already.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by yin26
Civ3's Tech progression, for example, has made it vitually impossible to research faster than 4 turns per. That's not so bad in and of itself ... until you realize that even if you have VAST sums more to spend than does the computer, the tech progression has been rigged (in my view) to keep the computer more or less even or ahead of you in tech.

I you play on Regent difficulty-level, you plays on 100% equal terms with the AI-players. That goes for the tech-progression, as well. So, what you call "rewarding mediocrity", is in fact an example of how the team has managed to emphasize science-progressing improvements, like librarys & universitys and so on, much more then before. Theres NO "free lunch" whatsoever for the AI-civs on Regent level. Why is it so hard for you to believe that? If you cant handle the AI-competition; then try out a weaker level instead.

I think if you've done the hard work to afford faster tech progression, you should be able to pay for it, but Firaxis has put in place an artificial system to prevent or seriously hinder that. And slowing down the tech progression even more post patch shows me that Firaxis sees its primary method for making the game challenging is to slow the pace so the comp can leverage its advantage further into the game.

But if the slowed down pace is applied equally, both on the AI-civs and the human player - and the conditions for achieving faster tech-progression is the same (at least on Regent level) - then what the heck is the problem?

I understand that point, but to raise up the comp by hacking off the legs of the player is not satisfying.

OK, you want a game that rewards massive investments in science-related improvements. Perhaps to the point that you can race ahead 6-8 techs before the nearest competitor. But why "hacking off the legs" of the AI-civs then, by not letting them emphasize science-allocation/improvements just as much as you do? And besides: if you COULD race ahead that much; wouldnt you and others complain about the "crappy AI" then?

In other words, I lose motivation if I know I can get more or less the same results with half or a third of the 'work.'

Have you ever completed a full game, with few/hardly any tech-related improvements/wonders in your empire? And STILL - without having that many more cities then any of the AI-civs - STILL being able too keep almost equal, or even ahead in the tech-race?

If not - you cant say you get the same results "with half or a third of the 'work".

But that also makes me lose a lot of motivation to seek those superior troops when I can simply pile on vast numbers of cheap troops that I don't worry too much about upgrading.

This is not my experience. On the contrary - premodern mounted units for example, doesnt stand a change against tanks. Hell, even ordinary tanks are frustingly impotent against modern ones, or even german panzers. If anything, the combat strength-difference between each era, has been increased, compared with Civ-2.

Is it me, or does Civ3 have a LOT more units and cities all over the place?

In Civ-2, you had perhaps 1-3 relatively strong AI-civs. The rest was weak "left-over empires". In Civ-3 each and every AI-empire is emphasized and maximized, and theres no large chunks of no-mans-land near the end-game, like there often was in Civ-2. And thats a good thing.

Might just be me, but the sheer number of units / workers on the map that CANNOT be stacked begins to just wear a person down.

I agree that they should add unit-stacking for move-purposes only (but still; only in leader-created "armies" they fight as a whole), and also multi-activating simoultaneous airplane and ground-unit RR-movements. About the Workers; they should add that Civ-2 sleep-function as well, in a future patch.

I won't pay twice just to get MP purely because of the way Firaxis handled that issue.

But you WILL try out that pirate-copied expansion-pack regardless? So, maybe Civ-3 isnt that "tedious" after all.

[Blackadder667]

I would tend to agree that there are several things which were implemented in CTP2 which i would have thought automatically would be included in civ3 as they seemed at the time to be nice touches to the whole genre, such as army stacking and their combined arms combat model.

And i would certainly agree that i have been flaberghasted when my modern units were whupped by "Stone age" units. In no way can anyone make me sugest that this is a fair aproximation of combat units.

But i do find it amazing (well sort of) that some people here don't seem to agree. It really makes me wonder if they are playing the same games as i, but surely there can't be 2 versions!!
Well it's proably all in the eye of the beholder or maybe they don't have such high expectations of what their unit's are able to.

Well i'll still continue playing the game though i am a bit disapointed that civ3 wasn't a best of CIV2,CTP2 and SMAC combined which i think was what everybody hoped for, or at least what I had hoped for. Maybe if there was a posibility of CTP3 or when CIV4 is eventually developed???

My couple of $.

[EnochF]

Just stopping by briefly to disagree with virtually everything Ralf just said.

Happy holidays, all!

(Tropico: Paradise Island, coming January 2002! Woohoo!)

[cutlerd]

Ralf,

I agree with you that in CIV3 a modern army will always whoop a non-modern one. If anyone thinks their 4 swordsmen per tank army can defeat my tank army, they are full of crap. While individual battles may go the ancient-troops' way, overall the weight of 100 tanks versus 400 swordsmen will ALWAYS see the tank nation win. No question about it, though they may lose half their tanks in the process.

However, I disagree vehemently that the separation between modern and non-modern units is MORE in CIV3 than in CIV2. This is just not so. The introduction of firepower in CIV2 basically made the outcome of every combat pretty much predictable from the outset. After all, the chance of getting a whacky variance in 10-30 combat rolls is very rare as compared to the 3-5 combat rolls in CIV3.

But I like the fact that there is less separation. In CIV2 combat was way too much a foregone conclusion. You got tank first and then with some tanks and spies and the enemy's raillines you shot through their empire like butter in 1-2 turns. Very boring. Very standard. Very predictable.

But CIV3 takes it a little too far the other way. I ideally would like to see something perched about halfway between Civ2 and Civ3.

CTP's modification for historical unit values got it about right. You could still have archers defeat cavalry (Custer's last stand anyone?), but it was rare indeed.

As far as the whole tech complaint goes. By definition, a tech system that makes techs less costly as more people discover them is going to flatten out the tech dispersal amongst civs. For one thing this is realistic. Not too many civs in real life still using cavalry in this day and age. But you can get ahead of the other civs...and by a substantial amount too. I find if I am maxing tech out I am usually about 2-3 techs ahead of the nearest guy and between 4-6 techs ahead of the rest. That is certainly a nice advantage.

Devin

[Chronus]

But i do find it amazing (well sort of) that some people here don't seem to agree. It really makes me wonder if they are playing the same games as i, but surely there can't be 2 versions!!

I sometimes wonder about this myself. Yes, I do occasionally see the weird combat results but they are just that . . . occasional . . . which I kind of like. I've seen tanks lose to medieval units but never ancient units. As a rule of thumb, I don't think I've seen any unit lose to another unit that was two eras beneath it, and only occasionally when it's a one era difference. But that's just me, I suppose.

[AzureFlame]

Things I'd like:

• Greater movement for ships standard
• Planes can kill ships; ships can kill planes in defence. You can kill a ship by bombardment from another ship, artillery or a COASTAL FORTRESS.
• Specialised anti-air ship for defending a stack from planes
• "Sea Superiority" Missions allowing Planes to autointercept ships from Carriers or Airports
• Yes there should be slightly more differentiation between ancient/modern units
  [

Also, on the whole "Spearman killing a Tank" thing .. obviously the units are abstracted. Do you think there is actually 8 people in that Size 8 city? Do you think that one guy waving a sword actually just took control of that city? Each unit on the map is an abstraction of a large force. I think of a spearman unit as "a force of poorly equipped partisans" and a Tank unit as "a force of modern mechanised units". Sometimes the poorly equipped partisans can defeat a more modern army. It should happen less often than it currently does in Civ 3 though.
Similarly with the strategic resources .. yes everyone would have SOME iron around, but do you have access to a large enough source of supply to equip a significant force of Swordsmen? That's what the Iron resource represents.

[Barchan]

Originally posted by gachnar
Swordsman with Iron & Coffee: 3.2.2.

I think all these suggestions are excellent, although I still disagree with the "spearman should never beat tanks" assertion. It's improbable, but possible, and so I think the possibility should exist in the game.

I really like the highway/rail yard improvement suggestion. As much as I hate making every city of mine look like LA, I have to in order to maximize production.

I've also opined previously that the strategic resources should be used to build enhanced units, but that the basic units (including UUs) can be built without them. Sure, your swordsman might be 2.2.1 without iron, but they'd be better than warriors.

Speaking of warriors, I'd feel a lot better about them if they updated themselves by era. Frankly, much of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan is little more than a collection of modern warriors. I can accept that, throughout the ages, there'd be a really cheap, virtually ineffective unit used to do little more than occupy space (and keep the population quiet in strong-arm governments, like the Khmer Rouge). But I just can't accept that they'd be wearing a fur loincloth and carrying a stone axe. By the modern era they should be packing automatic rifles and have better stats (perhaps 3.3.2; this would still be ineffective resistance against real military units but could hold out against anachronistic holdover units from previous ages.) Anyway, it'd be a simple touch that would add a bit of polish to the overall game.

I also would like to see the concept of "gray ops" expanded. I personally love the concept of privateers (although they are still, in practice, worthless without a bombard capability) and would love to see more "gray" units at your disposal. Why shouldn't you be able to build Barbarian units to unleash on your enemies? Sort of like returning your Mind Worm boils to the wild in SMAC. Perhaps with the advent of Espionage you could even develop a set number of "gray" military units (Infantry, for the most part) to use to attack enemy units and terrain without revealing your nationality. As a counter to this, discovering Espionage would increase the chance that a "gray" unit's nationality will be revealed each turn. Admittedly, this would be much more interesting with MP than SP, but I think it would be cool anyway.

I guess that's enough for now. *sigh* Perhaps if we wish hard enough, it'll all come true in the next version of Civ, eh?

[Jeje2]

One of the big problems IMHO is the Automated worker NOT WORKING, thus leading to that one doesn't put own workers on Automnate mode.

Currently I think that if Automated Worker would work right or almost right - CivIII would be much more fun to play. (OK, long waiting times instead) So FIRAXIS should really try to solve how workers are to move on the map.
Sceptics what is your opinion: Would CivIII be better/acceptable if the automated worker could be trusted and used??


O.K. There are other problems too, but this one should have been fixed already IMHO.

---

P.S. I do have an idea of a possible solution to the worker problem, but I'm not ready to present it (yet).

[Deornwulf]

Combat should include an order of attacks that is dependent upon what kind of unit is engaging in the attack. This would mean that air units would go before mounted units, mounted units before foot units, etc. There could even be a category of some units being faster than other units and thus getting precendence in resolving their attacks before other attacks.

Units should resolve attacks as suggested by GeorgeG but taken a step further to include a ratings for ranged attacks and melee attacks. Units capable of ranged attacks would resolve their attacks before other units. This would not be the same as a bombardment. To accurately represent differing levels of ranged attacks, rate of fire would need to be added. Basically, a musketman might get to resolve 2 attacks on a unit while modern infantry might get 4 or 5. Once units complete ranged attacks, melee attacks would take place.

Order of precedence could also be applied to units attacking in the open, defending in certain terrain, fortified versus unfortified. (I've noticed that in Civ III a unit defends the same regardless of fortified or unfortified.)

Even without bringing back firepower ratings, combat would be a whole lot more fair. To prevent ancient units from defending against industrial or modern units, a flag could be included to set the defensive value of the ancient unit to 1. This would still allow a slim chance at best for the ancient unit but would bring combat results more in line with what a player should expect.

Changes like these might make it more difficult for the AI but going along with Barchan's idea, as the leading Civs in a game progress through eras, the warrior unit could be upgraded for all civs, regardless of tech level.

I have to go teach my class so that's it for now.

[GeorgeG]

Deornwulf,
You just hit it! "Initiative rating".
I know we are really dreaming beyond Civ III here, but yes. if combat is resolved in "rounds", then an order can be set up for which unit gets to attack at the begining of each round.
Initiative is the term used in a role-playing game I was fond of called "Warhammer" that I played in college (not Warhammer 40K). A units initiative would be its rating for when in a round it gets to attack.

Archer attack before warriors, horsemen.
Pikemen attack before legions.
Pikemen attack before horsemen? Not sure
Knights attack beore pikemen? Not sure

Modern examples:
Tanks attacking a stack of rifles and artillery
Artillery still go first, tanks second, rifles last.

The AI could be kept in the game by keeping the science rate "stacked", or making tech stealing cheaper. Does an opponent ALWAYS know a tech has been stolen. Shouldn't it possible that tech stealing can be done without alerting the Civ that it was stolen from?

[nato]

I would tend to agree that there are several things which were implemented in CTP2 which i would have thought automatically would be included in civ3 as they seemed at the time to be nice touches to the whole genre, such as army stacking and their combined arms combat model.

I want to respond to this because it is just exactly how I feel.

I remember naively assuming that stacked combat similar to CTP would of course be in the game. Never for a moment did it occur to me that it might not.

Can anyone explain why such a basic thing would not be included in Civ? I am not whining; I am seriously asking ... does anyone have any good reason to defend this at all?

Again, I am not a whiner / basher ... it just really stuns me this is not in the game. What were they thinking on this issue?

[Dadeo]

I am with you Nato. I thought that the stacked combat in CTP2 was great using different strengths from various units. You had to use some planning to build a good army. The "armies" in civ3 are useless, they can only defeat one defender in a turn and are easily destroyed by well positioned attackers.

[Barnacle Bill]

Just a general note on the CTP series.

The expectation that anything from CTP or CTP2 would be reapplied in Civ3 automatically is just unreasonable.

Civ1 was programmed by Sid M.
Civ2 was programmed under Sid's banner and bore his name in the official title.
SMAC was programmed under Sid's banner and bore his name in the official title.
Civ3 was programmed under Sid's banner and bore his name in the official title.

CTP was programmed by people having no relationship with Sid M. and working for a company having no relationship to the publishers of Civ1, Civ2 or SMAC. It used the "Civilization" name only through legal chicanery - it seems the board game "Civilization" (which is utterly unrealated to Civ as we know it) predated Civ1 and the owner of the rights to it have the legal claim to the name so arguable Civ1 was a copyright infringement, and the creators of CTP bought the right use that name from the board game people and made CTP - cloning many game concepts ("look and feel") creating the impression of being a sequel to Civ2. CTP2 does not in fact use the word "Civilization" because the holders of the rights to the computer games Civ1 & Civ2 have purchased the owners of the rights to the boardgame, thus acquiring undesputed sole right to the name "Civilization". So, any boosting of game concepts from CTP by Firaxis at this point is arguably copyright infingement under the "look & feel" doctrine (which originated in Apple's lawsuits against Microsoft over Windows being to MAC-like). It is certainly unreasonable to expect that as a matter of course they would use anything from CTP.

SMAC is a someone different story, but still potentially legal issues. At the time SMAC was created, Firaxis had no legal right to any sort of "Civilization" - not the board game, not Civ1/Civ2 and not CTP. However, being by the same PEOPLE (as opposed to the same corporate entity) and essentially picking up where Civ2 leaves off (assuming a spaceship victory), it is arguably a defacto sequel to Civ2. Nevertheless, the very murkiness of that relationship means you can't reasonably expect as a matter of course that Civ3 as the "official" sequel to Civ2 would be in fact a defacto sequel to SMAC.

I personally think Civ3 would have been a better game if started with SMAC-minus-planet. I can certainly live without cheesy CTP stuff like Televangilist units, though.