Thread Tools
Old January 14, 2002, 14:11   #121
Kevin Ar18
Warlord
 
Kevin Ar18's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally posted by Kilroy_Alpha
AND, I'd like to see some way of getting resources from civs that haven't researched to that resource yet (like getting uranium from an industrial-era civ), though I imagine that would be difficult to implement.

Everything I've said here should apply to both strategic and luxury resources.
Yes, I want this very badly as well so I don't have to go to war for everything. I want to be able to give the civ the ability to see a certain resource so they can give it to me, but they won't have to technology to use it.

Let the AI know the reason for each war
In diplomacy you can offer an option, accept this offer or prepare for war. I want an option where it will actually declare war right then on the civ if they don't accept it. Then the AI's knows what the war is about and when they are finally willing to give it to you, they will offer that thing in a peace negotiation.
As a result any war pacts you make with other civs would end because your demands are met (even if it's before 20 turns) -- the reason being all Civs would know the reason for your war and how far you are willing to go with it.
Perhaps someone can think of a better way to do this, but that's my idea.

Last edited by Kevin Ar18; January 14, 2002 at 19:50.
Kevin Ar18 is offline  
Old January 14, 2002, 15:22   #122
Kilroy_Alpha
Warlord
 
Local Time: 10:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Seattle, WA, US
Posts: 114
Ok, so I posted too soon. It turns out that most of what I asked for you CAN do, kind of. In the diplomacy screen, if you renegotiate peace terms with a civ, you can ask for resources in exchange for peace. I haven't tested extensively, but it APPEARS you can even demand that civs only resource. The catch is, if you have just made peace with a civ, and the little "counter" appears next to the peace agreement (indicating for how many turns the peace agreement is in effect), you can't renegotiate. This must be because you can't peaceably renegotiate peace until twenty turns after the treaty is signed. SOMETHING needs to be done here. Obviously the Firaxis intended for us to be able to demand resources for peace, since they included the feature (albeit fundementally broken). I believe it would be a Bad Thing to allow us to reneg peace before twenty turns, since after all the deal IS supposed to last for 20 turns, so we should be able to ask for resources initially.

So basically, nothing's changed after all...

What was the point of my post?
Kilroy_Alpha is offline  
Old January 14, 2002, 19:37   #123
Grrr
Civilization III Multiplayer
King
 
Grrr's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: of Hamilton, New-Zealand.
Posts: 1,160
Quote:
Originally posted by elcapjtk
I want my Civil wars back but I want it in a more historical context. If you suck at making your people happy on a wholesale level, then you deserve alot of your empire making themselves an autonomous unit. Also I think your allies should at first be stand offish to the new power (this happened during the US civil war) and shouldn't make alliances right off the bat. And I want it so you can trigger one if you capture a capitol I loved it when that happened, chaos is good!
Near the bottom of the previous page you'll find my sugestion, I hope you like it!, but comment anyway!
__________________
Grrr | Pieter Lootsma | Hamilton, NZ | grrr@orcon.net.nz
Waikato University, Hamilton.
Grrr is offline  
Old January 14, 2002, 21:15   #124
Quokka
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 10:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 31
General Idea
I would like a more informative pop-up about the wonders that are built by another Civ when you haven't come into contact with that Civ yet. Now all you get is "The Pyramids have been built in the English city of London". You get nothing other than they have been built. If there has been no contact then how can we know they are built? I take it that merchants have spread it by word of mouth or something.
What I would like to see is something like "Reports have come out of the west that the English city of London has built the Pyramids". ie you should get some basic directional information too. The information had to come from some direction. Gives you a basic idea of where a Civ is. Who wouldn't want to know where something as magnificent as the Pyramids are. The more you discover the more information should be forthcoming. "Far (or Just) to the Southeast the Oracle has been built in Japanese city of Kyoto".
This would just give you an idea of where to look, it may not always be useful, if you are stuck on an island, but you would know where to start when the information could be useful. If you know the English have had the Pyramids for 1000 years don't you think you might know the rough direction they are in and where they are at?
The last remark is a little iffy, I constantly get told I speak good english for a German! and I am Australian not Austrian who are not Germans anyway. Either that or I get asked to speak english! As the saying goes "Only in America!".
__________________
The only notes that matter come in wads - The Sex Pistols
Quokka is offline  
Old January 15, 2002, 14:27   #125
satyajedi
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 18:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 34
Several ideas from other threads, none of which are hugely important but all would be neat:

-After the discovery of communism, a democracy or republic who persistantly has a substantial number of unhappy people (*regardless* of how many happy people there are) runs the risk of collapsing into a communist government. Similar to democracy collapsing in CivII, only it can happen even if cities are not under civil disorder, as long as there is an underprivledged subclass. Similarly, persistant war weariness / a lack of success in a war should lead to a democracy's collapse into fascism (oh yeah, fascism should exist too )

-Much more importantly, two SMAC improvements to governments should be added. First, I'm mortified that CivIII has reverted back to a complete ignorance of political economics. Planned economies should absolutely be restored, which perhaps would be like in SMAC - corruption penalty, but increased growth. Perhaps the discovery of nationalism would allow for 2 new forms of government - planned democracy & planned Republic. Likewise, later discoveries of environmental techs should also allow new forms of government - green democracy / green republic, which suffer increased corruption and growth but lower pollution penalties.

Or, you could just put pollution and population growth in the editor and let us figure it out.

The free trade agreements with other civs is a horrible omission that is probably uncorrectable, but if it can be corrected, do so. Perhaps a FTA signed with a partner would give both civs access to each other's luxeries, and add bonus commerce to all cities on all sides. But really, there should also be global free trade agreements that would do the same for all Civs, as in SMAC.

-Indian UU, perhaps a second UU, should be a passive resister / satyagrahi. Made possible by (nationalism? Monotheism? Communism?), the resister has an offensive and defensive value of zero, but has traditional ZOC benefit, and anyone who kills the resistor pays a strong penalty to their own war weariness and diplomacy. This could be done in the editor as well.

-Satya
satyajedi is offline  
Old January 15, 2002, 16:28   #126
Mandoric
Settler
 
Local Time: 18:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1
1) Allow Civ3 to be run in windowed mode. This lets it be run on systems that don't support 1024*768 resolution, and avoids the recalibration issues where I run Civ3, the display is too short and bowed inwards, I adjust, then quit Civ3 and have to readjust. Also, it allows one to keep an eye on other apps in the background or have IRC/IM/browser windows to fool with later in the game when AI turns start taking 5 or 10 minutes. This'll become even more significant if a multiplayer patch/upgrade/game using the Civ3 engine is ever released, as no matter how much work is put into in-game chat, it'd be hard-pressed to have the same versatility as an IRC client open and sitting under the Civ3 window.

2) A production AI setting that builds only improvements and Wealth. Usually, by the time I reach endgame, I've got more than enough military units for defense and only produce more if I'm in or about to be in a war, yet the production AI still wants to build more. So my options are... producing Wealth, once I run out of improvements. Tolerable when I've got a few large cities, but when every time I get a new tech that allows another city improvement I have to micromanage a couple dozen cities to produce it, and then back to Wealth production two turns later, it becomes rather tedious.

(edit: slight clarification of #2)

Last edited by Mandoric; January 15, 2002 at 18:21.
Mandoric is offline  
Old January 15, 2002, 16:35   #127
Whistler
Settler
 
Local Time: 13:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 9
Sorry, but terraforming is useful.
1. The Romans would tear down mountains and make them hills to get gold (in Spain/Purtugal).

2. When the WTC was built, Battery Park was created from all the dirt. (shallows --> grassland)

3. Several places were created by draining swamps.

4. Farmland was overproduced, creating "desert" (dust bowl).

I think the idea of planting a forest in grassland is a replacement for the terraforming from Civ2. But I think they cut out too much. Here's what I wouold like to see in a patch.

A. Allow certain forms of terraforming such as:
- adding to the edges of a continent/island by terraforming a hill into desert while converting a shore to grassland.
- Allow mountains to be converted to hills if in ancient times there is a river nearby or in modern times if the workers have production increased (road/irrigation in 1 turn...how does that happen?). This would result in a resource being randomly created (coal, iron, gold, oil(?)).
- Allow/force one square land terraforming when certain wonders are built. For example, force one mountain to disappear when the Hoover Dam is built.
- Allow a canal to be built in a narrow land area between two oceans, creating a hill from desert nearby. This canal must be within a city's cultural influence.
- This terraforming must be extremely expensive. In modern times, it should take 5 advanced workers at least 5 turns to do this.

B. Allow clearing of forests to continually return 10 shields to a city each time it is done. But do not allow a forest to be cut down less than 5 turns after it is planted to give it time to grow. This is the way lumbering works today (or the way it SHOULD work).

C. Allow a pipeline to be built for water from a city with a river to a desert city. This would work similarly to irrigating from a river to a city, but would convert one or more squares around the city from desert into plains or grassland. This would be a good way to make desert cities more viable (like Las Vegas(?)).

D. I was thinking of a similar thing for oil into a tundra, but there is no benefit that I can see since oil is available anywhere in a civ when it is acquired. Perhaps high-tension power lines into a tundra to increase shield production in a tundra-bound city would work.
Whistler is offline  
Old January 16, 2002, 17:40   #128
awesomedude
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 18:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 49
I have no idea if this idea has been thought of before or if it's just plain stupid, if not consider me a genius .

How about adding a Minimum attack/defense value to all military units, and calling the current attack/defense value for Maximum. Let's say for the tank, which many people complain is getting beat up by bowmen/cavalry etc. Set the tanks minimum defense value at 4 making it invulnerable to bowmen or 6 for invulnerability to both bowmen and cavalry. Now how does that sound?

Last edited by awesomedude; January 16, 2002 at 18:17.
awesomedude is offline  
Old January 16, 2002, 19:11   #129
Demolition
Settler
 
Local Time: 18:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Denmark
Posts: 26
Stack movement
One more time: Stack movement.

Also:
Other Civ can not trade discoverys that they didnt discover.
Ex. If I invent Democracy and give/trade it to Zulus then they shouldnt be able to pass it on to another nation.
Demolition is offline  
Old January 17, 2002, 08:36   #130
hoppy39000
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 18:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: lighthouse pt, fl, usa
Posts: 35
main things I'd like to see is 1st more and different resources...ie bananas , peat etc buffalo corn coffee, tea.. anyone remember boston tea party ???

also terraforming way too much wieght has been allowed to "starting" position ...need terraforming , 2 reasons 1 to make inhospitible terrain workable ie destroying a single pesky mountain....irrigating hills....flattening hills... ok and a possibility of randomizing resources if land were terra formed as was done in CIV2 thus giving us a chance to take a mountain or hill terraform and if "lucky" find a resource.

I want at a certain point more ability to work the land and sea...not just be a victim of where the computer puts us on the map... or "what" it gives us

some say thats unrealistic...lmao i live in S. florida.... 40 yrs ago it was all swampland and sand now....its a major metro area...cant move mountains......hmmm there was mt. rushmore..ohh and those rock blocks used to make Pyramids...not to mention NORAD is completely inside a mountain....

ok not saying should be able to destroy whole ranges...butt ...

more techs, and wonders.....small or large.....a tech tree that is more a tree if you research one thread you lose on another...seems there are less now rather than more..


3. chg the graphics too many units look way too similar...and Gold, and small tribes or huts are nearly indistinguishable....at least at higher resolution.... example at a glance settlters , resemble musketmen....hosremen w/ pikes look same as horsemen with rifles.... ok and why have aircaft carriers around at same time as galleons ?? why big jump to modern transport ships ? with no planes to fly in.....units should be age specific as are techs....
hoppy39000 is offline  
Old January 17, 2002, 09:03   #131
hoppy39000
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 18:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: lighthouse pt, fl, usa
Posts: 35
oh and i forgot like culture , but culture border around new citiies shouldnt depend on bulding temples ...should act as buffer zone...and chg fluidly , but not so that you just lose a city in the blink of an eye... like if build a city culture zone auto at 16 sq... rather than 8...unless conflict w/ another culture border.. hate that AI can set down a city right smack on a road between 2 ctiies 2 squares apart....
hoppy39000 is offline  
Old January 17, 2002, 12:49   #132
Willem
Emperor
 
Willem's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,755
Quote:
Originally posted by hoppy39000

3. chg the graphics too many units look way too similar...and Gold, and small tribes or huts are nearly indistinguishable....at least at higher resolution.... example at a glance settlters , resemble musketmen....hosremen w/ pikes look same as horsemen with rifles.... ok and why have aircaft carriers around at same time as galleons ?? why big jump to modern transport ships ? with no planes to fly in.....units should be age specific as are techs....
If you go to the files area, you'll find a graphic someone did to replace the default goody huts. It looks much better and it's very easy to see what they are.
Willem is offline  
Old January 17, 2002, 23:54   #133
Vivisector
Settler
 
Local Time: 18:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally posted by hoppy39000
ok and why have aircaft carriers around at same time as galleons ?? why big jump to modern transport ships ? with no planes to fly in.....units should be age specific as are techs....
What are you talking about? What do you expect if you get really advanced and the other civs are not? You want them to have aircraft carriers too? You want to be stuck with galleons? What? Units are limited to ages BECAUSE techs are limited to ages - you can't get an aircraft carrier before you have flight.
Vivisector is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 02:15   #134
Nic...off!
Settler
 
Local Time: 04:36
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Just some small ideas for Civ III

i]
When a unit travels along a jungle/swamp tile with river running through it or is next to an ocean tile, there should be a chance (5%?) that a crocodile attack would occur. Causes mid. damage.

ii]
Propaganda; make it a late research items (psychology/PR) and/or a small wonder, (Freud's something or other). Decreases war weariness/increases luxuries. Special unit: PsyOps, decreces chance of captured city to revert back to old civ

iii]
Global Catastrophe: see David Keys book: Catastrophe - An Investigation into the Origins of the Modern World, as an example.

iv]
Major Sporting Events. Every X amount of turns a city with a colosseum/arena can hold a major sports event. (World Ritual Sacrifices Competition ;-)
Cost is some Gold, (early game: xxx amount of gold, mid game: XXX - xxxx gold, late game: xxxx- XXXX gold), happiness (via luxuries?) is increased for X amount of turns.
Plus the overall number of colosseums/arenas per civ determines nation standings at the end of competition. If you come out on top, more happiness or just longer lasting.

v]
Ocean tile should come with reefs. Sinks/Heavy damage to ships without sonar or a copy of latest maritime map.
Ocean tile near rivers have a chance (25%?) of sandbanks forming. Immobilise/minor damage to ship that hit them.

vi]
(more to come...)
Nic...off! is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 08:45   #135
Alfonsus71
Chieftain
 
Alfonsus71's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Spain
Posts: 90
General idea: City uprisings.
Its awful when you have many units in a recently conquered city and there´s a rebellion in the city, and all your armies disapear like if they have entered in a worm hole.
Some kind of combat between the ocupation army and rebel "ai drafted" units (with big terrain bonuses for that rebel units) should happen, and if the city is lost some units of the invader should survive and retire 1 square out of the city, that should be defended by some "draften for free" militia units.
Alfonsus71 is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 11:01   #136
Brutus66
Prince
 
Brutus66's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 379
My suggestion is a simple one. Right now, units that are left in jungle terrain occasionally are lost to disease. This first time I saw it I thought that was a neat touch. But what about arctic terrain? I always feel that when I send scouts or explorers though that hostile white terrain at the poles, there should be a chance of losing them.

Captain mentioned that when you burn a city it should be an atrocity- I think that was a great idea!
Brutus66 is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 12:51   #137
Willem
Emperor
 
Willem's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,755
Quote:
Originally posted by Brutus66
My suggestion is a simple one. Right now, units that are left in jungle terrain occasionally are lost to disease. This first time I saw it I thought that was a neat touch. But what about arctic terrain? I always feel that when I send scouts or explorers though that hostile white terrain at the poles, there should be a chance of losing them.

Captain mentioned that when you burn a city it should be an atrocity- I think that was a great idea!
No, no, leave razing just as it is! It will save me the hassle of starving some city that the AI has plopped down in some ridiculous location. In both Civ 1 & 2, I ended up starving out most of the AI cities I captured because I didn't like the location. If there's going to be a change, at least have some sort of size limit. Towns OK to raze, cities not OK, that sort of thing.
Willem is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 14:36   #138
planetfall
Prince
 
planetfall's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Incoming from CO
Posts: 975
fixes for new user annoyances
Hi,

First post but very interesting subject.

Have yet to finish first game and have
not installed p1.16f yet, however, many fixes would help new users. {I am not sure how to index these ideas as the thread was not clear}.

Play Interaction
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1. toggle on/off city boundary in normal map window. Why-too frustrating to always have to double click on city to find what its current cells available are.

2. toggle on/off compass. Why-cell grid is not at right angle and too many times move to
North moves to wrong square and I have lost a move.

3. at chieftan level enable a 1 movement undo.

Advisor Screen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4. {sorry don't remember name of screen}
The F8 screen with scores shows nice graphs BUT score numbers remain the same. How about showing the scores for: power and culture when change in a format similar to score number reporting.


Unit Requirements
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5. It doesn't make sense to require a strategic asset be inside city boundaries to be available. How does it make sense to require oil to be in a city before can build air units? Oil 1 square outside means no air, but inside means air. Oh give me a break.

Unit Characteristics
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
6. Movement for bombers is too low. How does it make sense for a bomber to have a limit of 6 moves but a battleship can move 5????
[ideally B17 might be 6, but B24 would be 9 and B1 would be 12, etc.]

Unit Actions
~~~~~~~~~~~~
7. Why can't you destory one of your own cities? Modern city planners are always "condemning" old property to make way for new. Particularly for new users it would be helpful to condemn a group of small cities to make room for a metropolis.


All in all interesting game, but these aggrevations are definitely decreasing my desire to replay.


Oh one more thing, game speed, when there are a lot of military units it takes too long to micromanage each unit. How about this option:

8. At beginning of turn option to put all military units on "wait"
a. user can activate ones desires to move
b. THEN a keyboard command, or better circle icon button, allows skip just before end to turn of all you don't want to move.

It is so annoying to press "space" over each unit who is in a city. Some I haven't moved for 50 turns.


enough,

what do you all think about these ideas for improvements???
planetfall is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 15:33   #139
randommushroom
Warlord
 
Local Time: 13:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 105
My ideas for enhancements. Well maybe not my idea, but things I'd like to see:

1. Random Events/Disasters. Something more than just the population loss from disease in flood plains or jungles. Floods, plague of locusts, earthquakes, that sort of thing. Should be a game option, perhaps on a sliding scale, from "No I don't want something to wipe out my civ or even a caputred worker because I'll complain about retarded random events" to an in-between of "I can stand to see some cities and units get toasted" to biblical "Fire and brimstone has left me with only one city and its pious temple."

2. Once the map has been cultured over, perhaps the introduction of resistance/terrorist units to cause some havoc.

3. A disappearance of the slow tech research early in the game. As it stands now, one is better off setting science to 10% and then going out to buy them. But maybe that's just an old fond memory of my favored strategy in Civ2 where I liked to insulate myself, build my infrastructure, and research like crazy up the tech tree, finally launching devastating attacks with vastly superior tech. Strategy should be about having lots of options, lots of paths, not getting locked into one or two.
randommushroom is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 21:33   #140
Willem
Emperor
 
Willem's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,755
Re: fixes for new user annoyances
Quote:
Originally posted by planetfall

5. It doesn't make sense to require a strategic asset be inside city boundaries to be available. How does it make sense to require oil to be in a city before can build air units? Oil 1 square outside means no air, but inside means air. Oh give me a break.
Resources don't have to be within a city limit, just the cultural boundaries. If that still isn't good enough, just use a Worker to build a colony.
Willem is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 23:08   #141
Aqualung
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 18:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 40
Military Advisor:

There should be a button or some such for bulk-upgrades. I'm sick of clicking on all 50+ Musketmen. Let me do it in one fell swoop.

War/Culture/Reversion:

There should be a percentage chance that a conquered city will revert to it's original civ. That percentage should be 0%!!!! I hate that part. At least during war (with the inhabitant's civ). Resistance should reappear if your garrison isn't big enough. Resistors should do damage if they outnumber the garrison (or maybe always). 1 point to 1 unit for every resistor, WEAKEST units first (unlike combat units, these guys are RESISTANCE fighters). There's lots that could be done with this concept. But so long as the war is going on, the city shouldn't just flip back to the enemy side. Once you make peace, THEN the city can decide "We liked it better being Chinese".
Aqualung is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 23:29   #142
Vivisector
Settler
 
Local Time: 18:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally posted by Aqualung
Military Advisor:

There should be a button or some such for bulk-upgrades. I'm sick of clicking on all 50+ Musketmen. Let me do it in one fell swoop.
You can. It's SHIFT-U, i think, to upgrade all. However, only those in cities with barracks get upgraded.
Vivisector is offline  
Old January 18, 2002, 23:34   #143
Vivisector
Settler
 
Local Time: 18:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 11
Re: fixes for new user annoyances
Quote:
Originally posted by planetfall
Oh one more thing, game speed, when there are a lot of military units it takes too long to micromanage each unit. How about this option:

8. At beginning of turn option to put all military units on "wait"
a. user can activate ones desires to move
b. THEN a keyboard command, or better circle icon button, allows skip just before end to turn of all you don't want to move.

It is so annoying to press "space" over each unit who is in a city. Some I haven't moved for 50 turns.
I had the same problem. You can solve this at least partly by Fortifying (F) units you don't expect to move for a while. You won't have to press space anymore. But you will have to remember them if you want to activate them again later... Use right mouse to activate. Hold down the shift key and activate as many as u want. You can end turn by pressing the oval shaped button on the console - lower right of screen, looks like carved ivory.
Vivisector is offline  
Old January 19, 2002, 03:59   #144
zorch89
Settler
 
Local Time: 10:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Salida, CA
Posts: 1
corruption and waste; culture wars
25-word intro: I'm a newbie to this forum, have had CivIII since xmas, CivII and SMAC/SMACX previously.

I agree with the folks saying that corruption needs some serious reworking. My 2 cents worth - first delink corruption (loss of money) and waste (loss of shields). While both reflect some level of crime in a city, corruption is almost purely crime activity (fraud, embezzlement, cheating on taxes, graft, extortion and so on) waste is also a measure of inefficiency - citizens slacking off on their jobs, people standing around and gossiping about the newest war instead of stacking goods, and so on.

Second, with the two delinked, separate the causes of each and modify the cures. Let corruption stay linked to the distance from the capitals (palace, FP), or more correctly - to the travel time from the capitals. Corruption should go down if you can get more auditors out there. Leave the current fixes (courthouses and police stations) effective against corruption, but perhaps also let taxmen reduce corruption losses - reflecting less tax cheaters when the Revenuers have more staff to do more audits.

Instead of linking waste to distance and empire size, like it is now, base it on different parameters. I think history, ethnic mix (are they your own people or not?) and possibly city mood are good parameters. By history and ethnic mix I mean, did you build the city yourself, did you culturally acquire it, or did you conquer it? If it's your own city, waste should match the waste at the parent city that the settler came from, or average waste of your empire. None of this 90% wasted shields nonsense - that's completely unrealistic and very disruptive of game flow. If it's a militarily conquered city, the population should remain in passive resistance for a generation (20 years, not 20 turns!), with 50-70% waste. As new citizens are added or old citizens convert, reduce waste down to the imperial average. Lastly, if the city culture converts, it should act like it's happy to be there - perhaps 3 extra happy faces for 20 years or turns. And since real immigrants are very hard-working, I think the city should get a 10% shield bonus for those 20 years.

Just in case it wasn't obvious, I think this removes the need for courthouses and police stations to effect waste.

On another item, I'd like to suggest that culturally converting an AI's city should come with a penalty. I know that when I've lost cities (native, not conquered) to the AI through culture, I've been simply furious. I think it would be more realistic for the AI, instead of simpering How Wonderful Your Culture Is to downgrade two steps and potentially demand its city back if it was already annoyed or furious. I mean, really - if Tijuana phoned up Vicente Fox and said "We're leaving for California." he'd just sit still? Heck, no!

Oh, yes, and while I'm at it: "We'd really like stacking."

Thank you for listening.
zorch89 is offline  
Old January 19, 2002, 07:30   #145
Eye Of Moron
Settler
 
Local Time: 13:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 5
Naval Unit Suggestions
I don't know if this has been suggested before, but I would like to see naval units treat previously explored water squares as if they had "roads" (all movement only costs 1/3, or maybe even 1/4 or 1/5, or whatever). I think this would be a good solution to the common "naval units are useless" compaint because:
1) it would prevent naval units from moving TOO quickly, especially early on during the age of exploration when most of the water on the map has yet to be revealed.
2) it wouldn't render the Great Lighthouse and Magellan's Expedition useless since units would be effectively gaining THREE extra moves in "charted waters".
3) it would make for a greater diversity between the movement rates of ancient and modern naval units since all movement pts are effectively x3.
4) it would still be possible to engage and destroy enemy navies since they would NOT get a movement bonus when moving through your "territorial waters" (waters within your cultural borders) - thus if they want to drop off troops, bombard your coast, etc. they will have to use up movement pts to get within range and won't be able to retreat very far, thus allowing you a chance to counter-attack.
5) it would greatly increase the usefulness of aircraft carriers since they can attack from a distance, allowing you to attack from outside your enemy's territorial waters and get your navy to safety.
So to sum it up, I propose they allow naval units a movement bonus EXCEPT when:
1) moving through unexplored waters
2) moving through the territorial waters of a nation with which you do not have a right of passage
It shouldn't be TOO hard to implement since they must already have code in there that checks cultural borders and diplomatic status when determining movement cost. They just need to make it work for water squares too. The only thing that might take some doing is the no-bonus for unexplored territory.

Oh yeah, they should make it possible for air units to sink naval units. I don't know how this would be best implemented. One guy suggested having a torpedo bomber as a new unit that would come in and kill ships that had been weakened by your other aircraft, and I think someone else suggested allowing air units to have a chance to destroy naval units when bombarding a ship with only 1 hp left. I think another solution that might work would be just giving air units an attack rating that would be used for air vs. naval combat only. In fact with a little tweaking/rescaling of the att/def values for ALL the air units, they could even use the att value field that's already present on fighters (and give you a reason to *gasp* use fighters on your aircraft carriers instead of heavy bombers). This would allow extra flexibility when balancing combat so that changing air units' effectiveness against ships won't unbalance their effectiveness against ground units, cities, etc. It's sort of like the torpedo bomber idea, but stops short of adding a whole new unit. If they still allow air units to bombard naval units too, then this "torpedo attack" number ought to be relatively small. This would mean you could severely DAMAGE enemy ships without much risk, but you would probably expect to loose a few planes to SINK them. This would also lead to new strategies for killing (and protecting) specific ships. For example, in order to kill a carrier, you'd have to wear down the accompanying destroyers to bring the carrier to the "top" of the stack and then sink it before it lost too much hp and got pushed it back down to the "bottom" under the destroyer shield. Consequently, this might be reason to actually build destroyers instead of battleships since quantity would obviously beat out quality when it came to defending carriers (if you don't sink the carrier on the first try, you have to SINK, not DAMAGE, but SINK all those 1 hp destroyers before you get a second chance). If this was implemented, they could give the AEGIS cruiser back its def x2 against air ability and maybe give the destroyers sub detection instead/too.

I'm also debating whether or not it would be a good idea to reintroduce the feature from civ 2 where damaged ships get a movement reduction. I'm not to sure if it would add or subtract from gameplay. Maybe it would be a nice addition, if my above suggestions were implemented?? Another idea I've been toying with is to have air units defend the carrier when the carrier is attacked, which means maybe they get a bombardment shot if the the attacking unit is a naval unit (sort of like how artillery do) or they try to do an air superiority interception if the unit is an air unit. I just figure that a carrier with a full load of aircraft should put up a fight, but then this might make a fully-loaded carrier with a destroyer screen TOO hard to sink. Perhaps it would just take some adjusting of the air unit att values to balance out. I dunno. Anyway I think these suggestions might be beyond the scope of a patch, but in an expansion pack maybe???
Eye Of Moron is offline  
Old January 19, 2002, 18:45   #146
Rage
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 18:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 57
There should be more than 1 type of battleship u can build. It would add a lot to the naval side of things if you could could build different sizes of ships and have the ability to design them-like u could design units in SMAC. You would have to decide wether to sacrifice armour for speed or what size weapons u want on it etc.
Obviously the more firepower or bigger it is the more expensive it will be to make.
you guys hae an opinion on this?
Rage is offline  
Old January 19, 2002, 20:52   #147
Dr Strangelove
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Dr Strangelove's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: USA
Posts: 3,197
1) I hope they patch the civ3edit to enable us to zoom out on the map while we create/edit it.

2) I can understand limiting the total damage that ships do to land units, but land units like cannon and artillery should be able to sink ships. I can't stand it when my artillery can damage, but can't sink, triremes!
__________________
"I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!
Dr Strangelove is offline  
Old January 20, 2002, 13:53   #148
hoppy39000
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 18:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: lighthouse pt, fl, usa
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally posted by Vivisector


What are you talking about? What do you expect if you get really advanced and the other civs are not? You want them to have aircraft carriers too? You want to be stuck with galleons? What? Units are limited to ages BECAUSE techs are limited to ages - you can't get an aircraft carrier before you have flight.

Vivisector, my point about Carriers was this... If you check the "industrial ages" eras Tech tree you get a "carrier" under the tech "mass production" which is achieved by researching Combustion" and "replaceable Parts"

Since "flight" is the upper branch from combustion, and "mass Prod" the lower...if you have already got electricity and "replace Parts"

it is actually possible ( I did it) to have a carrier in que, and even built long before you choose to research "flight" you can even reach "adv flight thru bottom of tech tree

this seem pretty stupid..and wasnt the case in civ2 as for transports and galleons...my point is in the artwork....in 16-1700's your building galleons and frigates that fit the age..."transportts" look like 20th century ships...the should chg and upgrade thru the age..... i had a carrier at regent lvl and transport by 1800....but oddly...no planes to put on the carriers.
hoppy39000 is offline  
Old January 20, 2002, 15:09   #149
Uncle Thade
Chieftain
 
Uncle Thade's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 71
In my opinion, there are four core elements that need desperate fixing. (1)Combat, or silly lack thereof. Special units, there should have been one for each era for each civ. So any given civ would have four special units. Combat resolutions are far too wonky to rely on, e.g., six cossacks attack one musketman and die!!! farg frick and frac, no way that is just wrong. three frigates attack a galleon and blub blub, what the Heck in hades???
(2)Corruption, holy mother of bunny rabbits, corruption is way out of control. (3)War weariness, needs to be kicked down a notch or made a choice in your initial game setup. One cannot help it if eveyone(AI) decides to attack one, so in defense and mightily kicking arse, war weariness should be reduced or an option to be rid of. Or WW should be rewritten as to reflect if you are winning or losing a war, I have never seen a country lose a war where everybody rioted, I'd rather think the opposite. Atrocities should be given more of a look when factoring WW. Yay!!!! let me riot and destory that temple because we are winning this war.
And, (4) Terraforming. Where, oh where has my former gone. A field to till a pond to build. What ever happened to irrigating hills. Transforming desert into plains to grassland. When you get plunked down in the middle of a desert if would be nice to terraform, I mean hey if I'm building a spaceship for AC I rather believe I can transform the land around me. Silly buggers won't rid me of that mountain.

There that's my two cents or is it sense. Hi I'm Thade, and I'm a Civ addict. Uncle Sid keeps giving me the bad candy, oh and by the way SM, SIMGOLF is a freakin' fun game. Well the demo is at least.
Uncle Thade is offline  
Old January 21, 2002, 17:34   #150
Environeer
Settler
 
Local Time: 18:36
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 5
Several more nice features
General
1) Include multiple maps, as in Test of Time. Each unit could have abilities to exist in each map, and whether it can move freely between maps. For the units which can't, you could have a terrain improvement which allows units to 'teleport' just on that square. Also, they could be used to transport resources between maps.

Editor
2) Different interface for unit availibility. In the unit editor, the list box for which civs can build the unit is really annoying, because you can't select items which are apart from each other without selecting all the items in between them.

3) Easier graphics and sound specification. Make it so that you can specify the graphics files for all terrain, terrain improvements, resources and city improvements, and the .ini files for units.

4) Civilopaedia editing in the editor.

5) Setting up civs, cities and units on the map which are there at the start of the scenario (you choose which civ to be)

6) Events in scenarios - say e.g. when Rome is captured by Greece, display a text message saying "Greece has captured Rome" and then automatically retire, or at A.D. 1600, create an elite musketeer belonging to the French in Paris.
Environeer is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 14:36.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team