What we DON'T want in Civ 3...

Mr Chafe · April 26, 2001, 15:01

A definitive list of things we defintely DO NOT want in Civilization 3.

Ecthy · April 26, 2001, 17:01

Static unit model

Static government model

Static terrain model

The optimal basis for all of the models that should replace the static ones is SMAC. CIV2: bad models... CTP: new game, old models, bad.

Cyclotron · April 26, 2001, 17:57

What do you mean by a "static model?" Do you mean unit workshops for units, etc.?

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

EnochF · April 26, 2001, 18:12

Nuclear power plants that are guaranteed to explode a few turns after you build them.

The AI Entity.

Technologies with "age" or "revolution" in them, like "Age of Reason" or "Agricultural Revolution."

A Unit Workshop (which has already been ruled out anyway).

Random events that can cripple cities or drain the entire gold reserve.

Enemy AI that continually violates your borders and camps out on valuable resource tiles for no good reason, even when the civ is friendly.

Cheap-looking CGI wonder movies.

Lawrence of Arabia · April 26, 2001, 22:59

-Desert tiles next to tundra tiles

-small invisible units

-bad in-game music

-bad AI

------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now

colossus · April 27, 2001, 01:18

AI Miracles - eg. AI elephant bribes my pikeman, AI chunks out 30 SS structurals in a single turn from nowhere, infinite AI missile range, etc.

Unlimited railroad movement - Its faster taking a train from Boston to San Francisco than a fighter.

It takes forever to reach monarchy(CtP syndrome) - No, I just love monarchy, don't care much about historical accuracy.

Compulsory 3D graphics - Can I disable it(somehow like ToT) to speed up the game?

Fundamentalism - Never again.

Require CD to play the game - I like to listen to my favourite CD while playing.

April 27, 2001, 04:39

(1) Lack of a build queue
(2) Stealth Fighter losing to a pikeman
(3) The instant rejection of all diplomatic proposals if you get too powerful. (Yes, yes - I know the AI hasn't got a chance unless it fully gangs up on you. Still . . .)
(4) Incompetent AI
(5) So many tile improvements that you can't even hope to build all of them or even care to.
(6) AI allies that decide an alliance means they can build in your territory.
(7) The inability to ask anybody to leave your territory
(8) And AI that actually assesses the risks before answering a "get out" ultimatum - namely one that doesn't either always back down (CtP2) or one that always responds 'Taste my steel' even though the musketeers guarding its single city will shortly be facing 10 tanks (Civ2).

In short, make the AI seem a little more rational. Oh yeah . . .

(9) An interface that's a clickfest.

Roman · April 27, 2001, 05:47

1) Over-done graphics with a lot of animation.
2) Future techs!!!!!
3) Unit Workshop
4) AI taking control of your diplomacy during hotseat games

Ecthy · April 27, 2001, 13:20

static means no flexibility

Roman · April 27, 2001, 13:24

5) An artificially low limit on number of civilizations per game (eg. 7)

dognheat · April 27, 2001, 14:23

Endless movement on railroads or any other surface for that matter. I don't care about time frame in relation to movement or any other crap.

Movement from one side of the map to the other by ground units SHOULD NEVER EVER EVER EVER HAPPEN !!!

Fintilgin · April 27, 2001, 14:42

Only 7 Civs per game.

Icky icky.

Ecthy · April 27, 2001, 14:54

yeah, 7 is way too much! bollocks to traditions! hurrah to innovation!

drake · April 27, 2001, 14:58

255 city limits gotta go!

Erka · April 27, 2001, 15:25

Civ-specific bonuses, like the Romans get better legions and stuff
like that. As mentioned in earlier posts, this might be cool in
scenarios, but is absolutely NOT in the main game.
Firaxis, if you have to include this, PLEASE make it optional!

Cyberbugs · April 27, 2001, 17:41

A very minor, but yet annoying thing, is if the advisors present in the top right of the screen look exactly the same in the modern as well in the ancient era.

It looks kinda stupid, and sort of wrecks the feeling of controlling an ancient civilization many thousands of years before the birth of Christ, with a guy wearing glasses long before glass was invented.

Cyclotron · April 27, 2001, 18:22

Big one:

Anything that sacrafices gameplay for realism.
That is what I cannot stand, and what I fight against.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

Admiral PJ · April 28, 2001, 08:09

I don't want a badly neglected diplomacy system..
the player should be able to do all the things the AI could in diplomacy,
like:

player demands 2000gold or will declare nuclear war

in civ2 you couldn't specify an amount,

I find interacting with the AI good, I hope they allow stacked player/ally units like in SMAC,
though It might be a bit silly if your defending all an AI's cities.

Admiral PJ · April 28, 2001, 08:21

realism.. yeah i agree, I would like a realistic looking landscape like i said (without too much flatness),
and realistic wonders - how can the pyramids allow a city the other side of the world to have a granary.
It is a game though so the main thing is gameplay.

AdmiralPJT

Mr Chafe · May 1, 2001, 14:23

I've read that in Civ3 the combat will be like CtP, where you can create armies of units. Doesn't this promote a more war like game, and less on the side of diplomacy and peace?

Sirotnikov · May 1, 2001, 15:04

future techs suck.
civ spcific traits suck.

Ralf · May 1, 2001, 15:04

What I dont want in Civ-3 is:

- A sloppy AI that builds too few city-improvements/ too many units
- A sloppy AI that cannot exploit its AI city-areas properly
- A sloppy AI that cannot exploit its available AI land-areas properly

- Non-transparent game-mechanics - lost connection between input/output
- Jumbled multi small-screen interface ala CTP-series
- Text tweak-files that dont allow me to spoonfeed what the AI-civs should build & prioritize.
- A civ-game without re-arrangeable city-area tile-output feedback.

Theres more to add, but above is the more important stuff.

Dimorier Maximus · May 1, 2001, 15:16

A message that reads: "Only fighters can attack air units." Where is the anti-aircraft machinery?! How about some satellite defense systems?

Mr Chafe · May 1, 2001, 18:37

Maybe I should arange these into some sort of definitive list, maybe the makers can get a few ideas? Should I?

Cyclotron · May 1, 2001, 18:48

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Chafe on 05-01-2001 02:23 PM
I've read that in Civ3 the combat will be like CtP, where you can create armies of units. Doesn't this promote a more war like game, and less on the side of diplomacy and peace?

Enhancing war does not make it necissarily a war game. As long as diplomacy and trade are enhanced too, we can keep a balance. Just because Civ2 was war based doesn't mean we shouldn't improve on the war system.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

Roman · May 1, 2001, 19:04

I agree completely, Cyclotron 7.

Sabre2th · May 1, 2001, 23:00

quote:

A message that reads: "Only fighters can attack air units." Where is the anti-aircraft machinery?! How about some satellite defense systems?

definately

quote:

I've read that in Civ3 the combat will be like CtP, where you can create armies of units. Doesn't this promote a more war like game, and less on the side of diplomacy and peace?

um....no

------------------
"We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything."
-Thomas A. Edison
[This message has been edited by Sabre2th (edited May 01, 2001).]

King Richard · May 1, 2001, 23:19

-cheating AI (completes wonders miraculusly fast, getting techs that they shouldn't have yet, having units the same turn they get the tech, etc. etc. etc.)

-Space race to alpha centauri & future techs (a space race to the moon is better, but not if you win the game by going there!)

-Too big historical inaccuracies!!!

-LIMITS!

-Units that move too slow (A huge problem in the different worlds in civ2ToT)

-Too few options! (the more options the better!)

-Too few programmed city-names! (After you've built a lot of cities, they're suddenly named: Cunaxa, Issus etc. Doesn't fit the americans very well! -I know you can make your own names, but that's not easy with the egyptians and babylonians etc.)

-Bugs!

-Really bad graphics! (Gameplay is more important, but why not get it all?)

-The AI civs all ally with each other, when you have been a nice-guy!

-The AI builds cities close to yours!

-I could go on forever...

Insigna · May 1, 2001, 23:22

An AI that cheets. I hate that. Make a good AI Not a cheeting one.
Well maby a little cheeting is ok but not to much.

lord of the mark · May 2, 2001, 16:08

quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 04-27-2001 06:22 PM
Big one:

Anything that sacrafices gameplay for realism.
That is what I cannot stand, and what I fight against.

I'll say it again: for some of us, realism is part of the fun.

LOTM