PTW wishlist - Page 2

Andrew_Jay · August 16, 2002, 17:03

You got a new capital in Civ2 didn't you if you paid a rather large sum for it?

Unspeakable Horror · August 16, 2002, 18:41

Yes you could move the capital for 1000 gold I think.

SABRA · August 18, 2002, 10:29

Increase air units range .
Bigger map .
More diplomacy , fix the worker and settler identity .
Terraforming .
Keep pollution , but switch the change of the terrain off .
More unit's .
More era's .
Exchange units , with and without technology .
More buildings .
A second UU for each civ .
More Civ-Specific-Abilities .
More turn's .

The_Aussie_Lurker · August 18, 2002, 21:08

Actually, speaking of leaders in Combat, I think a great system would be like that in "People's General" (A great game, BTW, if you like turn-based combat games!)
Under certain situations you get leaders who give your unit special abilities-sometimes random, but most often based on the manner in which the leader became available! Example: If your unit has survived an attack from a more powerful oponent, you might get a leader who grants you a "strong defender" trait! The important thing, though, is that you don't get the leader as a seperate unit-it is an integral part of the unit which recieved the leader! I don't know guys, what do you think?

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

curswine · August 20, 2002, 13:28

A couple of new civ traits i'd especially like to see so maratime or naval one so i could put in a civ like polynesia or change englands expansionistic to it i dunno what the other one would be

Caliban · August 20, 2002, 14:02

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
Actually, speaking of leaders in Combat, I think a great system would be like that in "People's General" (A great game, BTW, if you like turn-based combat games!)
Under certain situations you get leaders who give your unit special abilities-sometimes random, but most often based on the manner in which the leader became available! Example: If your unit has survived an attack from a more powerful oponent, you might get a leader who grants you a "strong defender" trait! The important thing, though, is that you don't get the leader as a seperate unit-it is an integral part of the unit which recieved the leader!

Hm, some kind of special combat bonus for victorious units? Sounds interesting, but would add some more micro-management to the game. You'd always have to check which kind of bonus your current unit has (offensive/defensive/bombard or whatever).
So this system is perfect for a TACTICAL combat simulation, but not for a STRATEGY game.

Ambrose Groan · August 20, 2002, 15:08

Could possibly have a few leaders with definite abilities ascribed to certain names; for instance, Foch would be an attacking general whereas Pétain (ignoring his World War II regime for a modest instant) would be a defending general. Each civilization would have about two or three of each type who could control up to eight units. Unlike the present system of armies, you could add in or remove the constituent units by selecting them in a window similar to selecting which units you want to land from a transport.

An improved expansionist trait ought to define the scout unit one would receive--either land if the capital is inland or canoe if near water--as well as be otherwise ameliorated.

The Polynesians would be a good inclusion to the mix, and it is quite surprising they've been forgotten so long.

As for the medieval infantry, the player should have the choice of retaining specialist units (Celtic swordsman appears to have 4.2.2 [probably remembering wrong] and Roman legionary has 4.2.1) over accepting the new medieval unit.

Another problem I have is why the transport can move as quickly as a battleship while the carriers can't. Makes absolutely no sense--carriers ought to move at least as fast as a battlegroup. This probably can be changed in the editor, but it shouldn't have been an issue.

Coracle · August 20, 2002, 22:35

One other thing.

GET RID OF ICS!!

Infinite City Sprawl - packing your towns close together and rushing units - is not so much a "strategy" as a gimmick, a trick. Something that exploits a design flaw.

It is NOT in the spirit of the game, and makes a mockery of realism and history.

Get rid of it, one way or the other.

SABRA · August 21, 2002, 08:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
One other thing.

GET RID OF ICS!!

Infinite City Sprawl - packing your towns close together and rushing units - is not so much a "strategy" as a gimmick, a trick. Something that exploits a design flaw.

It is NOT in the spirit of the game, and makes a mockery of realism and history.

Get rid of it, one way or the other.

It would not be that wise to do so .
In the real world towns are also close together .

Jon Shafer · August 21, 2002, 09:01

I don't think they should get rid of ICS... it's a tactic, just like grid spacing. A lame tactic, but a tactic nonetheless. It should just be balanced better. The advantages of packing in early with no though to placement should be balanced with consequences.

The_Aussie_Lurker · August 23, 2002, 02:20

Actually, regarding my idea of having great military leaders being integral to the generating unit, I don't see why it should increase micromanagement. Essentially, when a unit creates a great leader, it should be marked by either a star or some other symbol. Passing the cursor over such units will bring up info regarding the units special abilities!
As for other types of leaders, I agree 100%! I'd love to see Great Artists who can either double the culture of a single city, or attempt to convert a foreign city to your cause! Or a Great Scientist who either doubles the research output of a given city, or can rush a single tech! Or a great Industrialist/Engineer who can either rush a single WOnder (Great or Small) in any city, or double the production of a single city (I believe that great "Leaders" should always give you one or the other!) Like existing great leaders, these great leaders should only exist one at a time, and should disappear either after a given time (eg 2-10 turns) or once they've been sacrificed for a one-off effect! I don't think you should be limited to just 1 MILITARY leader, but more like 2-4. I do believe though, that such leaders wopuld be lost when you upgrade the unit it is a part of (if that makes sense)
EDIT: I'd also like to see great Political Leaders and Great Religious Leaders.

Great Head of State: 0% chance of riots, and no effect from Anarchy for as long as the leader exists OR Can allow your Civ to change governments, ONCE only, without Anarchy-even if you haven't got the prerequisite for that government yet!

Religious Leader: Doubles effects of all religious improvements in a single city OR can eliminate all resistance in a captured enemy city!

Also I'd like to see various Small and great wonders be able to increase the chance of your civ producing a Great Leader of Various types!

Anyway, that's my opinion, it'd be really nice if it did happen!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

Andrew_Jay · August 23, 2002, 12:07

Perhaps instead of leaders the A/D/M of units could change in post-Elite victories.

Example: Your elite knight wins yet another battle. There is still the chance of a great leader, but there is also a slightly greater chance that that knight might get an extra attack, defense or move point. "The skill demonstrated by our elite knights in their victory have made them faster" etc.
Perhaps victory in defense would make an extra defense point likelier, same if your victory came through offense.

Perhaps when you upgrade these special units, they still keep their elite standing (rather than lose it like they normally do) but lose these extra points.

Martinus Magnificus · August 25, 2002, 10:33

Hey Coracle, you forgot about borders! I can't believe you missed that one...

The current border system should be reworked, so that when a city is captured, its influence (in terms of cultural borders) should remain roughly the same, and that military presence can confirm or change borders.

Imagine:
"Sire, in spite of our 10 armor divisions in our fortress on the mountain top, we have lost our supplies of iron there because of the expansion of Roman culture! Their spearmen kindly asked us to leave the region, or else..."

What a joke...

Caliban · August 25, 2002, 14:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Martinus Magnificus
Imagine:
"Sire, in spite of our 10 armor divisions in our fortress on the mountain top, we have lost our supplies of iron there because of the expansion of Roman culture! Their spearmen kindly asked us to leave the region, or else..."

Imagine:
"Sire, how dumb are you not to take this roman city with our 10 armor divisions in our fortress on the mountain top? Oh, and let us hurry before this iron enables them to build pikemen.
By the way, Sire, forgive the simple mind of your military advisor, but what do we need iron for when we can build tanks?"

Martinus Magnificus · August 27, 2002, 08:46

Okay, maybe it's not a very good example, but the point is that you should be able to hold territory by military force, without having to capture the enemy city.

BTW: I would not DARE to attack those roman spearmen with my tanks, it's suicide!

Firebird · August 29, 2002, 04:01

Well, it is after all a game and you cannot simulate everything to perfection. If you did that you'd have a copy of reality. It is also a matter of time and cost. In reasonable time Firaxis can put perhaps 50% of the fans whishes in there. To put 25% more in would perhaps add 50% to the time-to-market. Thats why they make an XP. To put in 15% more whould take another XP. We might be lucky enough to see that.

But I agree that some things could have been better from the start (f.ex. the limit on bomber range).

Caliban · August 29, 2002, 14:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Firebird
Well, it is after all a game and you cannot simulate everything to perfection. If you did that you'd have a copy of reality. It is also a matter of time and cost. In reasonable time Firaxis can put perhaps 50% of the fans whishes in there. To put 25% more in would perhaps add 50% to the time-to-market. Thats why they make an XP. To put in 15% more whould take another XP. We might be lucky enough to see that.

Does Firaxis pay you for this?

Nubclear · August 29, 2002, 15:41

What I personally would like to see....

1. Civil war. Without it, every city seems to be just that....a city. Civil War would make one city a capital.

2. A risk of losing (from an 'unloseable' position) in the modern age. Whenever I get there (IF I get there) I've either lost miserably or I've gotten a great victory. I'd like to see some fun. One way of doing this would be.....

3. Better AI. It never makes any intelligent moves at all. One nice example (i think if i went over to civfanatics i could find ya a pictue) is your empire almost comp0letly surrounds the Germans 1 city. Your troops surround the city, and you decide you want some gold. You ask Germany 'kindly' for some gold as a gift. Germany rejects. Not a wise choice.

4. Overhaul of the combat system. It may just be bad luck, but I get odd combat results quite often. Often enough to keep me from playing at all (because of the frustration...). Spearmen defeating Tanks (yes, we've all heard that one before) and for some reason, the results usually go in the way of the computer...Anyway, I'd like to see the SMAC/Civ2 way of combat come back instead of this (IMHO) flawed system.

5. Place more emphasis on peaceful victories. If I comepare a peaceful victory vs. a comquest victory, the number of points I dont get it enormous. Firaxis seemed to want players to consider peaceful victories but....A lot of de-emphasis is placed on war and conquest instead of empire building. I can't even play on higher levels because of the rate the AI declares war.

6. A better editor. I want to be able to set diplomatic stances towards others. I want to be able to increase aircraft range from 8. I want to be able to script events into my scenario.

7. I want my editor to be inside Civ3 instead of a standalone program. I *hate* going back and forth to change this one thing in my scenario and then going to test it and....It gets old, and eventually crashes my computer...

8. Less AI bonuses. Ive noticed that in my games if I have accelerated production on, I might be able to build a temple in 9 turns but......My ally can build it in 3?! This is about the time when I stopped playing so I couldnt see how fast they build units but....

9. Random events. I would like to see storms wipe out some of my stuff or geological changes give me more resoruces or whatnot. It's just better that way.

10. Change the AI objective. In *ALL* my civ3 games, no matter what you do the AI seems out to eliminate the human player. This removes quite a bit of 'emotion' from them because.....Although in every game the AI is the same player, it just seems much more apparent. I deal with Ghandi the same way I deal with Bismark. Sure, they have different agression levels but when it comes down to it, the AI just seems to have one goal and thats preventing you from getting in a high position in the game. In SMAC sometimes the AI helped you with (on occasion) gifts and they did have fair trades. It just seemed like each faction was a different faction, not just an alliance of people 'out to get me'.

Alright, I'm done

Everything else (that I can think of) is stuff they should keep.

kring · August 29, 2002, 16:09

Naval retreats like ground unit retreats for faster naval units.

Some of the new victory conditions will kill off a civ if their capitol is captured, so that will help some of the capitol situations if you use those conditions.

Admiral PJ · August 29, 2002, 21:26

How about having deadly Zones of control, so if you attacked a cavalry unit and they were forced to retreat next to some other of your cavalrys or forts and the zone of control would destroy them.
This would simulate routing.. were units retreat and are then easily destroyed as they retreat.

It would also be nice to have penalties for units outside friendly culture borders, even on unclaimed land.. these should be seen as being low on supplies and get some penalties - maybe they can't use roads , can't repair and lose health points sometimes if they move.

Maybe colonies should be able to repair units like this... they can be seen as being supply routes.. or forts/outposts.