Desires For Future Civ3 Patches (A thread saving thread)

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by jbrians
I think you may have missed something in that game. When you wipe out a civ you get a message to that affect, and I have never seen them come back. If you never got that message they must have had a settler escape very early on.

They do get restarted if you kill them early enough. Soren has stated this.

General Idea
* I dont want pop-ups telling me whos at war with who, or back at peace again. Just one pop-up at beginning of turn, letting me know all the changes. The only exception to this is if someone declares war on me. This should stay as an immediate pop-up.

Anyone who's played on a huge map after MPPs become common will know just how quickly these pop-ups become annoying. Minutes between turns that you have to watch, just to close those pop-ups.

[Pyrodrew]

General Idea

At the very least they should bring back the Jungle Banannas & Swamp Peat & Desert Oasis... and swamp & glacier terrain for that matter. Civ3 Start Positions are more unbalanced than they were in Civ2. By removing these things, letting grasslands be mined & adding disease to jungles/floodplains where you start determines your success much more than it did in Civ2. In Civ2 I would play the Jungle start position if I had banannas & a river... in Civ3 it's not only suicide, but impossible!

[adaMada]

Mods: please top this thread, apolyton needs it's official "put in patch" thread, this'll really reduce the number of threads coming across this section.

-- adaMada

[pg]

general ideas

1. i have to second that there should be an option to not start near big jungles or not have any on the map at all. i've encountered some literally huge jungles that basically did me in. deserts, tundra, and mountains/hills can be problematic but they never seem to be half as bad as jungles(or as big).

2. late game tedium, this is really the show stopper for me. i usually play until late middle ages before i just lose interest for some reason. i don't have any idea what it is, but it happens 90% of the time.

one question: i usually clear out jungles(which usually have coal/rubber) by the middle ages but if they are cleared out does the coal/rubber still appear there? iirc once jungle is grassland those things don't appear there which basically negates the value of jungles since they take so long to be turned into good terrain, and all their resources are lost.

[Hoek]

for the editor:

Include all the Cheat Menu options from Civ 2, not just place cities and units

Include a scripting language

Give Scenario-makers greater control over resource dispersion and use. I don't know if the editor does this already, but scenario makers should be able to modify special resource effects, prerequisites, units' resource requirements, and placement of special resources.

Allow some design capabilities for city improvements and wonders. This would be a great help to scenario makers.

[Harlan]

I'm going to concentrate all my comments right now to things that would improve gameplay, and save things needed for modding for later. TechWins, some of these are hard to categorize, cos they are both editing and general. I’ll let you sort that out, and hopefully cut down on my wordiness.

(contains editing)
1. There is a big problem with the late game play. One big reason for this is the tendency to create a large army of Workers, and then spend most of the game get bogged down in moving them around. Its the smart thing to do, but ultimately boring. Solution: one is only allowed one army per four cities. Make this limitation of number of a particular unit type per city be a generalizable flag that can be used for any unit. This way, you could limit the number of Workers in a civ, to say, 2 Workers per city, or even 1 Worker per city. Then creating a large mass of Workers late in the game becomes hard to do. It could also be very useful for modding in general - one could have very special units like the Commando or Paratrooper or whatever, that would be very limited in number.

(editing)
2. The ability to raze cities is completely broken. There needs to be an option to turn this feature off. Furthermore, if it is turned on, it needs to carry a very strong diplomatic penalty. The civ you do it to should go medieval on you. Other civs should be more wary of dealing with you.

(editing)
3. Also related to the too much movement of Workers problem - the ability to set the Road and Railroad bonuses for each terrain type. I would immedately turn bonuses off for Mountains, Jungle and Forest. Presumably both human and AI would then be smart enough to not build roads and railroads in these terrain types except when necessary for connecting cities. This reduces the tedious work Workers need to do, and is plain commonsensical - no country in the world put roads and railroads over every square inch of their mountain ranges, jungles and so forth.

4. Too many workers could still be a problem, even with the above #1. I've found when I conquer enemy cities, I often get tons of Workers in each city I conquer. Six to eight per city is not unusual. Then I end up with way more Workers than I even know what to do with. There are a number of ways to fix this. For instance, have Workers only capturable in the open, have a limit on the number of Workers you can get from one city, get the AI to move the Workers farther away than the nearest city when attacked, have Workers die in city assaults and bombardments, etc..

5. The way cities switch control is completely messed up. A city shouldn't just up and convert to another civ. The process should be gradual. If another civ's culture is affecting one of your cities, first one of your citizens in that city should switch to their culture, then another, then another. At a certain point, perhaps a majority foreign culture citizens, the whole city would be liable to switch over. This gradual process would allow the players to see their city was in danger, and try to deal with it, instead of it coming as a complete surprise.

6. Connected to the above point, the way cities you've conquered revolt is completely ridiculous. Completely without warning, your city and all units in it disappear. I've heard reports of people with over 100 units in a city that disappears. One solution: have an explicit unit ability to supress revolting citizens. For instance, each Infantry could supress the revolting power of one citizen. So if I’ve got 6 revolting citizens, I need 6 Infantry units in the city to guarantee it stays mine. Having only 4 would lessen the danger.

7. Even if point 6 is implemented, when a city revolts you shouldn’t mysteriously lose all your units. There needs to be a fight.

8. When a city is given over in a peace treaty, the citizens shouldn’t all of the sudden become “yours”. This makes no sense. Its not like if Russia conquered a Chinese city, the Chinese people there would suddenly all be Russian and speak Russian. This is especially imperative since many players are abusing this feature.

9. AI civs need to build fortresses along their borders and occupy them, instead of always just wandering around. The wandering is not only militarily more stupid, but also causes the AI turns to go by too slowly.

10. Colonies are completely broken. You’d have to be a fool to use them, except in some very rare cases. Part of the problem is that virtually every land space falls into someone’s borders sooner or later, so your Colony isn’t likely to last. Solution? Have a option that some tile improvements in and of themselves form borders, if connected to your current borders. So say I check that Roads and Railroads create their own borders. If I start building a road from my border area out towards a Colony, my border grows as the road grows out. Perhaps such tile improvements built outside your borders should take twice as long to build.

11. Game expansion is completely messed up. Right now, the game is all about expand or die. If the AI slows down this tendency, the human player could still proceed with ICS. What’s needed is a feature that will slow everyone down at some point. What’s needed is a penalty for building additional cities, and have that penalty affect not only the new city built, but ALL the cities in your empire. That was the problem with corruption as a growth limitation solution: you end up with completely useless cities, but they don’t cost you anything, so why not have them? They just end up being extremely frustrating.

Instead, have a hard city maximum for each government type. For each city above that limit, ALL of your cities get a little more unhappy. This way, players could still go over that limit some, but to do so would bring costs. You’d need to trade for more luxury goods, or build more happiness buildings or wonders, and even then there would be a limit. Extra nice: have the maximum vary by map size.

The result? Let’s say the maximum for Despotism was 8 on a particular map size. All civs would quickly expand to 8 cities or thereabouts, then stop. As an option, one could even prohibit the building of Settlers above your government type limit, so the only way to go over would be by conquest, and then you’d hit the unhappiness problem if you did that too much. Then, civs would start becoming Monarchies, and be able to build up to 12 cities, so another big wave of expansion would occur. Only in the late game would governments allow virtually limitless numbers of cities. Since there aren’t that many gvmt types in Civ3, reaching certain techs could also boost the numbers of cities you could have. This means that large parts of the map would remain unoccupied for long periods of time. Suddenly, Colonies become important! Let’s say you’re on a continent over twice the size you can max out to. The only way to reach some of those great resources is with a Colony.

(editing)
12. Right now, starting spots can be extremely unfair. One big problem is starting too far from an irrigation source. Just as there is a feature in the editor to mark off the distance between civs, there should be an option to mark the distance from irrigation source. So you could have everyone start near a river, or not.

13. First time the barbarians encounter an empty city, they should loot it for money. Second time, they should be able to conquer it, or destroy it, or have it turn into a barbarian camp - something. Otherwise, its too easy to leave cities unguarded - I don’t mind losing some money from time to time.

14. Size 1 cities should be destroyed sometimes if conquered, as in Civ2.

15. There should be an option to single click responses instead of clicking your answer and then having to click the OK button.

16. Already, people have found an easy way to win on Diety: using the “vassal” strategy. A little bit of this in the game is fine, but the way it works now only works cos the reputation part of the game is completely broken. Read this thread, and do something about it: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...3&pagenumber=1

17. The civs need to have more differentiated playing behavior. Right now it seems all are expansionist, first and foremost.

18. If terrain changes, either through deforestation or global warning, the resource on the terrain should disappear.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Harlan
1. There is a big problem with the late game play. One big reason for this is the tendency to create a large army of Workers, and then spend most of the game get bogged down in moving them around. Its the smart thing to do, but ultimately boring. Solution: one is only allowed one army per four cities. Make this limitation of number of a particular unit type per city be a generalizable flag that can be used for any unit. This way, you could limit the number of Workers in a civ, to say, 2 Workers per city, or even 1 Worker per city. Then creating a large mass of Workers late in the game becomes hard to do. It could also be very useful for modding in general - one could have very special units like the Commando or Paratrooper or whatever, that would be very limited in number.

With regards to your ideas about reducing worker micro-management.
After the patch is out, when you set your workers to Shift-A, they will not change your already existing mines, irrigation or forests. If there are no squares to improve, they just go to the nearest city and hybernate. When pollution rears its ugly orange head, the workers wake up and kill it, then go back to a city and hybernate again. A new set of options also allows you to not see your workers moving and working if automated, so you wont even have to watch them.

To cut that... already finished story ... short, you can have a large amount of workers at the end game, but NEVER have to command them, watch them work or even watch them move. If pollution occurs, they go and clean it, and then go safely back to a city. If your using captured workers, they dont even cost you. So with all due respect, i dont think Firaxis need to change the workers any more.

Ps: I like having the ability to move to any square in my empire without losing a movement point
Ugly shmugly
Pss: To cut down on the number of workers, use all your (built) workers to add to city population. Use slaves to clean pollution, finish off other tile improvements.

Now, back to your regular program

[Ekmek]

GENERAL IDEA

1) Bring back terraforming

2) Colonies. I like the colonies have a 1 square they do not get assimilated by your civ or any one elses, you have to pillage or disband them on your own

3) Airbases! although a mod is doing this but an improvement would be better. If anything, if the 1 sq idea for colonies is implemented also make colonies a place to land aircraft, they can work as airbases in late game.


EDITOR

1) Get rid of the CAP OF 8 on air units and air drops!

2) Allow for MORE TERRAIN IMPROVEMENTS (i.e. mines etc) and assign bonuses to the improvement and not the terrain.

3) Perhaps add a BARBARIAN PAGE so we can custom tribe names, barbarian units available in each era, etc.

[Akka]

General Ideas

- Alliance : as a MPP+RoP but stronger, override the MPP and ensure that your ally won't turn on you because of another MPP. Automatically trade the ressources you have in excess with your ally.

- MPP "targeted" : MPP that only work toward one civ. Would allow to form defensive alliance against a main ennemy without being dragged in a world war that you don't want to.

- (pure cosmetic change, VERY LOW PRIORITY) : more habitations in the city screen, I feel strange when my 8 millions metropolis has three skyscrappers and ten houses.

- possibility to chose "custom size" in the "custom world" screen at the start of a game.


Editor Ideas

- HP/FP back. No, really, I'm not a broken record

- Possibility to transform a unit into another unit under certain circumstances (experience statut, orders, tile it's upon...)

- Possibility to give technologies the capacity to change the overall corruption rate.

- Rather than chosing one of the five pre-set corruption levels for governments, possibilities to chose the form of the corruption (based on palace distance, based on number of cities, flat rate, etc...), the distribution of corruption (waste/corruption ratio) and the intensity (a precise number rather the different steps, with a possibility to put "no corruption at all").

- Support cost : a cost based on the unit, and then another cost based on the government (multiplier or additives). Allow to have several different support costs depending on the units.

[The Rook]

I have one suggestion, I don't think it's been mentioned, but I didn't read the entire thread.

Have the ability to name units individually. Instead of saying just "Tank," I could call it "101st Armored." I wouldn't name every unit I have, but that single legion that held back the raging Egyptians for 5 turns until reinforcements arrived, deserves a special name.

Also as mentioned above, swordsmen and such should be upgradable.

[El_Presidente]

*Idea*

How about Firaxis release a finished game. Y'know one that works. It's all very well releasing a beta version then patching it, but it's not really something you expect a 'respected' (*chortle*) development team to do. I look at the list of bug fixes and improvements there are so many, why could you not have spent a few more weeks in development and fixed before the retail release. It's very sad, I'd have thought that with all the great games Sid has made he'd (and Firaxis) would have the decency to treat their loyal fans with some respect.

Every time one of the Firaxis team posts a update everyone thanks them for keeping the community up to date, but I can't help but think, why should people support you when you blatently try to rip them off?

Mabye when you've fixed all the problems added some decent scenario support tools and added the MultiPlayer (without extra expense, as promised) I'll consider playing Civ3.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by El_Presidente
*Idea*

How about Firaxis release a finished game.

1. delete all posts in this thread that don't recommend changes


2. For scenarios, I can't believe you guys are leaving this out! We need the ability to specify improvements/wonders that can only be built by specific civs, just like we can for units.

[halley]

Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but there is a bug with the Airlift ability. It is similar to the Infinite Range Artillery bug. By holding down the Airlift "T" key, you can airlift to anywhere on the map, even onto enemy territory. If you airlift onto a square with enemy units or city, the game crashes.

[bahoo]

1. If a city chooses to defect, you should get an option to retreat your soldiers peacefully without incident, or to combat the revolters. This would create an incident with the country being defected to, and they would immediately get a number of partisans equal to the defecting population who would have to actually take over the city.

2. Coastal Fortresses primarily don't work because they only get passing shots, how often does a ship actually pass by, usually they pull up and bombard. I like the idea of the modern coastal fortress with a range of 2 and higher attack value. In addition to this coastal fortresses should be able to return fire any time they are bombarded to make them effective. As they stand now they rarely fire effectively.

3. As noted colonies should get a zone of control and should have to be militarilistically taken. I also feel fortresses should get a 0 border ZOC. That way if you build one and station troops there, if an opposing civ builds a city near it, it doesn't immediately accuse you of violating it's borders and committing an act of war.

[Asmodeus]

Hi,

here's a couple of ideas I dont think have been put forward yet:

Privateers - should have a small % chance to get spoils of war (small amount of gold) when they successfully sink a rival's galley/caravel/galleon. But maybe they should also have a small % chance that their crew will confess to which side they belong when sunk by rival warships.

Alpine Troops - like Marines but for Mountain warfare.
Combat Engineers - Only good for attacking against Forts.

Replenishment ship - will slowly repair other ships it is stacked with and or add a point of movement to non-nuke powered ships stacked together on the previous turn.

Missile Sub - like a nuclear sub but can carry missiles and has larger chance of being detected by ships.

I used to like the random events in SMAC perhaps some less dramatic ones would be suitable for Civ3 such as...

*Storms at sea - ships in affected Ocean squares (say a 10 square zone) could receive damage or sailing ships could be blown off course and recieve damage. Sinking them would probably be a bit mean though.

*Plagues - Cities (like I often end up with) that are stuck at pop 12 and dont have any Sanitation (Hospitals) could have a small % chance that plague will strike (like with Jungles but less chance).

*Crop failures/River Floods - interfere with food/production.

*Global Warming - have a % chance that land near the coast could become sea in the same way that plains can become desert.

*Volcanos - chance that a mountain will erupt damaging any units adjactent to it or if at sea then a small island is created.

[Furtigan]

move stacks
move stacks
move stacks
move stacks
move stacks
move stacks
move stacks
move stacks
move stacks
move stacks
move stacks
move stacks
move stacks
move stacks


Like in CTP 2

Ridiculous that this wasn't included.

[klesh]

Originally posted by Ray K
2. For scenarios, I can't believe you guys are leaving this out! We need the ability to specify improvements/wonders that can only be built by specific civs, just like we can for units.

This of course can be done via techs. But then one has to diable diplomacy (CivII-wise, in the events.txt) so that they key Civ-specific techs arent traded willy nilly. It would however be quite nice if we could do this in the CivIII editor and leave diplomacy alone. Seeing as diplomacy has the prospect of being a nice addtion, the ability should be left in.

-FMK.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Field Marshal Klesh


This of course can be done via techs. But then one has to diable diplomacy (CivII-wise, in the events.txt) so that they key Civ-specific techs arent traded willy nilly. It would however be quite nice if we could do this in the CivIII editor and leave diplomacy alone. Seeing as diplomacy has the prospect of being a nice addtion, the ability should be left in.

-FMK.

Actually, it can't be done with techs.

Only one tech can be used as a prereq for an improvement, so it would be impossible to create, say, an 'Eiffel Tower' wonder that the French can build when they get Steel. The prerequesite would have to be either Steel or the 'French' tech. It couldn't be both.

[klesh]

One would just need events scripting to do so. Let me exemplify:

France aquires 'Steel'.

@IF
RECEIVEDTECHNOLOGY
technology=XX (whatever 'Steel' is)
receiver=France
@Then
GIVETECHNOLOGY
reciever=France
technology= YY (special tech that allows for Eiffel Tower only)
@JUSTONCE
@ENDIF

You then make the 'YY' an unresearchable tech for any of the civs.

Maybe add in a little text message to spice things up...

@IF
RECIEVEDTECHNOLOGY
technology=YY
@THEN
TEXT
^France culture decides they'll make a Tour d'Eiffel... (or somesuch)
@ENDTEXT
JUSTONCE
@ENDIF

These are workarounds needed for designing with CivII, but you would hope that we could bypass all this with the editor functions. I hope so too.

-FMK.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Give an option in the editor to ENABLE ZOC AS IT WAS IN CIV 2 for fortresses, and coastal fortresses especially (perhaps a combination of and artillery hit and inability to move in the adjectant square too). that would make building fortresses meaningful again.

plus i would like an option in the editor for airplanes to behave as they did in civ 2 as well, but that has been mentioned already i think.

[Barshy]

I'd like to see:

The ability to move stacks of units.

The ability to rush build an improvement/unit DIRECTLY from the domestic advisor screen-- currently you can only change orders.

The option to turn off the option of being notified when a unit is built but turn ON the option of being notified when an improvement is finished.

[Admiral PJ]

I don't agree with number 4, in fact I think obsolete units should be available even if theres a better unit using iron or something, because cheaper units are often useful for defending small points.

Many Massed units can sometimes make good cannonfodder in battles to defend your borders or soften up enemy cities for capture.

As long as the AI dosen't get confused and only build the cheapest unit this should be ok.

In fact the cheap units should get cheaper as their use is commonplace and materials and technologies cheaper.

[player1]

I alredy posted this in onother thread, but I guess it sould go here.
It has to do with units obsolence:

-----------------
One question for FIRAXIS team
(SOREN or DAN please read & comment this)

It is regarding obsolete units. I think there are some design problems.
Since unit obsolence is tied to to trier upgradeability, some strange things happend in game.

For exampe Swordsmen & Longbowmen never dissaper, because they are not upgadeable, and thus not OBSOLETE.
Same thing happens to those Friagtes & Ironclads.

While Swordmen solution can be done by making them upgadeable to Riflemen (I hope in next patch), upgarding Frigate seems little unrealistic.

So if you can make unit obsolence not depended from upgadebility, then from ability to build new unit (for ex: I can build destroyers so my Ironclads are obsolete, but I can't upgarde tyhose Ironclads).

Also some similar problems happen when you have some special units.
Like:
-you can build Fighters with Americans, althought you can also build F-15
-you can build Pikemen with French, althought you can also build Mutketeers
-you can't upgrade Pikemen to Riflemen, nor to Musketemen (if not in Musketeers)

If Kinght does not have ZOC & Horsemen has, I think someone would like to build Horsemen and make ZOC, although he discovered Chivarly.
But, its not alowed, because of this upgardeability system, to keep building Horsemen.
-----------------

Some other things:
I think that Musketmen are much cost uneffective compared to Pikemen.
I mean for price of 2 Pikemen you build one Musketmen.
I think this can be solved by:
-decreasing cost of musketmen (or maybe also a rilfemen?)
-or by giving it an attack of 3

Tanks & Mech. Inf are not Wheeled. This is supposed to be BUG or not.
Having them wheeled would make them more strategicily interesting.

One a little not importand thing.
Can you make Riflemen Saltpeter dependent.
And after you dicover Industalisation them make them (and Cavalry also) non dependent.

I ask this because some starge things are happening in modern time:
Enemy in modern time has only a Horse resouce:
So he can only build Riflemen (Swor. & Long. also) and Kinght. A little starge combination. SO making Saltpeter Indusrialistion needed, this strage thing could be removed from game.

I could call this resource obsolence.


P.S.
Also, is is possibile to do Hotseat MP in patch (second or third)?
You did it in SMAC. Activision did it in CTP.

[TechWins]

Could somebody PLEASE give me the definition for the acronym MPP?

Well, I gave a new look to the Reference Post, but it only has a few minor updates from the last time I updated the Reference Post. I will be sure to update the Reference Post sometime this weekend, because right now I'm tired of doing it, and I want to do something fun instead.

[Stefu]

Well, I've got one wish, one more treaty: Border Treaty. After you sign this treaty with another civ, then nothing that civ does outside of conquest or revolution moves your cultural borders back, and nothing your civ does outside of conquest or revolution moves that civ's borders back. That might get rid of those annoying instances when the 'puter sees one free square of coastline at your continent and plops it's settler right down there.

Also, after border treaty has been signed, moving any combat unit - or a settler - at another civ's territory gives that civ right to declare instant war with the other civ being seen as the aggressor. This doesn't, of course, count for Right of Passage agreements, although it would be nice to prevent ROP agreements concerning settlers. No, Mister Lincoln, I most certainly do *not* wish to see you hitching your settlers across my land to build a city on opposite side of my empire, in position that isn't connectable with rest of your empire, just to prevent me from getting those luxuries I've planned on snagging for 5 turns.

[Sevorak]

A "Bombard Can Kill" flag in the units tab. Either on or off for each unit. Currently, only the Cruise Missile's bombard can kill. Let us choose to be able to have aircraft (or maybe not all aircraft, but only a few specific aircraft) sink ships/destroy land units.

-Sev

[Killerdaffy]

Two things:

Armies should be dissolvable / units unloadable (just enable the unload command). I sometimes might want to upgrade those 4 tanks I put into that army. It's even worse earlier in the game, e.g. with horsemen.


The AI hardly ever upgrades units. They frequently still have spearmen sitting next to mech infantry and that even though they built the workshop! I mean, what's the point of that wonder if it's not used? Plus, in the later game strategic resources often only become available for a while. When I conquer a saltpeter resource while knowing that I'll probably lose the city in another three turns I upgrade all my units immediately... Shouldn't be too hard for AI to understand. They tend to have too much cash on hand anyway.

[nato]

I don't think you can ask for such a long list of improvements and hope to see them actually happen in a patch.

Rather than presenting a long, intimidating, never-going-to-happen list, I think it would be better to decide on a very small number of very important things.

With AS fixed, there are only two things I really want, so these two are my nominations for the "short list" of fixes:

1. Stack Movement that is well implemented, not poorly done.

2. Losing units to culturally converting cities, specifically large armies to recently conquered cities.

My solution for # 2 is this: there is already a capability to move units out ...

Use the routine that kicks out units that are in another civ's territory, and are agreeing through diplomacy to peacefully be removed! Just use that routine to move units in the converting city out, instead of them just being vaporized.


I really like this idea because I think it could actually be doable from a programming perspective, and it would fix the problem. Sorry for the color, but I think its a good idea so I wanted to get some attention to it.

Thanks for reading.

[LeaninCowboy]

I think the game is perfect. Would however really like to see a diplomacy screen for ALL 16 civs.

[star mouse]

* Remove the memory leaks that are still present in the game.

* Include a diplomacy screen that can handle all 16 civs.

* Make the civilopedia accessible from the city screen, particularly when choosing troops or improvements to build.

* Fix the sound glitches.

* Allow troops to be moved in a stack.

* Make borders over forest, jungle and irrigation easier to see.

* Make it possible to upgrade some unique units (like war elephant)