a couple my thoughts

[Ridock The Savage]

dont crucify me if these have been mentioned...dont have the time to read this whole forum...what with conquering the world and all...

Stealth Bombers are really just nuclear weapon delivery systems. So you should be able to load a nuke(not an ICBM) onto one of these puppies fly it deep into enemy lines and drop it on their heads BTW, use of nuclear weapons should have a lot more effect on world views and global climate effects...the taregt city should be completely destroyed and and the area around it shouldn't be usable for many many years. however, the consequencies of using nukes should be high as well...could cause a revolt..over throw your gov, other nations condemn, all foreign trade to you is cut off.....I dunno just have something that makes peeps think 4 t or 5 times b4 they decide to use them. and for christ sake, they are a deterant, please have them deter some of the time.

Stealth Fighters are really guided missile delivery systems. Unless your talking about the F22 which doesnt have full stealth capability, but only incorperates a few features of an F-117. Have you ever heard of an F-117 in a dog fight? And why do we go from prop planes to stealth fighters? what happened to the jet engine tech? i know it could probably be considered as a part of rocketry because they are basically the same thing only difference is jet get their O2 from air whilst rockets carry onboard supply. but still methinks the jet engine should be a seperate tech.

when a nation experienes a civil war, the 2 sides emerging should be called North-Whatever and South-Whatever, or East/West whatever applies. Instead of England torn by civil war, the soiux nation emerges.

more diplomacy options. for instance:

1)You can make alliance pacts(to stop "CivNameHere" Aggression) with other civs in the same way the AI does when you happen to be doing better than you should.

^and that should only happen when your really being aggressive not just when you're doing too good domestically.

2)Capable of threatening war for various reasons. Like stop attacking so and so or I will be forced to intervene.

3)Other kinds of pacts - like pollution pacts, disarmement pacts, nuclear arms reduction pacts stuff like that, use of territory and cities, research pacts

4)Make it easier to aide other nations. Somtimes I want to help other nations out while not getting directly involved in the conflict. I mean...I tried to help out a nation that was be destroyed and they "dont need my inferior weapons" when they have like 12 units left.

5)Capable of thretening nuclear attack if you need to

6)well defined borders..dont have any ideas exactly how to achieve this but def needed

hmm...been up all night playing Civ2 and am barely coherant....^thats my rambling will add more later



------------------
[FOR RENT] Luxurious 4 bedroom 2 bath signature space, excellent neighborhood, $1500/mnth OBO

[Tical_2000]

I agree with your views as stealth planes as weapons delivery systems but if Stealth Bombers launch nukes and Stealth Fighters launch cruise missiles, what happens to conventional air warfare (what do you defend your city from air strikes with?)Do you suggest that a SAM missile battery be the only defence to a missile attack or do you think that air-to-air warfare be totally eliminated from the game?

[UltraSonix]

I'm the opposite. I think the rather unsophisticated missile and stealth bomber in Civ2 is enough.

That said, I love the diplomacy suggestions! I'm a real sucker for improving diplomacy - I think it's one of the major areas of improvement...

I just found this too funny... suits a poster from the US!

quote: 2)Capable of threatening war for various reasons. Like stop attacking so and so or I will be forced to intervene.

And I was just wondering:

quote: 5)Capable of thretening nuclear attack if you need to

When you have nukes you don't need to threaten!

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary... (And no, koalas don't usually speak!)

[DrFell]

i agree with the diplomacy improvements they definitely need an upgrade, as they are theyre too restrictive. you should definitely be able to request/demand that a nation makes stops attacking another. i find alliances in civ2 annoying when i get forced into stupid wars by my allies. plus i get a reputation hit when i ccept my allies demand to declare war - this just seemed stupid.

[N35t0r]

yeah, the diplomacy system could be MUCH improved, but current tech. is very far away from allowing man-like AIs.


I do think that stealth fighters and bombers are good the way they are, but certain troops should be able to "bombard" like in CTP. Also, SAM missile batteries should take more "active" rolls, and be able to attack aircraft if they fly above them...

[airdrik]

quote: Originally posted by UltraSonix on 11-17-2000 08:52 AM I just found this too funny... suits a poster from the US!

You don't know how right you are. If ever a big nation tries to step on a little nation the United States of America MUST intervine because that's our duity as the most powerful nation in the world.

Even I, a US citizen find it funny.
[This message has been edited by airdrik (edited November 17, 2000).]

[DarkCloud]

The UN should be implemented; and I would bump it or link to it... if I could find it; oh wait here it is:
Election to the U.N.

[Maccabee2]

Right on, Ridlock. I especially like your ideas about improving diplomacy. China, get yer mitts off Taiwan! :b

[Ribannah]

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 11-17-2000 12:26 PM You don't know how right you are. If ever a big nation tries to step on a little nation the United States of America MUST intervine because that's our duity as the most powerful nation in the world.

So how come this almost never happens?

And fortunately so, I'd say. A single country, no matter how powerful, should never be the police of the entire world, (1) placing itself above others and (2) having to face the dire consequences.

Stealth Bombers with nuclear weapons are of little use for this task anyway, as you cannot deploy them.

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

[airdrik]

It was a figure of speach, we don't get involved with every conflict because we don't have the resourses. But we do, for some odd reason, try to get involved in as many as we can. Examples are Vietnam, Kosovo, etc. according to Monroe doctorine, back in the late 1800's we were the 'police' of the americas. I don't know about all of these examples because there are probaby a lot that are secret and the general public is not supposed to know about.

[Ribannah]

Huh? The "big nation" stepping on Vietnam WAS the USA (following France). And it was the NATO that intervened in Kosovo, not the USA.

The policing the USA was doing in Central America was again stepping on nations all by itself (Mexico, Panama), followed by the more "subtle" course of supporting dictators against the will of the people.


------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

[Shogun Gunner]

quote: Originally posted by Ribannah on 11-21-2000 07:13 PM Huh? The "big nation" stepping on Vietnam WAS the USA (following France). And it was the NATO that intervened in Kosovo, not the USA. The policing the USA was doing in Central America was again stepping on nations all by itself (Mexico, Panama), followed by the more "subtle" course of supporting dictators against the will of the people.

Correct, Ribannah. The Monroe Doctrine specifically applies to North, Central and South America only. Quite frankly, this is a completely useless document. I would be surprised if any non-Americans had any respect for a document like this. It's merely a thinly veiled threat to keep European powers out of our business dating back to early 1800's. It's kinda like those Civ II messages during the diplomacy screens demanding "Remove your troops, or suffer the consequences..." Somehow, we have continued our "Manifest Destiny" by getting involved in the Middle East, Afghanistan (covertly), Southern Europe, Africa...what's next Antartica? BTW, I don't think we successfully "stepped on" Vietnam. France didn't either.

Three things I think everyone agrees with
1. Yes, stealth bombers are for pinpoint strikes (nuclear or not) not carpet bombing like WWII or the B-52's over North Vietnam. Civ III would be well served having a few changes with the air power rules and units. I agree here with Ridock.
2. Anytime someone has a suggestion for improving AI -- I agree with it. It will substantially improve Civ III as a complete game if they make the AI improvements.
3. More realistic rules about nuclear war. We all are sick of seeing the Mongols or the Zulus develop the Manhattan Project and the frantic builds of SDI. Heaven help you if you don't have laser! Man, do they love nukes!!!!! When I see that development, I start digging my fallout shelters.

Does anyone think it's possible to introduce Ribannah's idea of "puppet regimes" or subverting foreign governments into Civ III?

[Ribannah]

quote: Originally posted by Shogun Gunner on 11-21-2000 10:41 PM BTW, I don't think we successfully "stepped on" Vietnam. France didn't either.

Very true. Of course the most remarkable action came afterwards when China sent in an army of 1,000,000 soldiers from the north - who all got lost in the jungle without food, never finding the Vietnamese. Chunks of that army never saw China again ... .

quote: Anytime someone has a suggestion for improving AI -- I agree with it. It will substantially improve Civ III as a complete game if they make the AI improvements.

Hear, hear!

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire
[This message has been edited by Ribannah (edited November 22, 2000).]