What part of Civ3 needs the most improvement in a patch?

[lawren8]

I voted for other
Inherited unhappiness from AI pop rushing/drafting needs to go. Otherwise razing is the only option.

I'd also add that razing is too easy

[lawren8]

Originally posted by BillChin
My wish list includes:
fixing the pop rushing loophole (one turn delay after joining before rushing)

I would propose a solution that only normal and happy
people can be rushed (no rushing using specialists or
unahppy). So once a city builds up unhappines, no rushing.

[korn469]

hey have any of you guys at firaxis seen this yet?

[SpencerH]

There seems to be an overwhelming majority of posts that support the reduction of AI tech trading. While I agree that it makes the tech race pointless, if it is reduced we'll have to be able to speed up science or else we'll never get to the modern era before the game ends. Wont that take us back to CIV2 and the problems with overwhelming the AI with superior units? I'm not necessarily against that concept, but sometimes it was a little easy to steamroll the AI. Perhaps somewhere in between would be better and I suspect that is what was intentioned by the developers.

[rpodos]

Cultural expansion should take place at differing rates, subject to land type, encroaching civs, etc.

Think about Siberia: a relatively small number of smallish cities control HUGE swaths of territory.

This would balance AI behavior from appr. early industrial on, which is when it falls apart.
______________________

And then there's everything else. My biggest issues are with:
Air and naval - I just don't bother
Trade - Bring back caravans!!
Wonders - There should be a way for multiple cities to contribute

Lastly, and I know this can be fixed just using the editor, the AI civs are not aggressive enough (with the exception of that bastard Bismarck!!).

R

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Originally posted by korn469
hey have any of you guys at firaxis seen this yet?

I'm sure of it.

They'e working on it like crazy!

They want to astonish everyone: soon coming up with a patch that will launch Civ3 to be an instant classic for the next decades ...

What else could they have been doing recently?

Firaxis/Infogrames, most of us have bought your unfinished game.

Now get it right ASAP!!!
Hire more programmers and focus on whatever it takes to turn the game into a worthy civ-sequel.

Right now it just isn't!

I'll inform you about this one: better get it right soon!

If not, I won't buy a game by your hands ever again!

I'll support piracy toward your company instead.

Heck, if you're not progressing fast on the needed changes, I'll talk 100 others into 'boycotting' (is this correct English?) you're actual and future projects.

Don't mess with your clients/consumers or we'll turn against you!

The time it takes for you to alter the crappiness you've programmed just takes too much!!!

Man, you won't get any cent from me anymore, you hear?

D Day for next patch = end of March.

Don't continue ripping me off!!!!

AJ

P.S.: Civ3 ain't bad, but the obvious faults/errrors must be edited ASAP, ASAP, ASAP, ASAP, ...

Just get to it!

[FeathersMcGraw]

Things I'd love to see, in no particular order:

1) The computer must learn to move units by groups (okay, this one comes first). I'm running an Athlon 750 -- no, it's not state of the art, but I would think it's fast enough that enemy moves on a large map shouldn't take two to three minutes per turn.

2) I love the expanded trading system in theory, but the practice leaves much to be desired.

- If I have armies of cavalry and riflemen facing my opponents armies of longbowmen and pikemen, it should enhance my bargaining position when I demand tribute.

- Right of passage agreements are essentially useless, given the AI's wholesale ignoring of borders anyway, especially in light of their trigger-happy annoyance of infringement of their territory (which makes early-era sea exploration a pain, since you typically need to stay close to the shore, thereby committing yourself to infringing on large contiguous areas of enemy territory).

- Maybe I need to do more reading here, but I can't figure out how the computer determines the worth of a trade. All I know is that the terms that I am forced to agree to in order to achieve any sort of trade are hugely in favor of the other civilization, regardless of the relative power or rank of the civilizations involved.

3) I have sufficient workers to eliminate pollution in a single turn, yet the indicator for global warming always increases. Pollution isn't effectively reducible until late in the Modern Age. Is the world just supposed to be environmentally decimated?

4) Again, maybe I'm pursuing the wrong strategies, but I've been running a peacetime Republic since early in the game, building lots of cultural improvements and wonders, and I still can't achieve any sort of "real" timeline with regard to the technology tree. And this is only on Warlord. Specialists aside from entertainers are useless, and I can't trade with other countries because I'm more advanced than they are in technology. In seeking to prevent the "future technology by 1500 AD" games of prior Civ versions, they've crippled the ability of suboptimal players to even match history, let alone surpass it. Yes, I'm a lousy strategist. That's why I'm playing at the lower levels. At least let me get somewhere.

5) I miss the ability of Civilization II to create city or city square improvements which increase the productivity of suboptimal squares (the Offshore Platform, for example). Sure, I understand the creators didn't want farmland anywhere, but get over it -- it's going to happen. Instead, we reach a point where city development reaches a peak, and nothing you can do will let it go further, which means the late game is full of stagnation, since neither the terrain nor the city production can be effectively tweaked to produce much more than minimal changes.

6) Eliminating zone of control makes border management almost impossible. While denying the enemy use of transportation while in enemy territory is a good step, that and the relatively weaker stature of military units in this game necessitates larger standing armies, which I find to be a management chore.

Stuff I'd like to see:

1) An effective reputation system. The concept of reputation already exists in the game, but let it have tangible effects on trade negotiation. If you deal honorably with your rivals, let it provide better trading terms for you. If you backstab all the time, then others should exact higher prices, or perhaps not even deal at all.

2) As a corollary to 1), frequent border infringements should devalue reputation. I am so incredibly sick of civilizations sending settlers across my land to settle in that one hill in the midst of mountains that my culture hasn't expanded to cover (and I don't think having to dedicate military to all of those squares is a reasonable solution).

3) Let the opportunity fire from fortresses either be more frequent or more effective. As it is, a swarm of invaders can stream by and only the first couple of incursions (if any) pay any sort of price.

I love the new features made to the game (the overhauled resource model in particular), but so many of the seemingly tried-and-true mechanics of the previous games in the series have been tossed by the wayside that I find myself completing far, far fewer games than I begin.