Am I the only one who doesn't kill kill kill?

[Maccabee2]

quote: Originally posted by Sparky on 03-25-2001 04:59 PM Also, Civ3 could expand environmental issues beyond "smokestacks." Sanitation and deforestation have been problems since before the Greeks (By 400 BCE, they already had to sail to Thrace in search of more ship-quality timber for oars. The Romans so deforested northern Lybia that it has become the desert we know today -- the result was that silt clogged ports as far away as Ostia, Italy). Wouldn't you think that working a forest square would eventually leave it baren?

Sparky, I like this idea, too. Can I persuade you to start a seperate topic on this? I think it's well worth discussing. Perhaps a woods tile would be deforested after its been worked *continuously* for a certain number of turns, say 10, 20, 30, or 50. If its near enough desert tiles, then yes, it would become desert also. If its near mostly grassland, then it would become grassland, and likewise for plains. This would reflect the gradual evolution of cities and empires in wooded areas to land that is fit only for pastures and farms. Thus, if one moved ones workers around occasionally (allowing the land to rest and recover), the forests could grow back to their original fullness and reflect the rewards of wise land use.
Mines however, would not be renewable. Resources like gold, jade, oil, could be exhausted after a certain number of turns (100? or so?) being worked, continuously or not. This would drive empires to seek out new sources of these non-renewable raw materials. (This is part of what drove Europe to explore and colonize in the 15th -19th centuries, and also what drove Germany and Japan in WW2, being late comers to the colonization game when it was no longer acceptable by the community of nations.)

[Maccabee2]

[quote]Originally posted by Chronus on 03-26-2001 12:10 AM


I really feel that the Civ II model is just fine for combat with the exception of unit stacking. One unit defending for all is a bit absurd. They should all be able to attack as one group as well. Once this is fixed, I think simply adjusting the current numbers (attack/defense/hit points etc.) can resolve most of the peculiarities we have now. Please, no more new statistics and/or hundreds of new units. DOH! Okay, let's add the Range Attack value (from CTP) and bombardment ... but that's it! (Sheesh, and to think that I advocate simplicity!)


By the way, can we tone down the tech stealing ability? It sometimes make research a moot idea. Or perhaps a spy/diplomat unit can be eliminated when it fails instead of merely sitting there outside of the city or getting expelled.

Well said. I agree with both of these suggestions whole-heartedly. Spies who fail blow their cover, and should either automatically die or be spirited back to their empire's territory, and that's if their lucky as a cat. Also, civs who routinely spy should lose favor points with other civs. Nobody trusts a sneak.

[Maccabee2]

[quote]Originally posted by MBloomIII on 04-03-2001 02:41 PM
Disbanding of a military unit should also add a population point to a city since these people could contribute to the overall economy rather than strictly peacekeeping.

MBloom is right on the money. This is precisely what should be done. I never quite understood the idea that disbanding a unit added to the production only once. If the unit will subtract a population unit to build, then conversely it should add a population unit when disbanded, in a city that is.

[Maccabee2]

quote: Originally posted by Zanzin on 03-26-2001 12:55 AM I've mentioned in other threads, that Civ3 should be a game that encompasses all aspects of a civilization, rather than focusing on one or two (like war, or trade (as others sem obsessed with doing)) War is an important part of the game that can't be disregarded. I like Chronus' idea that there will be other civs out there hell bent on destroying me for the purpose of expanding borders. The best way, i believe, for the game to reflect the problems inherently associated with war is that when you build a unit, you loose one population...this will reflect a strain on production (less production because your men have gone off to fight etc). In CTP1/2, war was the only fun part of the game for me (I don't know how others felt - personally, I didn't feel inspired to finish the game any other way). We must remember that war has it's merits - it's a good way to expand your borders, and in early times, Greece/Roman empires, this was how they expanded. It also has it's downsides. Lets pray Firaxis can find the right balance (And not forget about other aspects of the game as well)

Zanzin, I especially like your argument that sending troops off to fight should reflect a reduction in production output because it takes away working men from their jobs. Is Firaxis listening?

[Stuff2]

Most of the time i'm a peaceful leader, but when other civs starts getting too unfriendly i grab a few cities from them just so i can keep ahead of them. In late game capturing an enemy city is almost the only way to get a peacetreaty. Somehow I simply have to totally wipe out the most militaristic civs in order to get some peace of mind, since they start war against me and kill my settlers and caravans every other turn. I think one thing that should change in civ3 is the other civs attitude against you. No more, "all against the strongest after 1750 AD". The Ai should only start war when they think it can be beneficial.

[Gramphos]

I want a SimCiv mode (kind of the opposite to bloodthirst) that makes it harder to all (both human and AI) civs to get large.
[This message has been edited by vgriph (edited April 13, 2001).]