Two fundimental problems with Civ3

The Rook · April 22, 2002, 14:00

You may think Civ3 is perfect, or you may be wondering why I could only think of two problems to address. Well, my answer is to both those questions is Civ3 is far from perfect, but it's still a great game. However, there are two things that bug me about it, and I wanted to break them down to their simplist forms, and hopefully give a simple solution for the problem. [Edit] I had to add another fundimental problem with the game. These are problems that can not be fixed with mods.

Colonies:

Colonies have been discussed before and everyone knows the deal with them. Some say there's nothing wrong with them, others think they are a waste of time. The basic problem with colonies is the ease in which they are absorbed. Hisorically, and game-wise, this does not make sense. A colony comes from a worker. If another Civ captured your worker, that would be an act of war. It seems that colonies are almost invisible to the other civs. All they see is the resource underneath, and they simply plop down a city to take it. You should at least get your worker back. The simple fix would be to make it so that a Civ will not put a city where it's starting radius will engulf a foreign colony. Now, if the city grows and then engulfs the colony, that's your own fault for letting it sit too long. At least this will give colonies some chance to be useful.

Tech Trading:

The trading of techs is not the problem in itself. The problem is the ease at which Civs can put the knowledge to good use. Europeans traded guns to the Native Americans, but that didn't mean the Indians could just start manufacturing them right away. I propose instead of trading the techs outright, you instead trade them the ability to research the tech faster. Maybe cut the time in half. So if the English trade gunpowder to the Iriquois, they wouldn't immediately be able to build musketmen. instead, when they go to research the new tech, they could do it in half the time.

AI Attitude:

Gracious, Polite, Cautious, Annoyed, and Furius. What do they mean? They certainly don't mean what a logical thinking person would think they would mean. If I were to apply these terms to the attitude of modern Nations towards the USA, I would say; Great Britian is Gracious, Spain is Polite, Russia is Cautious, China is Annoyed, and Iraq is Furious. Now, if Iraq attacked us, I wouldn't even blink an eye. I can see China too getting fed up and provoking a war. We may one day find ourselves at odds with Russia, but I don't think it will be anytime soon, and I wouldn't expect Spain to send troops our way. War with Britian seems so unimaginable at this point. So my question is? Why in Civ3 would a gracious nation sneak attack me? This just totally doesn't make any sense, and it takes a huge chunk of the fun in the game out. Part of what makes Civ3 fun is the diplomatic dealings that we must undertake. I don't have a quick fix for this one. I don't understand how the AI in Civ3 determines if it hates you or not. But, it would be something like this...

IF AI_NATION_ATTITUDE = "Gracious" THEN DECLARE_WAR = "Never"

nato · April 22, 2002, 14:12

I think your tech trading idea is very interesting.

It might really make a difference between civs who are near your level in tech, for whom the 1/2 cost would be useful, and primitive civs, who still would have to research all the intermediate techs before the 1/2 price would come into play. Might let some civs stay more backwards.

AJ Corp. The FAIR · April 22, 2002, 14:30

1.21f has improved things, but:

aiming for a TECH LEAD (from ancient on) is still simply IMPOSSIBLE on emperor/deity. A feature that has always been essential in civ games now isn't that valid anymore: playing emp/deity the strategy is buying, 100% buying !!!

Late industrial or early modern age you might try to aim for a tech lead

Making games increasingly difficult (levels) is a good thing, as long as ALL OPTIONS REMAIN AVAILABLE.

That simply isn't the case yet.

Not at all.

Why Firaxis, tell me why, are you killing this feature?

AJ

The Rook · April 23, 2002, 09:30

The tech race is definitely weghted against the human player. In my current game, I am number 1 in literacy, but I lag behind almost all other Civs because I can't afford their outrageous prices for the techs.

Cookie Monster · April 23, 2002, 10:22

The Rook:

Rock on dude with your views regarding colonies! I agree something must be done to make colonies a more viable and attractive method of getting resources before a city can be placed.

I think that maybe Firaxis didn't want us to take advantage of colonies and claim every resource on the map before the AI did. But the solution of having an existing citys' borders expand to absorb the colony makes sense.

Firaxis, this IMHO is worthy of looking into. The early game would significantly change if colonies were made more useful.

Nym · April 23, 2002, 10:30

Quote:

Originally posted by The Rook
The tech race is definitely weghted against the human player. In my current game, I am number 1 in literacy, but I lag behind almost all other Civs because I can't afford their outrageous prices for the techs.

It's the opposite for me. I think I am about the 9th (16 civs) for Literacy and still have one or two techs in advance (and I am about to complete the Theory of Evolution).

But in fact I'm only playing at Regent level.

Hurricane · April 23, 2002, 13:32

What? The topic says TWO fundamental problems with Civ3, and then you come dragging with 3!!! *Head blows up*

MosesPresley · April 23, 2002, 14:40

"One, two, four!"

"Three sir."

"Three."

Inverse Icarus · April 23, 2002, 15:08

abuot colonies, this fits in to my whole "military units should push back borders" theme. unprotected colonies should eb able to be absorbed, but if u have a unit on it they should be considered defended outposts and they shouldnt.

The Rook · April 23, 2002, 15:52

That could work too Uber.

I guess you can't edit the title of the entire topic.

Evil_Eric_4 · April 23, 2002, 19:00

Hey Uber--
Love your avatar, man.lol

Coracle · April 23, 2002, 19:07

Only three "Fundamental Problems"??

How about seventy-three?

Do we need a reposting of Zykla's theses, and others?

Skanky Burns · April 23, 2002, 21:24

They are not fundamental problems.

The three that Rook stated were.

and btw Rook, if you PM (personal message) a moderator, you can ask them to change the title for you.