The EC3X List

korn469 · May 2, 2002, 13:10

Here is the words that started it all (thanks Raingoon) and with the announcement yesterday it appears that the time for an expansion pack list has finally come!
__________________________________
The Essential Civ 3

Last year Apolyton members produced The List, a 500 page document sent to Firaxis that included innumerable suggestions for Civ 3. By following a credo of "If Only One Idea..." that list was successful in getting at least some of its ideas into the game prototype at Firaxis, and perhaps more.

The problem, if there was one, is that 500 pages of ideas can't possibly be included in the game. Also, it doesn't give anybody a clear idea of what MOST fans think Civ 3 should look like. The Essential Civ 3 list will. The EC3 will reveal to Firaxis and fans alike what the majority of players believe are the ten most essential changes for Civ 3.

The EC3 is not intended to be just a list of ideas. It is a list intended to give a unified vision. Where The List told everything players want, the EC3 will clarify what players value. Something the designers can refer to as a guide when weighing the thousands of suggestions. And something to give the fans the confidence of knowing that, if nothing else, at least we showed 'em what we wanted.

The EC3 demands that each fan who participates ask themself the hard question, "What is the ONE THING I want to see in Civ 3?" By doing that, where the List was 500 pages, the EC3 will be ONE PAGE (well, about). So welcome, and whether this is your first time here or whether you're a seasoned veteran, we want your ideas!
__________________________________

I propose we follow the same basic proceedure for the expansion pack list list, except each person can only nominate one idea. So from now until May 30, 2002 I think that we should have a nomination and discussion thread, and then starting on June 1st and lasting through June 6th we should vote on the ideas and then send firaxis an ordered list on friday June 7th 2002

Each idea should be 150 words or less, and be as easy to understand as possible.

Comments?

Gramphos · May 2, 2002, 13:19

I wish you good luck.

It was a very good introduction, lets see if the ideas can be as good. I'll have to think some more before defining mine.

wrylachlan · May 2, 2002, 14:01

I would love to see an "Attack Group" Function that would allow you to group dissimilar military units together and move them as one. The attack group would allow you to group in air units as well, and when the attack group moves, the air units automatically rebase to the closest possible base.

Furthermore, you don't need to micromanage a group's attack. You simply attack with the whole group and the units automatically attack in the right order.

1.) Fighter planes set up a perimeter.
2.) The bombers come in.
3.) Artillery
4.) Attack by the strongest attacking units.

If your attack is successful and there are units with remaining movement points you get a pop-up which gives you the choice of staying together and loosing the movement points, or splitting up, and the ones whose movement points are used up will catch up and regroup the next turn.

Note that attack groups do not have the same ability as armies, each unit in the attack group still attacks as an individual.

I feel that the ability to macromanage large groups of troops would make the endgame much less tedious.

Alex · May 2, 2002, 14:13

korn, it is a good idea, but we don't know how much effort Firaxis has already put on the expansion pack.

MarkG · May 2, 2002, 14:27

korn, your enthusiasm and positive look is something some people should have instead of their bitterness

still with a release date highly possible in the next few months there is incredibly little that can be changed.

even more, as we dont have release date, nor do we have a list of features that have actually been decided, making such a list would be like trying to drawing smileys on water

Capt Dizle · May 2, 2002, 14:33

Just go back to what SMAC was and the game will be improved 1000%.

Its like the difference between a Sally and **** primer and War and Peace.

Capt Dizle · May 2, 2002, 14:35

Umm... that was Sally and D*I*C*K strangely enough not censorsed by my primary school teachers.

MarkG · May 2, 2002, 14:37

your primary school teachers were not php scripts

Kyle · May 2, 2002, 14:41

Quote:

Last year Apolyton members produced The List, a 500 page document sent to Firaxis that included innumerable suggestions for Civ 3.

Jeez, it was that big? If I were with Firaxis, I doubt I would've gotten even halfway through that.

If it can be kept to one page, I'm sure that would go over much better with Firaxis.

korn469 · May 2, 2002, 17:25

Quote:

still with a release date highly possible in the next few months there is incredibly little that can be changed.

even more, as we dont have release date, nor do we have a list of features that have actually been decided, making such a list would be like trying to drawing smileys on water

it is doubtful that a single suggestion might make the cut, however, i do have hope that they will and this hope comes from personal experiance

i noticed in the editor that setting naval to treat all terrain as road had no effect, i emailed firaxis about it, and they changed it because it was a fairly simple small thing to change, i also emailed them about a number of other changes and they didn't change those, but they are at least willing to work with the fans to some degree, and i think that realworld deadline and funding levels hinders them more than anything else

Civ3 didn't meet my expectations, but i don't think any game could have met those expectations, yet it is still a good game, and firaxis has supported it and listened to the fans

here are a few things i can think of right off the top of my head

*peaceful golden ages
*upgrading to CSUs
*the naval thing i just mentioned

and i know there are more

i think as long as just one really good idea makes it into the expansion pack, then it's missioned accomplished

Jon Shafer · May 2, 2002, 17:42

I think a couple things ought to be changed as far as war and combat goes, and many other things, but due to the constraint of this thread, I'll limit my focus to things that have to do with war.

1) There should be some way to blockade a country with your navy beyond hindering their harbors to prevent trading of a strategic resource or luxury. Especially since this can be bypassed by going through the harbors of one of your neighbors. Giving ships the ability to blockade a coastal city and cut down on the revenue they (and maybe more internal cities) generate would make ships much more valuable. Yes, you can launch planes from an aircraft carrier, but in reality the scope of naval blockades went far beyond this.

2) I have to agree with wrylachlan on that there should be a better way to manage military units. Not giving the special abilities of an army, but some way to organize them better beyond simple hotkey grouping. The vast number of units you have to deal with later in the game makes things very tedious with the way things are now.

I'll leave things at that for now. Oh, and sorry for the 1 extra word over 150.

Adm.Naismith · May 2, 2002, 19:21

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
still with a release date highly possible in the next few months there is incredibly little that can be changed.

even more, as we dont have release date, nor do we have a list of features that have actually been decided, making such a list would be like trying to drawing smileys on water

Nice image, now would you paint and make available the relevant "smile on water" to use it in posts, please?

Sure, it's already too late. We spent months or years making suggestions. Many where quite near to the released game, but we haven't many hints about the reason Firaxis chosed not to implement them in game.

Just a few examples: artist/science/industrial great people where left on the design board, while only ground great military leader survive with mixed powers and half baked results (IMO).

What stopped Firaxis to add at least great admiral (same effect of current ground leader, but on ships and city on the shores)? And what about great Ace of skies, for airplanes "Air Wings like" effects?

Well, what's done is done. I have some little hope left just in case the announced new "turnless multiplay mode" is anything different and fresh and not a renamed RTS mode.

Of course, if you can use it too in single play mode like (against AI only opponent), that is!

Jon Shafer · May 2, 2002, 20:40

I'm quite anxious to find out what that turnless multiplayer is all about. It seems like it would be quite a bit of work to get things to work right. How would units move? Would there be a certain amount of time it took each unit to move between spaces? How would this affect player-created scenarios and mods? I just hope it's worked on a bit more than the game itself was. I can't hardly play the game for more than a half an hour without one bug or another ending my game.

The_Aussie_Lurker · May 2, 2002, 21:58

I know that you only want ONE thing Korn, but I have a few things I'd like to see in the game, which would be reasonably easy to do in an XP!

1) Allow Cease-Fires in peace negotiations (between War and Peace)-standard duration 20 turns, and you lose repect with other civs if you break it early!

2) Allow units to base in the cities, carriers, transports and fortresses of your allies!

3) Remove more of the hard coding from the editor functions, and introduce a scenario scripting language!

4) Bring back Civil Wars!! (see the Civil War thread for more details on how it should be different from Civ2 and Civ1 CW's)

5) Probably not possible, but make the resource dissapearance ratio based on the number of cities in your empire (Divided by the number of that resource you have!)
Anyway, there it is!!
Note of course that, if none or only some of these things are included, I'm not going to rant and rave and scream "I wuz robbed!!" These are merely my wish-list I feel will significantly improve an already FANTASTIC game!! I just hope that we will always continue to get patches, for the standard game and the XP, AS WELL!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

civman2000 · May 4, 2002, 13:12

As wrylachlan mentioned, a CTP-like joint attack system would be great

notyoueither · May 4, 2002, 14:46

Can you guess my one wish?

Anti aircraft abilities for ships and ground units.

Spiffor · May 4, 2002, 17:56

I agree with the idea of less micromanaging attacking units. I love it !

Now, 4 SMAC features I'd love to see (italics for those I want badly) :
- trade units
- defend your allies' cities with your own units. (based on the worker-trading model)
- try to stop conflict between 2 other civs.
- enhance UN, with votes about several things (such as pollution reduction, sanctions against atrocities etc.)
Overall, I think Civ3 has a great diplomatic potential, I'd love to see it fully used.

ScreamingViking · May 4, 2002, 19:07

I agree with Spiffor on the diplomatic and peacekeeping functions, though I've never played SMAC. That could be a new Civ characteric - peaceful. They could start the game with The Wheel, being a well-travelled civ, and have a special advantage like special treaty abilities.

I would also like to see the stacked unit/armies more widely used. Especially near the endgame when Artillery units are more tedious that useful.

Civil Wars- splitting 1 Civ into 2. Love this idea from Civ1/2!

One thing I also loved about Civ2 was the accelerated start up to 2000 BC. Sure, it had loopholes (like the almost endless roads that could join the two starter cities), but properly done, it could eliminate one of my biggest pet peeves in Civ3: the tedious start up to 1000 BC-1AD.

alva · May 4, 2002, 19:14

for me it's the infinite railroad thingy :-(
i Really do hope they will give us an alternative use on
that one:-)

ScreamingViking · May 4, 2002, 19:20

Or how about making border violations (something the AI does all of the time) a larger transgression? This would help players on the cultural and diplomatic tracks.

notyoueither · May 4, 2002, 19:31

Good one alva. I'd forgotten about that one.

TechWins · May 4, 2002, 20:07

Well I kinda have three wishes but two of them tie in together:

1) The AI needs to be more realistic and smarter about it's choices of where to settle. The AI settles in ridiculous areas far too many times.

2) The AI needs to be more realistic and smarter about entering another Civ's territory. The AI has little to no regard for opposing Civs' territory.

3) An option in the editor to change the movement rates for railroads.

The third wish is my 'hopeful' wish, and probably the most probable wish of being fulfilled. While the other two are musts for me. The other two are the two primary things that hinder my Civ3 experience. It's not because it makes the game any harder, yet, it makes the game so much more annoying.

EDIT: Didn't notice Alva's post, sorry. But Korn knows that I have wished for this for a while now.

Malthis · May 4, 2002, 20:10

My suggestion for your list to Fraxis:
The ability to fortify units within foriegn cities of which you have both a mutual protection pact and right of passage would make this game MUCH more interesting.
Reason:

1. You no longer have to give technology to your primative pikeman allies just so they can have Rifleman protection.

2. Games will rarely end with two massive countries facing off against the other.

3. Diplomacy becomes a better tool for world peace. Diplomacy is refined!

4. Like Nato, there could be a powerful alliance not for attack, but for defence.

5. Weakling allied nations, usually swallowed up or barely alive by the modern era besides your best eforts, will still be around.
As it stands, when aggressor nations are threatening to become superpowers through conquest, little countries are run over. Once run over there is no chance of recovering these small but important buffers and the aggressor nation stands to gain permenent dominance.

Here are a list of changes neccessary to make this work.

1. As per #4 above, a subtle yet powerful change must be made in the Mutual Protection Pact agreement. These pacts were originally for mutual protection, but more often end as Mutual Agression. In real terms, it would be as if America attacked Mexico cause they wanted more tacos. Then England, France, Canada...ect all declared war on Mexico as a result of Mexico defending itself. Dumb.
The change is when a CIV that you have a mutual protection pact with Starts a war, you get a pop-up that allows you to pull out of the pact. The pop-up could read:
Your allies, the "_", have started a war with the "_". Do you wish to continue in a Mutual Protection Pact with them?
This way you can make pacts without fear that your ally will draw you into a conflict that you would never have entered. Most AI driven countries will pull out unless they were on the verge of war with that country anyway. The Militaristic AI of course would never pull out of a MPP simply because their ally started a war, and that could be implimented as well.

2. The AI should recognize (only during war) that an allied city is like thier own, and therefore move troops in as needed with factors such as proximity to enemy forces, city size/importance, and current troop # comming into the equation. Of course allied cities would still be less important than thier own, and a cap of 2(arbitrary) units in an allied city should be imposed for the AI.

3. Liberation effect. If an allied city is taken, there starts a 20(arbitrary) turn period. If in that time it is retaken by an ally, the city REVERTS back to the original CIV. Now, I know what you're thinking...you LIKE to retake cities and own them.

Just remember, the pendulum swings both ways... and when an ally liberates one of your cites, you'll be thanking me for this suggestion. It also reinforces purpose #5 above.

Finally, I realize the changes are big, as far as testing for proper gameplay goes, but the rewards are worth it IMHO. I would LOVE to play the world's Police, kinda like the US (or debatably the U.N.) sending troops to cities that may be at risk. FUN!

Sorry the message was so long, but this needed extensive detailing. I think it's conprehensive, but feel free to add or subtract if you find good reasons.

ScreamingViking · May 4, 2002, 20:14

Yeah, I wish I had a nickle for every time a rival civ dropped a city on my home continent in some god-awful spot (near an ocean, but not able to launch ships, 2 squares away from another city, in the the middle of a mountain range with no grasslands, etc.).

GeneralTacticus · May 4, 2002, 20:33

1) SMAC-style ability to stck your troops w/ other Civs and enter their cities.

2) A commerce model that includes something more than just resource trading (again, like SMAC).

3) Allow various agreements such as alliances, MPPs, peace deals etc to include more than two Civs.

4) Expanded U.N.

5) Ability to add techs, units, Civs etc in the Editor without crashing the game.

Hrafn · May 4, 2002, 22:03

One XP disk will allow two computers in a home lan to play...

Since I don't have the game yet, this is all I can say on this issue...

As you can see, I have a one track mind...

Hrafn
Loyal Civ'er since my olde Amiga days!

korn469 · May 4, 2002, 23:35

ok so since there seems to be enthusiasm for this, is anyone willing to help me run this?

JamesJKirk · May 5, 2002, 00:27

I agree with the need for a UN that is actually useful (although some would argue that wouldn't be realistic

) But here's some specifics of what I think would be needed. Sorry, but a few things will be redundant from what was said earlier.

*Decisions of what consitutes atrocities (building nukes, use of nukes, forced labor, starving conquered cities, etc)
*Ability to force member nations to declare war on an aggressor (maybe make builder exempt from being subject to "peacekeeping"
*UN-wide embargoes
*Pollution reduction

Possibly even certain things like debt cancellation, or stuff of that sort. Definitely a need for some of the 'evil' sorts of things that you could do to, but maybe just repealing certain things would suffice.

These things would keep it in the humans interest to keep weak and subservient AI civs around, and lead to more interesting endgame negotiating.

Also, I observed in another thread that if an AI civ is losing in a war it should (unless it's militaristic) opt to ally with you as a sort of protectorate, or puppet state, or what you will, as was the case in SMAC

FrostyBoy · May 5, 2002, 02:24

Hrafn, stop worring and just no-cd it.

personally, I think that law should only be a law for companies and not personal use.

wrylachlan · May 5, 2002, 14:25

I know we're only supposed to offer up one suggestion but...

More trading options:

1. Trading units - Nuff Said

2. Trading Intelligence
If I'm a nation that is good at spying I should be able to spy on say the troop positions of another civ and then sell this info to a third civ.

I'm also in agreement with the previous post about fixing the way Mutual Protections work.

The recaptured ally city reverting to your ally is a GREAT idea.

Having the option to not be dragged into a war if your Mutual Protection partner is the aggressor is key.

I also agree that something has to be done about railroads. By the endgame every single tile has railroads and this is just not strategic. My suggestion in another forum was this:

Railroad Idea

a) get rid of the railroad bonus to commerce and food.
b) instead give an overall percentage bonus for each of the four cities closest to your city which you are directly connected to by railroad.
c) make railroads significantly more expensive to build, and maybe even have an upkeep (like one gold per 10 tiles)

What this would create is a situation where there are strategic railroads between cities, but not the massive tangle of railroads that exist now.

d) When you take over a city all railroad tiles adjacent to the city are automatically destroyed.

This would totally do away with the taking over an empire in a single turn exploit. It would make war significantly more strategic as you could no longer just mass a huge amount of troops and roll over everyone. You would have to think about the counterattacks and think strategically.

and last, but not least, another thing I posted elsewhere about how to make military units effect borders.

Wartime Borders

In wartime, the square that your unit is on becomes temporarily your culture (Martial Law). This has a number of ramifications.

a) you can surround a city and starve it out since a city can't produce in a tile that is not its own culture.

b) you can create a line of military units to a resource in enemy territory and then build a colony there. This would make resources much more strategic and fought over.

c) Additionally you could "blockade culture" which means that if a line of your military units cut off some tiles from the enemies cultural centers, the tiles would loose their culture.

Why would you want to do that, you ask. Well here's the crux of the idea:

d) a military bonus for every tile bordering your unit which is under your cultural control or neutral.

This would make it advantageous to pursue a line of attack, advancing units side by side. It would further cut down on the "Railroad Rush", and just generally make it more strategic.

Make terrain more important

a) if a Rolling unit is on a road in a tile that they could otherwise not move through, the road can be artilleried out, and they are stuck.

b) Give foot troops a significant combat advantage against rolling units on tiles they could not move through without a road. If your troops can take advantage of the terrain, but the enemy must stick to the road, that is a huge advantage.

This would make combat again (this is my mantra) more strategic. You would tend to go in with your infantry. clear the area out of opposing infantry, and only then send your tanks across the mountains.

There's my $0.02 and $0.02 and $0.02 and I'll shut up now.