wishes for the new patch

[Alfonsus72]

Some things that would made civ3 a better experience imho:

AI-CITIES: AI shouln´t build cities on border squares, neither in squares with 0 food production.

AI-BARTER: AI shouldn´t barter more than 2 cities at a time with human players. That´s to avoid the tactic of taking AI civ capitol city and barter it for all the other cities.

COLONIES: For them to be useful, seaside colonies should streamline trade with your cities with harbour without a road connection. Colonies shouldn´t be destroyed automatically by frontiers advance, maybe it could depend on culture, colonies could have a fix culture value of, let´s say 1 per turn, and to destroy them the enemy nearby city should have to take them by culture as if they were towns.

EXPLORERS: For them to be useful, there could be an small chance of spawning a Leader when they enter a hut.

COMBAT: When an attacking unit wins a combat, it automatically enter the square of the defeated one. That doesn´t happen in civ2, and sometimes (when you are attacking from a sieged city) is annoying. Instead of that, I would propose that when an attacking unit wins a combat it has 1 extra movement, so you could advance to the square or not at your will.

[Lucilla]

Some thoughts:

AI-CITIES: I don't mind the AI building cities where there's no food production. The human player can do the same, and AFAIK, you get minimum food, shields and commerce in your city, even if the underlying tile is unproductive.
If the AI wants to build on border squares, that gives me the opportunity to take that city by culture flipping, so I don't mind. Sometimes I even invite the AI to do so by leaving just enough space in between my cities, so that it will be filled with an AI city that is easily to conquer.

AI-BARTER: you cannot barter for ALL the other cities, just the non-capitol ones

COLONIES: I like the idea of colonies remaining intact, even if an AI city is built next to it. I'd say they need to be taken by force. About the culture thing point for colonies I'm not so convinced, because that would mean that the territory for a colony would expand, even though you don't have a city there.

EXPLORERS: good idea

COMBAT: very good idea

[AIL]

I don't like any of these ideas... maybe that Leader in a hut for an Explorer... but who's ever seen huts still existing when Explorers become available? And for Scouts that would just be to powerful...

[Coracle]

I can think of a hundred ideas for improvement, but here is just one:

Allow us to use NEW MAPS without having to re-Edit our mod values for every single map.

If we have an Edited game (and we should the original values being stupid) those values should apply to any new map we choose to try out without further need for Editing.

[Jethro83]

- Minimap in the map editor
- A revamped culture flipping system
- Reworked tech tree (Galleons and Frigates 10 turns before ironclads definitely isn't enough of an Age of Sail era)
- Less unpredictability in combat (realistically speaking, a regular spearman shouldn't be able to successfully defend itself against an elite longbow. Many other examples, but this is the most recurring one in my games)
- More useful artillery units.
- NO MORE SETTLER DIORRHEA FOR CHRIST SAKE!!!
- Increased AI respect for territorial borders.

Just a couple there. There are many more on my mind, but these are the main ones IMO.

[Panag]

hi ,

put IFE back to the other side of the moon , .........

increased range for all airunits , .........

have a nice day

[zulu9812]

Supposedly, the number of resources you can have is still hard-coded, and tech-adding is a oain. So maybe that could be made easier for modders.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Coracle
I can think of a hundred ideas for improvement, but here is just one:

Allow us to use NEW MAPS without having to re-Edit our mod values for every single map.

If we have an Edited game (and we should the original values being stupid) those values should apply to any new map we choose to try out without further need for Editing.

Oh yes, the same applies for new scenarios if and when Firaxis ever deigns to SELL them to us. Scenario-building should have come with the basic game as in Civ 2.

[steven8r]

I have a suggestion for an improvement for the next patch, version, ect.:

How is it that a city with neither Iron nor Oil can produce Battleships (just as an example) but a city without enough food squares around it just starves while other cities produce more food than they use?

If luxury/strateigic resources can be brought into a city via roads/harbors/airports, couldn't food too????

How many cities in the real world actually produce their own food? Food is grown in other parts of the state/country/world and imported/traded just as are other resources.

The U.S. emposes 'grain embargos' on various other nations. It couldn't do this if it didn't have grain to trade in the first place.

I would like to be able to 'trade' food at least between the cities of a civ, and possibly between civs as well. Say you nuked your enemy's food production, then to get Peace, offer to trade him/her food or other resources. Food should be a tradable commodity in a later patch.

Anyway that's my 2 cents.

[Ekmek]

I'm for the food idea.
But more like trading bonus resources (i.e. wheat, gold etc), but when you trade them you get their bonuses (where as str gives you build ability, luxuries happiness, bonus you can trade and give bonuses being food etc)

Explorers: I changed them to be able to build colonies and have the hidden nationality (like privateers)
so that they don't cost pop points liike workers, and they can explore territories without ticking off the AI (they can do the same too)
but they still suck by the time you get them. with the new colony suggestions they would be better.
(off topic I made a barbarian mercenary with the same hdden nationality, adds fun when you can send them to pillage resource roads without war, and also made spec. ops to do the same but they require a special resource)

anyways...

FEASIBLE SUGGESTIONS
Small wonder option with a pull down that says
"allows construction of (pull down unit)"
This would give the choice to make the Manhattan project a small wonder (said many times to be a nuclear program), or even a flight program etc.

In units an option that makes units obsolete (some units should not upgrade but should also not be available, like naval units)

In units an option pull down that says
"can only be built in cities with [pull down improvement]"

un-hard code luxuries. starting with just using the resources.pcx luxury icons in the city view instead of the luxuriessmall.pcx

un-hardcode what seems to be that you can require resources for improvements

able to add more improvements etc, and making it in the editor where you can specify the file even if its just a small square, this would make sharing improvement graphics easier and to avoid the pain, they don't have to show up in the city view.

in the editor have it so you can pick the wonder splash etc instead of it being in the text files. that goes for just about everything that requires a text file change.

Add more 'cultures" so good artists like sn00py can do some african cities etc and have the world look really diverse.


LONGSHOTS
I'm all about resources so maybe a new city improvement that allows workers to plant X number of resource in city square with improvement"
x being determined in editor (this can allow improvements like cotton plantations or other stuff like even car factories, and then you have a bigger trading game for those inclined)

other bigger ideas, but they won't go in, so i'm going to just hope for these.

[Panag]

hi ,

Firaxis , fix the maps on the civ site , ......Marla's map is great but it is playing around with the arts files , it decreases your chance to see certain units , like leader , etc , also the Piroque unit should be pulled out , and all the fields and values , that have nothing to do with the map itself should be fixed , ....its a good map but it changes top much on arts and other files , ......and there seems to be a problem with 1.21f , ....

have a nice day

[Navyman]

My biggest wish for the next patch would be four new units:

The AAW Destroyer (ie Aegis, Kirov?, ect)
The Mobile Air-Defense Unit (ie Linebacker, Tungushka, etc) with an increase in the bombard values for aircraft
The Self Propelled Artillery (ie Paladin, PzH2000, etc)
Maybe A Sea Mine (ie an unit that is invisible to enemy, has zero movement points, and is deployed at sea by a transport and/or sub, has no nationality)

These new units will improve gameplay tremendously. I am tired of my tanks crawling because the artillery can't keep up which is just not the case in modern warfare. That is exactly the reason self-propelled artillery was created. The sea mine could solve the problem with not being able to blockade a large civ.

I know I can just as well change the movement points of the arty to 2 but I like the idea of having towed arty (existing) along with the self-propelled.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Navyman
My biggest wish for the next patch would be four new units:

The AAW Destroyer (ie Aegis, Kirov?, ect)
The Mobile Air-Defense Unit (ie Linebacker, Tungushka, etc) with an increase in the bombard values for aircraft
The Self Propelled Artillery (ie Paladin, PzH2000, etc)
Maybe A Sea Mine (ie an unit that is invisible to enemy, has zero movement points, and is deployed at sea by a transport and/or sub, has no nationality)

These new units will improve gameplay tremendously. I am tired of my tanks crawling because the artillery can't keep up which is just not the case in modern warfare. That is exactly the reason self-propelled artillery was created. The sea mine could solve the problem with not being able to blockade a large civ.

I know I can just as well change the movement points of the arty to 2 but I like the idea of having towed arty (existing) along with the self-propelled.

hi ,

there should be a ASW heli on a ship , .....
more artillery , there is a huge gap , and there should be artillery that is able to "airdrop" , can be done true editor , but does not work that good , .....
increase on airunits , .....
a nuclear sub that hunts other subs "hunter-kiler" , ......
modern infantry , ........

have a nice day

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Coracle
Scenario-building should have come with the basic game as in Civ 2.

Damn, I knew that Microprose cheated me! My copy of Civ2 has no scenario building!! I want my money back!!!

[Navyman]

Quote:
Small wonder option with a pull down that says
"allows construction of (pull down unit)"

That is an awesome idea! Would do so much to add more depth to the modern age.
Example:

Small wonder: Radar Research Facility --> Allows: Aegis Destroyer & Mobile Air Defense unit

Small wonder: Skunk Works --> Allows: F22 Raptor

Small wonder: Pentagon --> Allows: Elite units

etc

[Deornwulf]

I would like to see
--More Units
--More Buildings
--More Techs

All of this could be accomplished by improving the editor to allow any of the three to be added without crashing the game. I would like to be able to go beyond altering what exists in the game and add what I think needs to be there. Such a change would also need a file of extra icons that could be assigned to new creations.
Basically, I want the editor to let me do all of the things modders do with third party programs.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Alfonsus72
COMBAT: When an attacking unit wins a combat, it automatically enter the square of the defeated one. That doesn´t happen in civ2, and sometimes (when you are attacking from a sieged city) is annoying. Instead of that, I would propose that when an attacking unit wins a combat it has 1 extra movement, so you could advance to the square or not at your will.

Ground troops should have to advance into the square. Archers should not. BTW, they don't actually need an "extra" movement. They just move after the combat. If on a road, they could move 1/3, shoot, then continue down the road, or advance into the strike zone.

[Panag]

hi ,

Firaxis , more buildings please , .....


a prison , what is the point of a courthouse and a policestation , it just aint fair , ........and not complete , ......

a port , only to fix ship's , ..........including the ones from your allies , ........

and so on and so on , ........

have a nice day

[Stuie]

Doh! Double post... see below....

[Stuie]

Originally posted by E
FEASIBLE SUGGESTIONS
Small wonder option with a pull down that says
"allows construction of (pull down unit)"
This would give the choice to make the Manhattan project a small wonder (said many times to be a nuclear program), or even a flight program etc.

In units an option pull down that says
"can only be built in cities with [pull down improvement]"

un-hardcode what seems to be that you can require resources for improvements

Add more 'cultures" so good artists like sn00py can do some african cities etc and have the world look really diverse.

These are outstanding ideas! Nice work, E.

My current wishlist:

*AWACS unit - provides a bonus to subsequent air combat when the AWACS unit performs recon of a square.

*Some sort of anti-air naval unit.

*More diplomacy options (Alliances, trade units, etc.)

*Other meanful uses for the UN; world treaties, embargos, "peace" keeping, etc. Not just vote and "GAME OVER".

*Do not allow cities to be built in tundra/desert - OR in the editor allow user to define whether terrain allows cities to be built. This will make colonies meaningful throughout the game, especially when oil shows up in the middle of an uninhabitable region.....

[Willem]

Originally posted by zulu9812
Supposedly, the number of resources you can have is still hard-coded, and tech-adding is a oain. So maybe that could be made easier for modders.

It's not the number of hard coded resources that's been the problem. I believe it's 82, which is way more than enough. It's the ability of having unique icons for each. This was increased in the last patch to 36 from 24. Any resources above that point will have to share an icon with another one.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Deornwulf
I would like to see
--More Units
--More Buildings
--More Techs

All of this could be accomplished by improving the editor to allow any of the three to be added without crashing the game. I would like to be able to go beyond altering what exists in the game and add what I think needs to be there. Such a change would also need a file of extra icons that could be assigned to new creations.
Basically, I want the editor to let me do all of the things modders do with third party programs.

You can easily add units and buildings without the risk of crashing the game, you just have to learn how to do it properly. There's just a couple of things you have to do manually, and they aren't all that complicated either. I'm not sure about the techs, I haven't tried that one yet.

I agree though, there should be a way of building a utility like the MultiTool right into the editor.

[Miznia]

The only thing I *really* would like, is for the AI to make more thoughtful foreign policy decisions... Like who to declare war on (not the dude on the other side of the planet).

[Jaybe]

Separate bombardment strengths for Land, Sea & Air.

Would allow submarine attacks by bombardment (sea only).
Would allow flack (anti-air) ground units with a passive ZOC which defends against air attacks (same square only).

Thank you Uber for the inspiration.
JB

[Coracle]

Oh yes, anything that ENDS the absurdity of Culture Flipping and Settler Diarrhea is TOPS on my list of changes for Civ 3.

The entire system is also too tedious and needs to be more intuitive.

Until such problems as these are rectifiied, all this crap about new UU's and new civs is just irrelevant window dressing.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Coracle
Oh yes, anything that ENDS the absurdity of Culture Flipping and Settler Diarrhea is TOPS on my list of changes for Civ 3.

The entire system is also too tedious and needs to be more intuitive.

Until such problems as these are rectifiied, all this crap about new UU's and new civs is just irrelevant window dressing.

How is it not intuitive? It's as easy to use as your favorite game.

Why do you think anybody at Firaxis is going to listen to you? You are the one with the Culture Flipping and Settler Diarrhea problem.

Culture Flipping- Not historically accurate, and having persians,aztecs and babylonians in the modern age is accurate? This is NOT a history lesson.

However, I do think they could have done this differently.

Settler Diarrhea- So basically you want the AI to sit there so YOU can take all the land before them. Wow, that makes the game tough doesn't it.

[Navyman]

Originally posted by Navyman
My biggest wish for the next patch would be four new units:

The AAW Destroyer (ie Aegis, Kirov?, ect)
The Mobile Air-Defense Unit (ie Linebacker, Tungushka, etc) with an increase in the bombard values for aircraft
The Self Propelled Artillery (ie Paladin, PzH2000, etc)
Maybe A Sea Mine (ie an unit that is invisible to enemy, has zero movement points, and is deployed at sea by a transport and/or sub, has no nationality)

These new units will improve gameplay tremendously. I am tired of my tanks crawling because the artillery can't keep up which is just not the case in modern warfare. That is exactly the reason self-propelled artillery was created. The sea mine could solve the problem with not being able to blockade a large civ.

I know I can just as well change the movement points of the arty to 2 but I like the idea of having towed arty (existing) along with the self-propelled.

On top this, I would also like to see an attack helo like an Apache and a modification to the AI.

One of the most INANE things is when a civ is upset with me because I broke a treaty with its enemy! That does sound logical? Civ-A is fighting Civ-B and I break an RoP with Civ-B and start knocking down Civ-B's cities. But Civ-A is upset that I started to fight its enemy? Civ-A should be happy with me and give me tribute for helping them.

[kring]

Originally posted by Navyman



One of the most INANE things is when a civ is upset with me because I broke a treaty with its enemy! That does sound logical? Civ-A is fighting Civ-B and I break an RoP with Civ-B and start knocking down Civ-B's cities. But Civ-A is upset that I started to fight its enemy? Civ-A should be happy with me and give me tribute for helping them.

It is all about not keeping your word; something that used to be very important IRL. It doesn't matter if you break your word with their friends or enemies, it matters that you broke your word. It shows a lack of being able to trust you to keep your word with them. This is true IRL as well. Do you trust "friends" that break their words to your enemies? If they do it to your enemies, it is only a matter of time before they do it to you. It;s cdalled backstabbing.

Would you trust another player, even a friend, in MP that used the RoP abuse to attack one of your enemies. As the saying goes: today's friend may be tomorrow's enemy. I wouldn't trust someone that broke their word that way. As has been said before: Character matters; even if it is only a game.

How many times have you either heard/seen where longtime friends suddenly become bitter enemies, and longtime enemies become best of friends.

[candidgamera]

Originally posted by E

anyways...

FEASIBLE SUGGESTIONS
Small wonder option with a pull down that says
"allows construction of (pull down unit)"
This would give the choice to make the Manhattan project a small wonder (said many times to be a nuclear program), or even a flight program etc.

In units an option pull down that says
"can only be built in cities with [pull down improvement]"

Great ideas - right now the equivalent of Kotzebue, Alaska can build a Battleship - I don't think so.

I'd make the units option apply to improvements too - bank requires market place and so on. Maybe up to three - like resource requirements are now.

A dream, editor that supports: harbor allows shipyard allows naval base allows naval air station allows carriers.

Or aircraft factory and airbase allows bomber unit.

Consider even at the height of WWII the US only built carriers and BB's in 2-3 places, and now carriers are only built in Newport News, VA.

might need to rebalance the unit costs if this were done, but BB's and carriers and bombers require infrastructure to build.

sidenote: am using pop cost - 3 for carriers - now for modern units
seems to have a nice feel and logic to it.

[Navyman]

Real world diplomacy and geopolitics doesn't have a bean to do with trust. It is all about how well can you scratch my back and what i have to do in return.

Relations b/w nations and relations b/w people are definitely not the same thing or even close.

Meanwhile back at the ranch...

I am not saying that Civ-B should give me its undying affection and loyalty that I stabbed it enemy in the back but at least give me a temporary acknowledgement that I am HELPING its sorry rear end. There were games where I singlehandedly saved small civs (so that I could keep them as my own fiefdoms ) from a larger aggressor but had to break a treaty to do it. But did I get any acknowledgement from the saved civ? NOPE! Just got a punk attitude from a peepsqueak!