PTW wishlist

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

I really like 1.29, but I still want a few things changed.

increased air ranges. i really think the person that hardcoded a max of 8 should be publically flogged.

resource dependent buildings. and building dependent units. I'd love to require tanks to be built by a tank factory, which would require iron and oil. same concept with air planes.

i'd like to see retreat changed so that the movement of the 2 units are compared and the faster unit can still retreat even if both are 2+ movement. I wanted to increase the movement of inf to 2 and MI/MA to 4 but what i found out is that this causes no retreats in modern combat. greatly disappointing.

also not sure what gap the new medieval unit is filling. the gap i see is between muskets, 1500-1700, (wrong unit graphic or name, not sure which) and rifles, mid 1800s. my years are probably off a little but theres still a huge firearm gap.

[alva]

AFAIK, they finished PTW and are testing it.
So except what is allready in, i don't think there are going to include any extra new features at this time.

[Carver]

Originally posted by ALPHA WOLF 64
the gap i see is between muskets, 1500-1700, (wrong unit graphic or name, not sure which) and rifles, mid 1800s. my years are probably off a little but theres still a huge firearm gap.

I'm not sure about your "gaps" but I just think the rifleman looks like crap. I want a unit that reminds me of Napoleon's army, like the CTP riflemen. The one we have looks like a modern day Texan that just jumped out of his Ford F250 to go deer hunting.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by alva848
AFAIK, they finished PTW and are testing it.
So except what is allready in, i don't think there are going to include any extra new features at this time.

You're right. They're done now.

Unfortunately with so little time since 1.29f, I doubt much will have changed in PtW aside from MP and the new civs and terrain sets.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by alva848
AFAIK, they finished PTW and are testing it.
So except what is allready in, i don't think there are going to include any extra new features at this time.

Firaxis is playtesting a product before marketing? Cool.

If there will be no more patches, and if PTW is it, there is no point in making any more suggestions. But before that here are mine:

1. Be able to edit bombers' ranges above '8'

2. End the crazy unlimited MP's on RR's. Civ 2 had the right idea for that.

3. Civil Wars MIGHT occur when the capital is taken - Civ 2 style.

4. No more Civ 3 capital-hoping from town to town automatically.

5. Easier way to blockade enemy ports.

6. A USEFUL coastal fortress.

7. Prescence of privateers and subs on an enemy's trade route effects his commerce.

8. Culture Flipping is nonsense, but just being able "to turn it off" is too simplistic. Culture should play a role, but a more sensible one.

9. Overseas corruption for Democracies should NOT be determined by distance from the capital. This is entirely unrealistic.

10. Stack combat, or more realistically, stack bombardment to avoid tedium.

11. Bombers are not effective enough. Allow INTERDICTION of enemy roads and RR's as we had in Civ 2. This will be very important in preventing beachhead from being instantly counterattacked by every unit the enemy has.

12. Roads (not RR's) must be usable by invaders/

13. MILITARY LEADERS who add a combat bonus to units they are stacked with, as Hannibal or Alexander might do. Great Leaders in Civ 3 are useful only to create Wonders as Armies are so weak.

14. Armies are too weak. Not worth it.

15. An end to bombardment of improvements by wooden warships. Their guns NEVER could destroy improvements.

16. More techs.

17. A more intelligent, historical, and complete list of units.

18. Off-shore oil resources.

19. Realistic resource appearance rates, not the ridiculously scarce ones in Civ 3.

20. Of course, smarter governors, and a much smarter AI. If you eliminate the dumb things it needlessly does it will ipso facto become smarter!

21. An end to Settler Diarrhea - the crazy flood of settlers descending on your territory.

22. More territorial integrity: cross my border and you have one turn to leave or it is an act of war.

23. I want something left to explore by the time we get to caravels!! There always was in Civ 2. This is a big disappointment in the game.

23. Less lame naval warfare. Naval leaders.

And other things.


If Firaxis won't do it, let's hope some other company includes them in Civ 4.

[Tuberski]

Coracle, is there anything you DO like about the game?

[MOHonor]

Originally posted by Tuberski
Coracle, is there anything you DO like about the game?

Whining about it to the 3 people who don't have him on their ignore list, obviously.

[Jon Shafer]

He's been trying to fix it for a year, so there must be something he likes about it.

[Andrew_Jay]

I'm really in favour of some changes to retreat. That was an awesome addition early on, but later in the game it becomes rarer, and it messes up many mod changes. I think it should all come down to who is FASTEST not, as Firaxis put it, "Fast" and "Not Fast".
That way you can have your 6/10/2 Infantry, and your 16/10/3 tanks will still reatreat.

Also, another thing I'd like would be some reward for surrounding the enemy. One game I was destroying the Romans with Modern equipemtn, but then they marched some 60+ riflemen and infantry in to the rear, near the cities that I had just captured. After some manouvering, I had the entire stack pinned against the sea with mech infantry. They would try to break out, and all my good units were busy fighting (plus, with that many units, I'd still lose a lot trying to destroy the stack). Perhaps randomised "bombards" or even deaths from being completely cut off. It would work just like if you moved a bunch of galleys onto the sea; every turn so many would die.

[Jon Shafer]

While playtesting my Civil War Scenario, I saw a movement 4 Cavalry unit retreat from a movement 2 Rifleman unit...

[AlecTrevylan00]

i think that for trade there should be little sailboats that go along trade routes, so if you want to blockade a port, it can't just run by. you can board them. That way a big protected harbor would be really good, like
Tokyo Bay

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Tuberski
Coracle, is there anything you DO like about the game?

You're so lame with your personal attacks. All of my points are VALID SUGGESTIONS. Address them, OR DON'T POST.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by MOHonor


Whining about it to the 3 people who don't have him on their ignore list, obviously.

I consider your posts worthless personal attacks so I will ignore them also. Let the fanboys tell others how "great" this game is as they've done since November.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Trip
He's been trying to fix it for a year, so there must be something he likes about it.

OBVIOUSLY.

It has potential. Some things need to be tweaked, and others need to be fixed. And Firaxis HAS been doing some of that. I take great pleasure in knowing I and others have helped encourage them to make a better product; we even now can turn off Flipping in PTW. So I declare victory on that front. If the fanboys and sycophants had their way we likely wouldn't have gotten more than one patch!

[Coracle]

For Civ 3 (or Civ 4?). Three other things for the Wish List of improvements, and I am not the first person to suggest these:

1. Cities or towns have a random chance of SURRENDERING to an overwhelming invading military force approaching them. This would depend in part on the size of the garrison. This is far more realistic and historical than Flipping.

2. Great Wonders. Too many shields are currently being lost when another civ builds one, Either allow us to partially rush it, give us some warning if another civ is alomost finished, or allow us to save a percentage of our shields and not lose them all.

3. Espionage. We can mod the very high costs, but spies should be more effective and less likely to cause an international incident especially when exposing moles in their own capitals. (I prefered Civ 2 spies, and caravans, anyway).

[epikur]

uhmmm, more interface?
(2late to suggest that I guess)

i would like a 4rd icon (next to main menu, civilopedia, advisors icon)

history

that icon should open a little menubox which show events log like

the link would as if you click it, the world screen will go to that event location

LINK - YEAR - CIV - CITY - EVENT

(*) bc 1000 - spain - barcelona - build wonder pyramids
(*) bc 500 - italy - no longer exist (annihilated by romans)

and besides that nice history log, there should be in next window, my civ, current event log

LINK - YEAR - CITY - EVENT

(*) 1450 - paris - new pikemen build
(*) 1450 - orleans - civil unrest
(*) 1450 - lille - new settler build
(*) 1450 - india and china signed piece
...

[Unspeakable Horror]

Originally posted by Tuberski
Coracle, is there anything you DO like about the game?

If he is still here is because he likes it, don´t you think?

2. End the crazy unlimited MP's on RR's. Civ 2 had the right idea for that.

IRC in Civ2 RR´s were unlimited too.

1. Cities or towns have a random chance of SURRENDERING to an overwhelming invading military force approaching them. This would depend in part on the size of the garrison. This is far more realistic and historical than Flipping

I don´t like the random part, and besides you already can give the city to the enemy via diplomacy.

2. Great Wonders. Too many shields are currently being lost when another civ builds one, Either allow us to partially rush it, give us some warning if another civ is almost finished, or allow us to save a percentage of our shields and not lose them all.

The warning should be given only if you had an embassy or spy in the other civ.
About rushing, I don´t like the idea, I think that if you lose the GW then you deserve the punishment.

Coracle: I like the other ideas.
Epikur: Great idea! I like it.

[Jon Shafer]

In Civ 2 RR movement was infinite also... gargh, I wish Firaxis would let us change that, but I give it about a 1% chance of that happening.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Coracle


You're so lame with your personal attacks. All of my points are VALID SUGGESTIONS. Address them, OR DON'T POST.

Okay, Valid suggestions:

1. Learn the difference between a personal attack and an honest question, I honestly DO want to know if there is anything you like about the game.

2. Try and complain about something new, the old ones are getting really old.

3. Even when I used to address your supposed valid suggestions you never respond. The only time you do respond is when you think there is a personal attack.

4. To tell the truth I like all of your suggestions, I asked a simple question which you took as a personal attack. You won't hear me apologizing to you.

[Carver]

I like Epikur's event log (although every unit produced might be a little too detailed).

On my wishlist are new wonders like the Sears Tower, now the world's tallest building (don't try to tell me the Petronas Towers are the tallest - no way Jose). 3-4 culture per turn and a 25% increase to commerce in that city.

[Andrew_Jay]

AlecTrevylan00; I like that idea about trades. Perhaps the caravan units can be brought back as well as some freighter ships. The ship/camel could be non-player controlled and move like any other unit between points (though it might take a while to go somewhere, you'll still have the resource/luxury constantly). You could have it for all resources, luxuries, and trades, though maybe it'll be too crowded on the map.

The event log sounds good too, I always like watching the log at the end of the game. Perhaps you can just have a bunch of options to turn certain reports off. Stuff like battles you could turn on only when you know there is something important coming up.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Tuberski


Okay, Valid suggestions:

1. Learn the difference between a personal attack and an honest question, I honestly DO want to know if there is anything you like about the game.

2. Try and complain about something new, the old ones are getting really old.

3. Even when I used to address your supposed valid suggestions you never respond. The only time you do respond is when you think there is a personal attack.

4. To tell the truth I like all of your suggestions, I asked a simple question which you took as a personal attack. You won't hear me apologizing to you.

I believe this and the other comments (of an AD HOMINEM nature) would be considered not only personal but OFF TOPIC and a form of threadjacking. Danger, danger! Banishment near!

Oh, but I don't want to be accused of that and be sent to Mingapulco yet again! (I am serious). Nor did I respond in kind as I did not want to be accused of personal attacks. (You bet I've seen double standards. CFF is far worse).

But this is all off-topic. But I didn't start it.

There are many improvements in Civ 3 IN CONCEPT: borders; culture (not Flipping); resources; better combat in that destroying one unit does not destroy a stack; the AI is improved over Civ 2 (but not 5+ years worth); governors are better (especially with 1.29); and other things. Implementation of these and other concepts was sloppy.

So many ideas, good ones, we had for Civ 3 and discussed on various forums, were just disregarded by Firaxis, such as realtime stack combat with tactics, something I first saw in "Kingmaker" ages ago.

So, what I resented was in two areas:

1. A beta game that was not playtested before marketing. If the game offered in November was like the one now with 1.29 I'd have had to spend much less time accurately criticizing their screwups.

2. Many of the best features of Civ 2 were LEFT OUT of Civ 3, and I do not know why even now. Where is the Cheat Mode, which was great for accelerated starts and switching sides, etc?? Spies, diplomats, caravans, and freight are now tedious abstractions with no fun. Why no scenarios - until we complained enough to get them back? How come user interface is likely worse?

So, we have Firaxis offering a beta product in the Civilization line missing the fun features we had come to expect, while adding some weird new ones nobody asked for. I guess it ticked me off. Anyway, after months of complaining ("whining" as the fanboys would say) we finally have gotten the long-needed OFF function for Flipping. I take satisfaction in that.

As for Civ 4. No beta versions to be marketed. No crazy unplaytested ideas (such as Flipping or Setter Diarrhea). And give the public expanded and better versions of features they loved (such as the Cheat Mode, among other Civ 2 concepts).

Simple as that. Don't mess with success, and PLAYTST before marketing. And don't dumb down the game any more for God's sake!! Better yet, give BASIC and ADVANCED versions of the game! I prefer Advanced, of course.

Maybe all this was ON TOPIC after all!

[Tuberski]

See that wasn't so hard.

I agree with you too! The game was rushed, a lot of people would have been happy with 1.29f, if that is what they had gotten out of the box.

I also agree that the game has been dumbed down to a certain extent.

The game that was publicized isn't the same game I got.

But, that doesn't mean I don't like it.

[Oerdin]

I'd like to see rail road movement that can be changed in the editor. Unlimited RR movement ruins the strategic value of the end game.

[Tuberski]

I think rail movement should be handled similar to boarding ships, you can't get on a rail and move then attack in the same turn.

[Coracle]

One other thing. This relates to how Firaxis can be annoying by messing with success and offering some new werid annoying concept.


In Civ 2 attacking the enemy capital made strategic sense - AS IT SHOULD. Going after the capital almost always was a prime objective historically, for good reason. In Civ 2 losing your capital sometimes resulted in civil war.

But in Civ 3 WHO CARES?? The capital hops around from city to town to another town. I once took an Aztec capital on five straight turns, and each turn it automatically appeared in another town with no delay and at no cost. No disorder or anarchy. Ridiculous.

Why such a contrived arbitrary concept? Sloppy history, and an attempt to force Culture Flipping and massive orruption ideas into the game: proximity to an existing capital is crucial for both concepts.

So, for PTW, Civ 4, another patch, whatever, capitals must be IMPORTANT strategic targets. They are not now.

[Tuberski]

The only importance I see in taking the capitol is to lower overall (your favorite, Coracle ) culture of the enemy civ and maybe move their cultural borders some. Along with the change in corruption rates that goes with distance from capitol.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, what I really want-and this does tie into the whole question of capturing the capital, are small wonders which increase the number of optimal cities that a Civ can have before corruption sets in AND/OR small wonders which negate distance-based corruption (as well as producing civ-wide happiness). I would make construction of these small wonders dependent on # of cities (by map size) and the presence of a Palace (i.e. your capital or the city with an FP). Then, even if Firaxis DON'T bring back Civil War (though I hope they do) then the loss of your capital will still be a MAJOR blow in terms of long-term corruption and unhappiness!! I do agree with Coracle though (pinch me, I must be dreaming ) when he says that capital hopping must be STAMPED OUT!! You should be able to move your capital, but it should cost THE EARTH to do-though it should be half-cost if you have an FP! Again this should be the case whether or not CW's are brought back. I also feel that ALL movement and range related features should have their hardcoding removed (i.e. RR's and Bomber Range), and I also feel that some sort of actual trade route system should be included (e.g. have a line, indicating the trade route, joining the two capitals by the shortest route!) These routes would be invisible to all but the effected players, and any player who has an appropriate unit within one square of the route-who can then choose to attack it!

Anyway, those are my thoughts. I wouldn't give up hope though. The game designers have often indicated that, given good sales of PtW, they will still continue to patch the game!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Coracle]

We need:


1. Different types of leaders, especially military leaders who can effect combat. (Armies suck).


2. Trade and resources should be part of any peace treaty. They currently are not making contnuing wars more likely.

[Jon Shafer]

Not only do armies suck, but the entire combat engine sucks.

Taking the capital should result in at least 3 turns of anarchy, (screw you religious civs, you pay your dues also ) and ... no new capital!