christmas list for firaxis:

[ruby_maser]

I don't know about you all, but after the lackluster startup of MP, I want some good free patches in the near future

I personally want:

-satellites (at the aquisiton of Satellite technology, of course) that allows my civ to view parts of the map in enemy territory. Its up to firaxis to figure out how to balance that and make it fair. Edit: Maybe you should have to build them like anything else

-enhanced zooming features (further zooming out, specificly)

-the reputation system tweaked to account for how trade deals are broken and whether or not I had any choice in the matter (so I don't spend ours tiptoeing around only to have some AI goon screw it up)
OR,
along the same lines, remove the hardcoding on 20-turn trade deals and give us more options

get crackin'

[vmxa1]

Which xmas?

[statusperfect]

This x-mas!

[ruby_maser]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Which xmas?

good question

[Minuteman]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Which xmas?

Good one VM

Well, I'm not the nitpicky type. Even though it sounds ridiculous to have to ask Firaxis for something that's suppose to work anyway, I'd just settle for MP that actually works at this juncture.

[Ijuin]

Originally posted by ruby_maser
I don't know about you all, but after the lackluster startup of MP, I want some good free patches in the near future

I personally want:

-satellites (at the aquisiton of Satellite technology, of course) that allows my civ to view parts of the map in enemy territory. Its up to firaxis to figure out how to balance that and make it fair. Edit: Maybe you should have to build them like anything else

How about defining it as an Air unit that has only the Reconaissance and Re-base missions, but can Recon at unlimited range? This would allow you to Recon any part of the map.

-enhanced zooming features (further zooming out, specificly)

Personally, I would also like to zoom in and get a closer look at the graphics.

-the reputation system tweaked to account for how trade deals are broken and whether or not I had any choice in the matter (so I don't spend ours tiptoeing around only to have some AI goon screw it up)

Hear, hear!

If a trade deal between you and Civ A is broken because Civ B is interfering (via blockades, pillaging roads, capturing your seaport, etc, or simply by your no longer being able to trade across Civ B's territory to reach Civ A.), then Civ B should get the reputation hit, not you.

I mean, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, did the USA get mad at Kuwait for not maintaining oil exports, or did the USA get mad at Iraq for interfering with Kuwaiti exports?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ijuin
How about defining it as an Air unit that has only the Reconaissance and Re-base missions, but can Recon at unlimited range? This would allow you to Recon any part of the map.

A unit is born. The Spy Satellite...

or the Spy Plane... SR71 graphics anyone?

[twilight]

Is this spy satellite possible? I thought to have tried out unlimited aircraft missions (Bombers with far far far range) but doesn't work. Is that sure it works or is this just an idea?

The zooming would be very very cool. Zoom in, zoom out, both cool. Like in CivII.

[BottleOfPills]

This is a great Idea, and appears it would be simple.

My opinion it should simply work like a city imporvement or small wonder, kind of like the "intelligence agency".

Satallites do not work like "spy planes" . They simply orbit the earth, for a long period of time. Say maybe make it a new technology, requiring certain rescources etc. It's sole function could be to simply let you view world maps and territory maps, even cities (but I'll come back to this).

Civ's could use forts and cities to stack their units in so the Civ with the satillite couldn't see the actual units. IE the satilite could see the fort or city, even the city buildings, but any units and how many garrisoned in the city are not shown. However any units out in the open are obviously viewable.

The possibilities are endless, you could have a new technology - to give your civ more leeway in dealling with the satillite. You could have Weather Patterns - when their is cloud cover over a areas of a map the sattilite couldn't see through it. The range of view could slowly pan across the map thus simulating the orbit of the satilite, launching more would give you a slower orbit.

However I'm slowly grounded back to the reality of this being Firaxis - and they can't manage to get the other Civilizations to stay off my property, have reasonable diplomacy and trades, etc, and I would probably have to buy the add-on. They could call it Civilization III: See the World you Can't Play.

[Spiffor]

For this christmas, please include unit-trading
For Christmast 2003, please include a true events editor, pletty please ?

[Traelin]

Originally posted by ruby_maser
-the reputation system tweaked to account for how trade deals are broken and whether or not I had any choice in the matter (so I don't spend ours tiptoeing around only to have some AI goon screw it up)
OR,
along the same lines, remove the hardcoding on 20-turn trade deals and give us more options

get crackin'

OMG yes! EVERY game I play it always seems my rep gets messed up without me even knowing it until a few turns later. It's so stupid that you have to avoid making deals with Civs who are about to get wiped out, because your rep will take a hit if you do. There's a bunch of other scenarios you have to avoid. Very unrealistic.

[ruby_maser]

Originally posted by notyoueither


A unit is born. The Spy Satellite...

or the Spy Plane... SR71 graphics anyone?

Is this possible now with the editor? I knew that they had bumped up the Stealth's range to 12, but did they remove the hardcoding completely to allow for unlimited range on aircraft?

I like the concept of a spy plane, but if modding this is possible, I would probably make it relatively expensive in order to prevent mass proliferation of them. I assume fighters could still shoot them down, which would be a flaw based on how high these types of aircraft usually fly.

[Argos65987]

Originally posted by ruby_maser


I assume fighters could still shoot them down, which would be a flaw based on how high these types of aircraft usually fly.

How about making them invisible? The option works for submarines. As long as fighters can't detect invisible units it could work.

My question is, can you set recon missions on some sort of auto function, or would you have to coontrol these units each turn?

[twilight]

Invisible? Good Idea. It's possible to make flying units without beeing immoble. They do not even loose life like in CivII, they pretty cool but cannot attack cities. So long big destructive Spaceships attacking the earth ;-(

So I want for the next patch all the above AND:

-Diplomatic possibility to Peacetreaties between two other countries (US wants Kuweyt and Iraq hold peace)

-give in mods the possibilty to change the ability of Aircrafts and ships to attack cities like in Civ2

-and of course the max of four maps like in test of time. But this will be a dream ;-)

[ChaotikVisions]

Now i'm probably in somewhat of a minority in my playing of default rules, but theres one thing thats been really bothering me. Being unable to kill workers with bombardment, makes bombading the coast of some civs pointless. Just give units with bombard a chance to kill non-combat units. If they can kill a unit of population in a city they should be able to kill what is essentially a unit of population outside the city.

[Billster2k3]

Originally posted by ruby_maser
-the reputation system tweaked to account for how trade deals are broken and whether or not I had any choice in the matter (so I don't spend ours tiptoeing around only to have some AI goon screw it up)

In a recent game I had a MPP with Korea and the Chinese attacked me forcing the Koreans to declare war on them. Several turns after peace treaties had been signed all around I was in a trade negotiation with Korea and my advisor told me, "we know the Koreans have betrayed our friends the Chinese in the past...." Excuse me!? You're telling me I shouldn't trust them for having had my back? I can only assume that the AI is getting the same sort of advice about me after I am dragged into a conflict by MPP.

The biggest diplomacy fix I want to see is something like what we had in SMAC where I can ask one civ' to call off its war with another. This would go a long way toward being able to fulfill the terms of MPP's without having to declare war and would make this element of the game far more realistic. Most countries almost always try to end conflicts through diplomacy prior to joining in the fray.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Billster2k3
The biggest diplomacy fix I want to see is something like what we had in SMAC where I can ask one civ' to call off its war with another.

I have been begging for this one for a LOOOONG time. There's a ton of other things I'd add to diplomacy too.

[twilight]

Originally posted by Billster2k3
In a recent game I had a MPP with Korea and the Chinese attacked me forcing the Koreans to declare war on them. Several turns after peace treaties had been signed all around I was in a trade negotiation with Korea and my advisor told me, "we know the Koreans have betrayed our friends the Chinese in the past...." Excuse me!? You're telling me I shouldn't trust them for having had my back? I can only assume that the AI is getting the same sort of advice about me after I am dragged into a conflict by MPP.

Okay, this is really really cool. What about that:

IN a time I tried to be the good boy, never be a traitor and so on I wanted to conquer a certain civ behind of my neighbour Japan. We agreed to a right passage treaty and my armies went through japanese territory. Then suddenly the Japans attacked me! Oh yes! These bastards!

In this time parts of my armies were in japanese territory. Later someone gave me answer to a plea of right passage treaty "We know what you have done to the japanese".

What had I done? I think its because my troops were on their land when the war begins wheter I was the agressor or not. Very very strange

Now I am really careful doin' such treaties.

[sprucemoose3311]

Firaxis is just like microsoft

first: microsoft created an exceptional opertating system in windows 2000 Pro. pretty much all it needed was some tweaking and system restore. Windows Xp before the service pack had troubles competing with 98SE. So the people at microsoft decided to end support of 2000 and build off of 98SE. Why? you cant make people upgrade from a great OS to one that has almost no change. Why would you buy windows 2002 if windows 2000 is near perfect?

Second: Firaxis has always known people want diplomacy and governments like alpha centauri. But if you want people to buy civ 4 you cannot put those in Civ 3. Civ 3 is all the little tweaks everyone wanted minus the things that would make it an exceptional game. Expect better diplomacy in civ 4... Why build off of AC, which was only missing more civs and an updated Multiplayer when you can build off of civ 2 and make 3-5 "new, better" games (civ4,civ5,civ2012) afterwards. Lets just hope they dont make single player and multiplayer separate again

(note they dont call it civ 6, they give it a year, see the resemblence to microsoft?)

I think ile start a new thread with this...

[twilight]

Originally posted by sprucemoose3311
Firaxis is just like microsoft

EEEK!

Originally posted by sprucemoose3311
But if you want people to buy civ 4 you cannot put those in Civ 3.

You mean ... ?

I would like to see Firaxis or some of the programmer guys answering

I think they decided to be in old tradition to CIVII and forgot the one or another. To enable some diplomatic features can't be so difficult, others will be difficult. Don't know, but I could understand when they don't change this in a patch.

And I think they regrett some things like those forgotten features. Noone is happy when the own work which you are proud of is focus of many complaints.

I looking forward to 2030, perhaps then I will have a Civ that pleases me.

[sprucemoose3311]

CLARIFY ARGUEMENT (yes it is opinion, I wont stress fact as opinion unless i become a college teacher): AC had a great foundation for good gameplay etc. Civ 2 was not as good. In my opinion firaxis decided to update civ 2 rather then build off of AC which already had what most people wanted in Civ3. They were thinking in terms of creating a franchise (which is another word for profit) as opposed to creating a single game. They are in no way the only company doing this.



Also I Agree with twilight that someone from firaxis should explain what they did during developement.

Link to thread wit comparison http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=67868

[Civfan]

Originally posted by sprucemoose3311
Firaxis is just like microsoft

first: microsoft created an exceptional opertating system in windows 2000 Pro. pretty much all it needed was some tweaking and system restore. Windows Xp before the service pack had troubles competing with 98SE. So the people at microsoft decided to end support of 2000 and build off of 98SE. Why? you cant make people upgrade from a great OS to one that has almost no change. Why would you buy windows 2002 if windows 2000 is near perfect?

Second: Firaxis has always known people want diplomacy and governments like alpha centauri. But if you want people to buy civ 4 you cannot put those in Civ 3. Civ 3 is all the little tweaks everyone wanted minus the things that would make it an exceptional game. Expect better diplomacy in civ 4... Why build off of AC, which was only missing more civs and an updated Multiplayer when you can build off of civ 2 and make 3-5 "new, better" games (civ4,civ5,civ2012) afterwards. Lets just hope they dont make single player and multiplayer separate again

(note they dont call it civ 6, they give it a year, see the resemblence to microsoft?)

I think ile start a new thread with this...

Interesting.

Good points made out.

I think you deserve an A for this report

[twilight]

Okay, probably you are right. Of course most companies act in this way, and there are even worse mehtods. But I am also thinking, that some people interested in CIV would be very very unhappy to programm things like that. It is like ... imagine standing right before the top of the mountain, no one was ever here, and then you go back because you can climb the top another time?

Let us make a compromise: Some programmers and the whole management wanted to do like you said and the Rest including Sid Meyer fight it but had lost. Do we have an agreement?

Don't let me loose my believes in Civ