Biggest Disappointments With Game Engine?

[Geoff the Medio]

Originally posted by Dominae
... exploration and expansion must come to an end sometime, right? The problem is that these two fun things are not really replaced with anything, just more troop movement and improvement construction. ...

I've always hated how map trading removes most of the excitement and necessity of exploration. I seem to go from a little bit of my local area to a my whole continent suddenly when I meet neighbours. Later, if ocean crossing reveals a new set of civs preveiously unmet, there's no need to explore this new exciting landmass, since the whole map can be bought for a few old techs.

If the ability to trade maps was delayed until much later, perhaps around the time of navigation, the early game fun would be significantly increased and extended, I think...

I realize I could just not accept maps in trade... but if I could just buy a map, it seems pointless to manually explore...

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Geoff the Medio
If the ability to trade maps was delayed until much later, perhaps around the time of navigation, the early game fun would be significantly increased and extended, I think...

This is a great idea, and one that I would love to try out in a mod sometime...


Dominae

[alva]

And the ability to sell Worldmap - Territorymap, especially for MP games...

[WarpStorm]

Delaying map trading is an easy mod and a lot of fun (I tied it to Navigation). While you're at it delay contact trading also.

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

My major disappointment is that the AI seems too scripted. I've seiged cities for turns that had catapults/cannons/artillery in them and not once did they fire on the seiging units. I modded settlers to remove 3 population, and the AI cities will build a settler first even tho it will finish production long before that city has the needed population thus wasting many many turns of production. Another example is tile improvements. The AI does not determine the needs of the city when it is building tile improvements. I allow forests to be mined, and now the AI plants/mines every plains tile even if that causes the city to stop growing without using all these modified tiles. City production frequently makes no sense. many times I've seen an AI losing a land war, yet their cities are either building cultural buildings or naval units, neither of which helps them from being wiped out by land forces. I also wished the AI understood massed formations. I rarely see SODs since I got PTW, and many AI offensives are easily destroyed because their units are so scattered that they are picked off piecemeal

All these said, it is still an enjoyable game, but there are huge improvements that could be made to make it a great game instead of just an enjoyable one.

[Konquest02]

Originally posted by ALPHA WOLF 64
I modded settlers to remove 3 population, and the AI cities will build a settler first even tho it will finish production long before that city has the needed population thus wasting many many turns of production.

This way you really disadvantage the AI. It already had tendancies to build settlers even though its cities didn't have the correct population. With you modification, it will lose a couple of crucial turns in the early game waiting for its first settler to be built...

Re No trading maps before navigation: This is a great idea, which we should try in a mod one day...

--Kon--

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

Originally posted by Konquest02
This way you really disadvantage the AI. It already had tendancies to build settlers even though its cities didn't have the correct population. With you modification, it will lose a couple of crucial turns in the early game waiting for its first settler to be built...

Not all cities are handicapped because I also raised the cost of settlers. My goal was to prevent the world from being fully settled by 500ad. Since the AI gets a free unit every time it founds a city, this seemed a fair tradeoff. But that doesnt change the fact that its fairly simple for the AI to determine whether it should start a unit/building that isnt useful instead of being hard coded to automatically build a settler. As many programmers are fond of saying "hard coding is bad", thus gualifies as a game engine disappointment.

[Jaybe]

What we really need is to be able to separate bombard units from bombard city/terrain capabilities. An expansion of the Lethal Bombard Sea and Lethal Bombard Land options.

Then we could make archer/longbow units a bombard unit with 1 defense point.

[Master Zen]

Returning to the Battlefield Medicine discussion

"Healing" in Civ is taken as a generic term for both physical human healing as well as machine repair. For non-mechanical units this would of course wound healing and attrition replacement. For machine units it would also mean vehicle replacement and repair.

The problem with the game is in the logistics system, or lack thereof which would effectively make battlefield medicine a difference in "healing" or "supply". Still, this would actually seem to much as even most wargames fail to differentiate from these two things.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by ALPHA WOLF 64


Not all cities are handicapped because I also raised the cost of settlers. My goal was to prevent the world from being fully settled by 500ad. Since the AI gets a free unit every time it founds a city, this seemed a fair tradeoff. But that doesnt change the fact that its fairly simple for the AI to determine whether it should start a unit/building that isnt useful instead of being hard coded to automatically build a settler. As many programmers are fond of saying "hard coding is bad", thus gualifies as a game engine disappointment.

The AI has a nasty habit of stopping expansion after a certain point. I made a custom map, 24 civs, with huge continents available to Russia, Britain, the US and Germany. The Russians were the only civ among these to constanty colonize their continents fully. Even up to 1800 huge parts of the US and British continents were uninhabited except for one or two coastal cities by other civs.

I tried going around this by modding them to produce many Settlers but I haven't played on the map yet to see the results.

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
Delaying map trading is an easy mod and a lot of fun (I tied it to Navigation). While you're at it delay contact trading also.

Hmm -- then push Explorers back to Map Making, and maybe, just maybe, they'll finally have a role to play . Expansionist civs would still get an early advantage with the availability of Scouts, it just wouldn't last particularly long.

I'll have to try that one out. Wonder if the AI could cope?

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Master Zen
The AI has a nasty habit of stopping expansion after a certain point.

This is because it is able to avoid the effects of Corruption due to number of cities. It definitely expands less aggressively once it reaches or surpasses the OCN. This was a smart move on the designers' part, but with the annoying side-effect that the AI has a tough time winning by Domination, when it clearly should (see AU203).


Dominae

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

i doubled the number of cities since I dont like how corruption is handled, so in my games, the AIs never stop expanding. Its not uncommon for AI cities in the 1800s to contain 1 or more sleeping settlers. This also goes back to the fact that AI production is scripted and not as needed. An AI that builds what it needs would be a substantially more challenging opponent, instead of just giving the AIs freebie units and other cheats.

[Sava]

There are too many to list... I start with combat though. Trip, you did a good job summing up what sucks about it. Firaxis seemed more interested in remaking old Civ games and giving them some new things instead of making an entirely new game. And with the former, they released a severely-retarded, buggy version.

[Verto]

My biggest disappointment: There is a limit to the amount of ego enlarging praise that can be showered upon me.

And the lack of genuine creativity shown by the designers.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

OK, for what it's worth, here are my thoughts:

point#1: I feel that, at the beginning of the game, you should ONLY be able to choose from those Civilizations which existed in the Ancient age (like Romans, Greeks, Persian's-etc) As you move into each new era, you should get a chance to rename both your Civ, and your Civ's leader-if you want! (Think "History of the World" by Avalon Hill). In addition, if you destroy a Civ, and it later is respawned, it should only come from Civs which are applicable to the era you are currently in. Lastly, I wish, wish, WISH they would bring back Civil Wars (though with the different mechanics which have been discussed in so many different threads)-that way, when cities break away to form a new Civ-the civ can take a name appropriate to the era (think American War of Independance).
I would have to disagree with Trip, though, about NO civ being wiped out. The Mayans, Incas and Aztecs were, in their pure-blood form, wiped out to a man. Most South Americans are now of at least SOME mixed blood! Also, a number of indigenous civilizations now exist only as marginalised groups within other Civilizations.

Point#2 Agree wholeheartedly with you on this one, Trip. The best, and easiest solutions I can think of for this one would be to have Random natural and socialogical events which can alter the landscape, or your nation (such as eruptions, floods and tidal waves; or revolutions, dark ages or Renaissances)-thus making the games outcome even LESS predictable. It would also be nice if a city improvement could actually CAUSE a resource to appear in that cities radius, if bonus and luxury resources could appear and disappear like the strategic type, and if disappearance was more linked to the size of a civ (#of cities), how many civs they trade that resource to, and the number of that resource the civ controls Also, tweaking of the Global Warming model(and having nuclear war cause Nuclear WINTER, not summer ), and making pollution a little less easy to counteract, would also be good!

Point#3: Must agree again, Trip. My biggest issue is that, even with the advent of Battlefield medicine, non-infantry units should ONLY be able to heal in a fort or a friendly city. Secondly, I feel that all units should have some kind of range-i.e: the number of square,s outside of friendly borders, that a unit can travel before they start suffering damage, on a turn-by turn basis. Nations that you have ROP's, MPP's or alliances with would count as friendly, and forts would also count as friendly territory. This would make forts more valuable to build, as they would become "Supply lines" for your invading force! I also wish they would bring back SMAC alliances, where you could base your forces in an allies cities!

On a final note, another change I'd like to see is the presence of CtP style "trade routes" , with a concommitant ability for enemies to break or pillage them (though NOT automatically!!)

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Jaybe]

... if bonus and luxury resources could appear and disappear like the strategic type ...

Luxuries can be made to disappear through the Editor. Bonus resources can be changed to Strategic resources and also do disappearing acts.

I have started to experiment with such changes to emulate 'rise and fall of civilization' dynamics. I have no solid conclusions as of yet, but you DO have to put up with those bonus resources being listed as strat. resources in the city and diplomatic windows.

My next test game will have to be a debug-enabled scenario.

--
OT: Being used to large maps, playing a std. map (with my current test game) sure gives a different feel. You smaller-map players don't know what you're missing ... (and visa versa)!

[Verto]

Would be nice to see random disasters happening, as mentioned before,although I might cry if my civilization was wiped out by the bubonic plague or an earthquake.

[Spec]

Turn time on huge map.

[VJ]

If you destroy a civilization, it has no effect on the game. 'Their' citizens become 'your' citizens instantly, and don't affect anything for the rest of the game. In reality, every 'civilization' has been conquered by another, usually to rise again. Civs being conquered never to emerge independent or important again is the rare exception, and no where near being the rule.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

A qualifier to my above statement regarding random events:

In the editor, you should be able to change the frequency and magnitude of random events (in general). This would, however, effect both good and bad events!!
Second, you should be able to have improvements and/or Wonders which reduce, or even eliminate, the chance of a bad random event happening. Conversely, certain improvements/wonders should increase the chance of a Good event occuring! The chance of some random events happening should also be connected, in some way, to your actions in the game. The importance of these qualifiers is that random events aren't 100% "Random" but can be altered to your benefit!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[HAND]

Originally posted by Trip
The big problem in this area is lack of diplomacy The diplomatic engine is very limited, and a little work in that area could do wonders.

Yea i remember in AC, having the option to "call off your vendetta against my friend"...I thought this would be in Civ3?
I also think you should be able to sell/give weaponary aswell without handing over the tech itself (as in Civ2)..

A number of other choices should be available aswell.

[Pingu:]

In terms of combat, I was expecting something a bit more innovative, after Call to power which had such a good model of combat.... Perhaps units with the close combat strengths aswell as ranged attack strengths. The maximum size of the army is dependent on your communications technology at the time (radio suddenly becomes the biggest military advance ever!). Great leaders do something like enhance every unit in the army?? or allow a bigger army by 50%??

Nukes. When you nuke, or get nuked, there needs to be a new Nuclear exchange turn, where the game goes ballistic missile only, and the whole world gets wiped out in one turn! A surprise attack has a bit of an advantage, but it works in Civ much more than it would in reality.

Apart from that (and not being able to stack with allied Civs, but that's minor) Civ 3 is great.


Pingu:

[HAND]

There also should be an option to let weapon inspections take place...rather than a friendly civ get paranoid and have to try and plant spies etc which will inevitably cause friction...

[badams52]

That worked really well with Iraq.

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by Pingu:
Nukes. When you nuke, or get nuked, there needs to be a new Nuclear exchange turn, where the game goes ballistic missile only, and the whole world gets wiped out in one turn! A surprise attack has a bit of an advantage, but it works in Civ much more than it would in reality.

As nukes are never destroyed in a nuclear exchange in Civ3, I've never had a problem with a counterstrike on the next turn. The world gets pretty much wiped out within one full turn.

[Mad Bomber]

Warp:

The problem is that nukes ARE destroyed when you capture a city, So you could investigate enemy cities to find out where all the ICBM are. Then all you have to do is to nuke those cities and capture them in the same turn to prevent a counter-strike.