Civ 4 - The List of BAD Ideas.

[Jon Miller]

I definitely don't want to watch any long drawn out battle

Jon Miller

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by rah
I would like to see civII be the starting point instead of civIII. Hopefully they would do it better this time.

Screw that...make SMAC the starting point.

New Graphics (with 3D terrain, thank you) + Civ 3 AI + SMAC mechanics + Imperialism combat + EU diplomatic options + GalCiv trade route system = great civ game. But the core of SMAC is what to build on.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar




Realistically, rulers (whom participated) often had to wait DAYS to see the outcome of a battle.
Let's have battles that span for days

Okay! Of course, "days" in the ancient era when turns span for hundreds of years....

Seriously, I wouldn't mind having battles that last several turns, giving the potential to reinforce a losing battle, or let suspense for a major fight carry over from turn to turn.

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by MattH


You talk as if we can have only one and not both...

I think we can only have the "buffet-style" Civ3, Matt, because it is a better business decision for Firaxis to develop along that path. They could throw endless manhours into programming and play testing the best AI the world has ever seen and spend countless extra hours beyond that perfecting game balance -or- they could spend minimal time on AI and game balance and leave all of the settings which balance the game open and tuneable and sell it to the public as a "create your own experience" game. Some don't mind the latter type of game. I wouldn't mind paying a little more and waiting a little longer for the former type of game. But I won't get that.

[Carolus Rex]

What rah said; look at Civ 2 and not the squeeze-every-buck-out-of-the-Civ-franchise-by-pumping-out-crappy-sequels games that followed it...

And, please, no pictures of Sid (or anyone else from Firaxis) in the game!

Carolus

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I definitely don't want to watch any long drawn out battle
Jon Miller

But you are willing to spend 10 minutes sending 70 units into battle one by one...

[Torkkeli]

Infinite movement with railroads.

Infinite movement on land (units) is bad.

[FinnishGuy]

AI has to move every unit around pointlessly every time...

[Zamphyr]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Screw that...make SMAC the starting point.

As long as the cruddy unit workshop model isn't brought in.

[DrGerry]

We just start a thread in the Spanish forum to do this. We plan to recopilate it, translate into english and post here.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by hexagonian

But you are willing to spend 10 minutes sending 70 units into battle one by one...

I said that I didn't like that

remember, I am all for having less units

and if I do have multiple units in a square, I am all for using one command to have them attack

Jon Miller

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Torkkeli
Infinite movement with railroads.

Infinite movement on land (units) is bad.

How on EARTH did we not mention this so far?!?


I'd like to add... no railroad production boosts. I'm done with systems that force me to build absurd things in every tile.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I said that I didn't like that
remember, I am all for having less units
Jon Miller

...then edit the cost of units - make them more expensive.

Less units!!

[Jon Miller]

thety are not ballance that way

they shuold be set up from the get go

I don';t just want less units, I don't like the idea of power stacking

where you just have 1 stack go arround taking cities and the like

less units would just mean a smaller stacj

Jon Miller

[hexagonian]

Increased cost of units will not affect balance if it is done in a consistent manner across the board. In fact, it makes decision-making a lot more challenging because your margin of error is smaller.

Unfortunately, with the civ3 setup that does not place any limit on the size of stacks, you cannot prevent the use of huge stacks as the most viable strategy, irregardless of pricing.

Adding bonuses based on unit composition in your stack isn't a bad idea. But in one sense, CTP2 already is using bonuses based on army composition with the use of range/flanker units. Their bonuses kick in when they are used in those capacities. Stick an archer on the front line and he is a dead man. Have him as compliment to a frontliner, and his bonus ability kicks in.

The sticking point with me regarding civ3 is still the idea of one-on-one battles. As long as combat is run as a one-on-one system of battle resolution, you are stuck with the tedium.