Tweet
[...for war gameplay]
I don't consider to have exploited civ3 at its maximum yet, i mean the epic part, as i rarely completed it in Deity, never in Sid and very few in demi-god. Emperor with a bad starting location (as often) is my limit. Above i must say that there is only one maneer to win: war.
> So i would want to be really able to win the game in another way than militaristic even in difficult modes in civ4. What is the need of all those victory possibilities if they can't work in higher difficulty levels? Tech race should be feasable with a malus of tech and tech trades for the AI civs, but making them more agressive, even raging.
And I'm not fond of war in civilization, especially with all those units, outnumbered due to their weekness; the battle system more random which implies more units in order to have a chance to succeed to an operation.
In Civ2 i used to race the AI in science and rush it so i could have many techs in advance, particularly in the modern age with Obusiers. In this way i could build a "big" army of them, like ten-twenty and invade the enemy cities though their walls. In this way moves and battles were simplified.
> fronts in a war cannot be that many for a given country. There is no way to see isolated detachements crossing the country alone and get lost. War units should be more long to build and more powerfull also, i mean less unsure when it comes to compare two units strenght and make them battle.
Also in civ3 progression is just boring with crappy cities which can enter in rebellion and eat a big part of your army. This is kinda a pain when many crappy cites with no importance are dispatched there and there without even roads. we have to calculate how many units will do the affair and if you are wrong you must retry from the beginning. All this for crappy cities with no importance, weak in production, weak in citizen and weak in strategy position, weak in every aspect... it slows down the game.
> Also In civ3 this is just too boring to conquer a city and to see that it doesn't change anything to your status until you killed them all and the game is over. So maybe some cities could surrender... for example cities could be linked in countries within a civilization so that when we conquer the country capital(s) all the others would surrender.
to sum up:
- possibility for tech race in difficult modes: high agressivity of AI civs instead of insane tech trade.
- less units: more powerfull.
- important cities making smaller cities surrender if captured. "Combos"...
I don't consider to have exploited civ3 at its maximum yet, i mean the epic part, as i rarely completed it in Deity, never in Sid and very few in demi-god. Emperor with a bad starting location (as often) is my limit. Above i must say that there is only one maneer to win: war.
> So i would want to be really able to win the game in another way than militaristic even in difficult modes in civ4. What is the need of all those victory possibilities if they can't work in higher difficulty levels? Tech race should be feasable with a malus of tech and tech trades for the AI civs, but making them more agressive, even raging.
And I'm not fond of war in civilization, especially with all those units, outnumbered due to their weekness; the battle system more random which implies more units in order to have a chance to succeed to an operation.
In Civ2 i used to race the AI in science and rush it so i could have many techs in advance, particularly in the modern age with Obusiers. In this way i could build a "big" army of them, like ten-twenty and invade the enemy cities though their walls. In this way moves and battles were simplified.
> fronts in a war cannot be that many for a given country. There is no way to see isolated detachements crossing the country alone and get lost. War units should be more long to build and more powerfull also, i mean less unsure when it comes to compare two units strenght and make them battle.
Also in civ3 progression is just boring with crappy cities which can enter in rebellion and eat a big part of your army. This is kinda a pain when many crappy cites with no importance are dispatched there and there without even roads. we have to calculate how many units will do the affair and if you are wrong you must retry from the beginning. All this for crappy cities with no importance, weak in production, weak in citizen and weak in strategy position, weak in every aspect... it slows down the game.
> Also In civ3 this is just too boring to conquer a city and to see that it doesn't change anything to your status until you killed them all and the game is over. So maybe some cities could surrender... for example cities could be linked in countries within a civilization so that when we conquer the country capital(s) all the others would surrender.
to sum up:
- possibility for tech race in difficult modes: high agressivity of AI civs instead of insane tech trade.
- less units: more powerfull.
- important cities making smaller cities surrender if captured. "Combos"...
Comment