There is a God: Civ III Conquest Suggestions

[Tiberius]

PtW contains all the fixes from the vanilla 1.29f patch.

Edit: To be more precise: PtW already contains the 1.29 patch. You don't need the 1.29 patch if you have PtW.

[bongo]

I'm not sure if I need civ3 1.29f to install PTW(I'm at work now so I can't check...). What I DO know is that when I finally got my greasy fingers on PTW I had already installed patch 1.29f on my computer.

I'm not up-to-date on Conquests but it wouldn't surprise me if patch development stoppet on any other incarnations of civ when Conquests get released.

[Spiffor]

You don't need to patch vanilla Civ3 to install PtW.

I would assume that Conquests will ship with both 1.29 patch for Civ3 and 1.29(?) patch for PtW.

[Randolph]

PTW includes (in a way) 1.29f
If you install PTW there is no need for the 1.29f patch.
It might become more complex after conquests is released, although they might simply stop suporting PTW w/out conquests (like they stoped suporting vanilla civ after PTW).

[Fosse]

Firaxis says it is putting more diplomacy into the game... and there are a few things that I want specifically (most of these were talked about in the past on these boards, but I haven't seen them since the Conquest announcement was made).

1. One way ROP.
If I'm at the end of a landmass, it's silly for an ally who is between me and our common enemy to have to pass through me. Should be easy to program, realistic (look at US today).

2. Duration editing of deals
Why does every deal have to be twenty turns? What if I want a spice for gems deal until the end of time? Or a mutual protection pact for only 10 turns? I would love to be able to sign a military alliance for only 10 turns during the modern era when war weariness is crippling but I don't want a rep hit.

The AI could weight the values of trade deals according to how long they will last, which it already does for gpt deals anyhow.

3. Cease fire.
I see these working as follows: Nobody pays anybody anything, but all fighting stops. Now you can negotiate for peace over the course of the cease fire (which is an editable duration, of course!). If the cease fire expires, it remains unofficially in place until hostilities are reopened. I especially see this as useful in multiplayer, where either diplomacy is carried out over several turns, or you can't necessarily drop everything to negotiate a peace deal. Also, the tension of such a deal is one of the greats from Civ 2 and Alpha Centauri. Entering a cease fire would make relations with the other civ improve over a state of war. Breaking a cease fire would come with a small rep hit.

4. Stacked units with allies.
Been talked about in these threads. It is very important, I think.

5. Alliances without enemies.
This might be what the "permanant alliances" they've talked about are, I don't know. Alliance status increases relations greatly, allows use of each others roads, rails, airbases, and allows unit stacking. Their units can heal in your barracks. Includes an ROP, and implies a MPP. If one gets attacked, you don't get thrown into war, but they can ask you to join to honor the alliance. Not doing so when requested has penalties.

6. Option to honor/not honor agreements.
This is to clean up some of the ridiculous logic of MPPs. Let's say I have an MPP with Greece and Rome, and Rome attacks Greece. I should get a popup saying "The Greeks are under attack by Romans, shall we honor our agreement with Alexander and declare war?" Saying yes is obviously expected, and no has a rep hit and makes people less likely to honor a MPP with you, but it's an option. Let's say Greece is half of Rome's size, and you share an enormous border with Rome, and the only reason you signed an MPP with both was for protection against some other common enemy... I can see not wanting a Roman war shoved down your throat.

7. Multilateral diplomacy!
Many of us have cried out for this one, however unlikely. But if you're going to ask us to pay money for a game we already own, then make it worth our cash! I'd pay if this were the only addition.

8. Unit trading.
See the thousands of threads already dedicated to this topic.

9. Constant choice between "Please leave" and "Get out or war."

10. Some effect from "please leave."

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Fosse

4. Stacked units with allies.
Been talked about in these threads. It is very important, I think.

This is a must

7. Multilateral diplomacy!
Many of us have cried out for this one, however unlikely. But if you're going to ask us to pay money for a game we already own, then make it worth our cash! I'd pay if this were the only addition.

We can only hope!

10. Some effect from "please leave."

I'm glad to see so many of us are on the page with respect to changes. Hopefully Firaxis is aware of this and implementing the features.

[Fosse]

I almost forgot... no free palaces!

Building a palace is so expensive, but losing your palace means you get a free one?! What the heck?

The player is given an advantage because he knows that abandoning his capital is sometimes a great idea, which is absurd.

And losing a capital doesn't really matter... I propose that losing the palace means all cities are counted as being, for exapmle, six cities away form the capital in terms of corruption. I don't know exactly what would be a good number, maybe Alexman, or someone else who really knows corruption could come up with one.

Also, if a civ has no palace, then a new palace is hugely discounted, so that a reasonably built up, but largely corrupt city, could finish it in about 20 turns.


ANd if you have the FP when you lose your palace? Make FP change into a palace, and now you can build the FP somewhere else.


Losing your Palace should be a horrible thing, and the enemy's capital should be a prime military target (besides for culture fliping reasons). My suggestion would reflect this, without being too powerful.

[bongo]

I agree, loosing your capitol has almost no effect now. It should have more impact than just loosing a city. How about this: When your capitol falls you get a dialog asking which city will be your new capitol. Chose the city with FP(if you got it) and that will be your capitol in 1 turn, choose another and a capital get built there in 5 turns. Meanwhile all cities suffer high corruption.

How high is 'high' then? Corruption is calculated from three factors, number of cities, distance from capitol and number of cities closer to capitol. And then you have modifiers for building governments etc. Double all factors regarding number of cities, distance from capitol and number of cities closer to capitol to get palace-less corruption.

[Falconius]

Originally posted by bongo
How high is 'high' then? Corruption is calculated from three factors, number of cities, distance from capitol and number of cities closer to capitol. And then you have modifiers for building governments etc. Double all factors regarding number of cities, distance from capitol and number of cities closer to capitol to get palace-less corruption.

I like the gist of your idea. But if one of the factors calculating corruption is distance from capital, how do you do this when there is no capital?

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Falconius


I like the gist of your idea. But if one of the factors calculating corruption is distance from capital, how do you do this when there is no capital?

Just say that every city is X number of tiles away from the capital if there is none. That's how it's worked in past games.

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by Fosse
4. Stacked units with allies.
Been talked about in these threads. It is very important, I think.

This is one feature I really want. Heck, I would probably buy the expansion just for this.

Originally posted by Fosse
6. Option to honor/not honor agreements.
This is to clean up some of the ridiculous logic of MPPs. Let's say I have an MPP with Greece and Rome, and Rome attacks Greece. I should get a popup saying "The Greeks are under attack by Romans, shall we honor our agreement with Alexander and declare war?" Saying yes is obviously expected, and no has a rep hit and makes people less likely to honor a MPP with you, but it's an option. Let's say Greece is half of Rome's size, and you share an enormous border with Rome, and the only reason you signed an MPP with both was for protection against some other common enemy... I can see not wanting a Roman war shoved down your throat.

Definitely needed, though the rep hit must be quite harsh to keep MPPs from being fluff. Possibly keep AIs from ever signing an MPP with you again, like with breaking gpt deals.

[dexters]

I agree with the idea of giving players choice with regards to honoring and not honiring agreements.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Non aggression pacts would be nice as would permanent alliances that theyve mentioned. The ability to set your stance ie polite furious etc,( this really bugs me not being able to let them know how pissed off I am with them) would be a nice feature, and a way to demand or ask one AI to cease aggression towards another civ. Perhaps one you are allied with but you dont want to get dragged onto the fighting.

I like the idea of not having to honour agreements but it must carry a severe rep hit both for human and AI players.

Civil war should be brought back as we had in civ2 when you captured a civs capitol or an improved model of it.

The AI really needs to be improved in the use of bombardment units for attack as well as defense, it seems to use naval bombardment of your coastal squares quite well but rarely attacks on land with Artillery etc to soften up targets first. IMHO if the AI made good use of Artillery and protected it properly the game would be both tougher and far more realistic and fun.

I think everyone wants to see some improvements in the trade system especially with regard to visible trade routes and the ability to pirate them.

[TheArsenal]

[In part, as edited]:

Originally posted by ChrisiusMaximus
"...The ability to set your stance ie polite furious etc,( this really bugs me not being able to let them know how pissed off I am with them) ..."

CTP2 does this. You are able to make your diplomatic requests with varying levels of obsequiousness and anger.

What I want: the ability to see how AI civs feel about each other.

[bongo]

Loss of capitol

Originally posted by Falconius


I like the gist of your idea. But if one of the factors calculating corruption is distance from capital, how do you do this when there is no capital?

In older civ games the distance without a capitol were set equal to map size I think, or some other value mimicking a capitol on the other side of the world. In civ3 this value would effectively cripple all cities. So in a capitol-challenged empire distance to capitol could be set to distance to where-capitol-once-were*2. This would increase corruption everywhere but still give your old core a decent production.