Dips too powerful?

[splangy]

do you beleive diplomats are to powerful?

personally, i do, i dont remember any time in history that a ity was bought.

[TechWins]

I think they are fine as is. Maybe a few changes possibly but no major revampment. I don't really use them too often anyways so it doesn't matter too much to me.

[Alex 14]

They shouldn't be abel to plant nukes without an extra cost.

[Wittlich]

Actually, it's rather difficult to decide if the dips are too powerful or not without actually playing CIV3 first...

[fittstim]

I use more dips and spies in a game than any other unit. They have good movement, can establish embassies, can steal techs, can destroy upgrades, and bribe units and cities.

Having said that, I recognize that they are powerful and cheaply purchased. But I think the diplomat isn't too powerful because of the one time use limitation. Also there is almost no chance (maybe no chance at all) for a dip to steal a tech without causing your civ to get into a war.

However, the spy is an extremely powerful unit. Perhaps only the stealth fighter is more powerful and that costs a lot of shields to produce (80). A spy only costs 30.

[shade]

I love spies and dips,although i have the impression there odds sometimes are different for Human and AI.
Maybe the tasks of spies should be split up in 2 or 3 different units(spy(ambassy,steal tech,..),terrorist(nuke,bombing things,..),assasin(guess)).

Shade

[Provost Harrison]

Well at least it isn't CtP with the ridiculous Slavers, Corporate Branches, Lawyers and Nanowarriors or whatever they were called...

Diplomats look like sugar plump fairies in comparison...

[Father Beast]

with the proliferation of those other units, CTP did do something good about dips.

In CTP a dip could only view a city or establish embassy. could not steal tech or bribe. I think the same limitations should apply. get rid of the dang diploblitz strat.

Spies are also overpowered. my horde of spies can reduce a city to a worthless pile of junk in a couple of turns. buying cities is absurd, planting nukes should require a cost, etc.

[loinburger]

I'd say that dips/spies should be kept the same, but that cities should be able to build an improvement (CIA headquarters or something along those lines) that increases the cost/reduces the chance that a dip/spy action will succeed, and that also makes units produced in that city more expensive/difficult to bribe. Allow for another unit available later in the game (Counter-Terrorist or something) that is fairly weak on offense and defense and has a movement of 1 but which significantly reduces the chance that an enemy spy action will succeed; the upkeep cost of the CT would be prohibitively high, though, so it would be inefficient to put one in every city.

[KrazyHorse]

I like Technophile's suggestion of the specifically counter-espionage unit. Maybe a city improvement would do the trick, like a courthouse but much more efficient and limited to this use only.

[Inverse Icarus]

in civ 2 if u build a courthouse the bribing cost doubled.

and if u placed a diplomat or spy in your city (fortified), it can block attacks (including bribe)

[SerapisIV]

With the exception of city-bribing, I don't think dips/spys were over-powered. City-bribing though is unrealistic, especially in the modern age. I do hope that they keep the SMAC innovation of framing other Civs/leaders

[jsw363]

City-bribing is totally unrealistic and not really fun in terms of gameplay.

Framing other civ leaders is great! I definitely hope that that's included.

I don't like the idea of having to place a spy in every cityto defend agasint attacks. Seems a bit excessive. I hope there's a wonder to do this for me (like in CTP).

Spies are great units when used well, but I don't think that they should be as powerful as they have been in the past. I think splitting the spy's functions into a terrorist (who causes destruction and mayhem) and a spy (who is focused on reconnisance). Thatway no one unit would be too powerful. I would like more options for the terrorist though. Simply destroying buildings and poisoning people isn't enough. I want more options....

[Sabre2th]

I don't like the idea of having to place a spy in every cityto defend agasint attacks. Seems a bit excessive. I hope there's a wonder to do this for me (like in CTP).

I've often thought about this since I gave up dumb ol' CtP2.

This could make a great minor wonder for civ3, but it might also unbalance things. It's really hard to say. It's too late to add this to the main game anyway (unless it's already in )

About spies and terrorists: I don't think I would mind too much if they were split up, but it could just add another non-functional unit for some. Also - when you start splitting units like this, you run the risk of CtP syndrome where you have 6 different units that all end up being relatively useless.

[Kc7mxo]

What do you mean city bribing is unrealistic? Its very realistic, and historically accurate.

Throughout history leaders have bribed cities to surrender, bribed people within the city to open the gates, bribed troop divisions to mutiny, . . . . you get the picture.

In the era of "nobility" it was just as common. I bribe your duke to forswear you and join me by offering him land and/or gold. Bing bang boom. U lose.

The problem in civ is that you don't have empires of a hundred cities, a thousand towns, and ten thousand villages. You have empires of 20-80 cities. Having another empire bribe was is like canada buying off the governor of north dakota and expecting the dakotans to be happy with that. Possible, but unlikely.


What about just taking away their extra movement point?