2 biggest prblems

[zyklon]

#1) I really hate it when i build a colony and next thing i know some other civ builds a city right over it. Now i just lost my resources and colony when i was there first. I mean i would build a city to protect against this, but i dont care for building cities on tundra covered islands.. Colonies are useless right now. The only way you should loose you colony is if its attacked.. Not because its been stolen......

soultion: They should become part of your territory

#2) I find it really annoying that other countries invade your territory constantly.. You ask them to leave.. they do and say sorry but next turn they are right back inside ur territory.. pretty lame..

#3) also subs should be the most powerful sea units.. In real life who ever has subs rules the seas..

These need to be fixxed quick... esp #1 and #2

[Deathray]

Re: 2 biggest prblems

Originally posted by zyklon
#1) I really hate it when i build a colony and next thing i know some other civ builds a city right over it. Now i just lost my resources and colony when i was there first. I mean i would build a city to protect against this, but i dont care for building cities on tundra covered islands.. Colonies are useless right now. The only way you should loose you colony is if its attacked.. Not because its been stolen......

soultion: They should become part of your territory

#2) I find it really annoying that other countries invade your territory constantly.. You ask them to leave.. they do and say sorry but next turn they are right back inside ur territory.. pretty lame..

#3) also subs should be the most powerful sea units.. In real life who ever has subs rules the seas..

These need to be fixxed quick... esp #1 and #2

Hmm, I thought that I answered these somewhere else, but I'll do it again anyway, although I have a feeling that you may be trolling because some of these points are so obviously wrong and because I've seen you trolling in a couple of other threads:

#1) That's your own stupid fault for not defending your colonies properly. If you stick a military unit on top of it then they won't be able to build a city there. Besides, a settler unit has twice the people of a worker unit, hence you can assume that they beat the workers up.

#2) Get a big military, scare them away. Patrol your borders.

#3) No. Having subs has never meant that you rule the seas. Having battleships did up until WWII, and since then its been about aircraft carries, never subs. Subs aren't particularly powerful either. Once they are detected they are sitting ducks, they use surprise to get their first attack in, and if that doesn't work then they're not in a good position. Submarines will usually get beaten in combat by destroyers, cruisers or battleships, unless they get in a lucky shot. Submarines' main use is for raiding poorly protected weak ships, such as supply ships and troop transports, in Civ III this would translate to hitting aircraft carriers and transports. They are also used for their tactical ability to stay undetected, which makes them good for camping with some nukes next to another country's coastline. In short, submarines are a tactical tool, not the brute force and ignorance brigade. If you are losing them often then its your own fault for attacking heavily armed and armoured warships and convoys.

[Akron]

Re: Re: 2 biggest prblems

Originally posted by Deathray


Hmm, I thought that I answered these somewhere else, but I'll do it again anyway, although I have a feeling that you may be trolling because some of these points are so obviously wrong and because I've seen you trolling in a couple of other threads:

#1) That's your own stupid fault for not defending your colonies properly. If you stick a military unit on top of it then they won't be able to build a city there. Besides, a settler unit has twice the people of a worker unit, hence you can assume that they beat the workers up.

#2) Get a big military, scare them away. Patrol your borders.

1) Putting a military unit on a colony won't prevent another civ from building a city right next to it and taking the resources. If you lay claim to resources through a colony or culture, a foreign settler should not be able to plop down and take it.

2) That's not the point. In my game, the Egyptians kept trying to move 30 knights into my territory and explore every inch, even though I did not have a right of passage agreement with them. Now what's the point of borders if they don't keep other civs from going into your territory? I was requesting that they leave every turn, though eventually I built a wall of knights to line my borders (much harder than in civ 2 to keep other civs out of your territory because of the lack of zones of control). This should not be necessary. If I tell the Egyptians to get the hell out of my borders and they ignore my request, that should be an act of war! I really thought that after 10 years of civ they'd actually get this right.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Other civs will respect your borders MUCH more if you have a respected culture. If your culture sucks, they probably will trample through.

[zyklon]

thanx akron for the post... i see im not the only that finds the 2 problems i posted above annoying...

and to deathray....

Hmm, I thought that I answered these somewhere else, but I'll do it again anyway, although I have a feeling that you may be trolling because some of these points are so obviously wrong and because I've seen you trolling in a couple of other threads:

this is only my 2nd or 3rd post on these forums... The only other posts I have made were thanking sn00py on the awsome graphic mods he has made for civ3.. im not trolling or whineing.. so stop flamming me..

you obviously havent played the game much. cause if you had im sure you would find it annoying to keep having to ask the other country to remove their troops 20 or 30 times in a row and they just say we are sorry... but next turn they do it again and again...

any whats the point of having colonys if another civ can build a city right next to it and you loose the colony and all the resources? I thing if you build a colony that should square should be a part of your terrirtory.

Imran Siddiqui: Other civs will respect your borders MUCH more if you have a respected culture. If your culture sucks, they probably will trample through.

i was playing cheiften and i had highest culture by far... i was wrecking everyone.. controled prob 3/4 of world.. you think that would make them try and get on my nice side

[treedom]

Actually I've been finding the AI quite well behaved with respect to my borders. Other than the occasional ship cruising by (which doesn't bother me) there have only been two 'incidents' with border incursions, and both times was because the AI was hell bent on starting a war and was trying to get a head start on deploying its troops before actually declaring war (pretty sharp on its part, I gotta say...I do the same thing). One of those times I asked it to withdraw, and it declared war...the other time it just declared war the next turn (no audience or anything!).

Of course, my culture is higher than any of my neighbours, and I have fortified garisons at strategic spots along the border...so maybe those are vital to a well behaved AI, as someone mentioned.

Of course, I'm speaking from the experience of only about 3/4 of a game played...but c'mon...compare that to CtP2.

[zyklon]

yea ill have to try building some fortresses see if that maybe makes a difference.. its happened to me in 2 of my 3 games so far.. not a big deal just gets annoying telling them to leave every turn.

[Stromprophet]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Other civs will respect your borders MUCH more if you have a respected culture. If your culture sucks, they probably will trample through.

Wrong. Man I dominate the culture in my 16 player game I'm doing. I have more than half of the whole culture in the world.

I have 5 units a turn violating my borders, I tell them ot leave, they come back. It's flamorific. And it's stupid. Which, is why I have destroyed all those civs who were stupid enough to do that.

[LtChambers]

Hmm

Originally posted by Stromprophet


Wrong. Man I dominate the culture in my 16 player game I'm doing. I have more than half of the whole culture in the world.

I have 5 units a turn violating my borders, I tell them ot leave, they come back. It's flamorific. And it's stupid. Which, is why I have destroyed all those civs who were stupid enough to do that.

Quite frankly, I'm pretty sure that's the point. Rival Civilizations can get along with each other to a certain degree, but eventually one or the other will knock each other out - it's called the competitive exclusion principle in biology. If they're not going to respect your borders, you had better teach them a lesson and get on with it - there's no use complaining about it on the forum because that's how it SHOULD work!

About colonies, I have to agree that the square you build it in SHOULD become part of your territory. That is an oversight on the part of the developing team. Enemies should not be able to violate the colony's sovereignty in the same way they can't violate your borders (see above). It might also be an alternative way to expand culture and maybe connect the borders of cities before they get the chance to expand.

My 2 sense...

[Stromprophet]

Re: Hmm

Originally posted by LtChambers


Quite frankly, I'm pretty sure that's the point. Rival Civilizations can get along with each other to a certain degree, but eventually one or the other will knock each other out - it's called the competitive exclusion principle in biology. If they're not going to respect your borders, you had better teach them a lesson and get on with it - there's no use complaining about it on the forum because that's how it SHOULD work!

About colonies, I have to agree that the square you build it in SHOULD become part of your territory. That is an oversight on the part of the developing team. Enemies should not be able to violate the colony's sovereignty in the same way they can't violate your borders (see above). It might also be an alternative way to expand culture and maybe connect the borders of cities before they get the chance to expand.

My 2 sense...

Maybe we're looking at this wrong.

I think the point of resources is becoming painfully apparent. Aquiring technology which reveals those sources is gonna be huge, and protecting those resources, will make the game.

So we have to protect them, no matter what. Now, you mightnot be able to protect them from city builders, but you might want to be willing to sacrfice a settler to travel a ways to claim it.

[cassembler]

I have 5 units a turn violating my borders, I tell them ot leave, they come back. It's flamorific. And it's stupid. Which, is why I have destroyed all those civs who were stupid enough to do that.

I'm gonna take a wild stab and say that the reason they keep invading your borders is because if they don't, they know you'll still kill them anyway. Give 'em credit for *attempting* to manipulate you.

[zyklon]

Maybe we're looking at this wrong.

I think the point of resources is becoming painfully apparent. Aquiring technology which reveals those sources is gonna be huge, and protecting those resources, will make the game.

So we have to protect them, no matter what. Now, you mightnot be able to protect them from city builders, but you might want to be willing to sacrfice a settler to travel a ways to claim it.

Ok so if the only way to protect your resources is to build a city, that kinda eliminates the whole purpose and need to build colonys... They should of just left em out all together.. not worht loosing a worker for if your gonna get all the resources robbed anyhow...

About colonies, I have to agree that the square you build it in SHOULD become part of your territory. That is an oversight on the part of the developing team. Enemies should not be able to violate the colony's sovereignty in the same way they can't violate your borders (see above). It might also be an alternative way to expand culture and maybe connect the borders of cities before they get the chance to expand.

i totally agree with you...

[Rust]

Yes Colonies need to have a zone of control, even if it is one square. You don't want to build cities in less than ideal places because of the corruption limit.

[MDR]

I'm currently in a game where I have six colonies, a mix of saltpeter and iron, all well garrisoned with fortresses built on top of them. So far, the only things that are bothering them are barbarians. They're all deep in a mountainous jungle, which makes it difficult to expand into. Also, I'm trying to keep the area undeveloped so I can have a reasonable chance at getting rubber. If I dropped a city in that area to protect those colonies, it'd die of disease before I could even get it working properly. The best bet for me right now is to maintain those colonies until someone does come along to claim the area. Then I invade.

That's my thought on how colonies should be used...

I don't know how well they work across water, yet...

[Kc7mxo]

As it stands, colonies are virtually useless. The AI will build cities in the most rotten place, just to access a resource. I have yet to see it make a SINGLE colony. This is intolerable.

I was really looking forward to constructing colonies. I tyhought it would be delightful to bujild a single city with a harbor somewhere, and then use colonies to bring resources to the city, and then to my empire.

Unfortunately with the AI's expansion strategies, this is impossible. Colonies should have at least a one sqare boundary.