Tweet
I know this is a long post so I devided it up into 2 parts for people who might just want to read about hitpoints/firepower.
HERE IS THE STUFF ON HIT POINTS
There are many things that I like about this game, yet there are just as many things that I highly dislike. I am not going to go over all the bugs here because they have already been posted about millions of times. My bigest thing with the game is the combat system. I hate it when my elite tank that is in a forest is forced to retreat when attacked by a regular longbow men (this has happened too many times)
People keeps saying that we need to bring back firepower. They are wrong because only a few units had fire power. The major deciding factor in civ2's combat system was the hit points. warriors had 10 hit points whereas musketeers had 20 hit points. thats why musketeers defending at 3 won when being attacked by catapults with an attack of 6. What needs to be done about this is to give more modern units more hit points.
Does anyone else find it funny that in civ3 an ancient warror can take the same amount of damage as a battle ship and tanks? I think that ancient warriors should have only 1 hit point starting out. As more modern units come out they should have an ever increasing amount of hit points, just like in civ2 (battle ships had I belive 40 or 50 hit points in civ2 and tanks had 30. this is why tanks, unless they were all the way damaged, would never get killed by ancient units). With a system like this in civ 3, the battle out comes in the game would be much more realistic. Also, if something like this is implemented, then the veteran elite system would need to be redone. I belive that the units should gain an attack and defese bonuse each time they gain a level. I also think it would be kool if a unit became elite, that It would gain an extra movement point per turn.
HERE IS MY 2 CENTS ON OTHER STUFF.
One addition note about movement and aircraft ranges. Air craft ranges should be much much more then they are now. I would not mind it if their range was determined by the size of the map but I just started a game in a world that is 256x256 and it is unbeliveably huge. I also want to be able to decided on the dimensions of the map I want to play on in the new game screen. I dont like the preset options. There should be a custom size available too. I don't like having to go in and edit the huge map dimensions so that I can play on a map that is 256x256. Also, along the lines of huge maps, I should have the option at start up of making all units have twice as much rate of movement a-la civ2 multiplayer gold multiplayer games. This is because it will take me 50 years for my modern task force to reach another country in the map I am currently playing on (256x256). One additional thing about the start new game screen. I want to be able to choose a mix of continents and archipelogo. The real world is not made up of just continents or islands. It is made up of a combination of the 2. I want there to be a mix option that makes some big continents and some small ones, and then a bunch of islands, or perhaps one really big continent and then a bunch of really small islands. We should be able to mix it up.
Another Idea. This is just an idea I have that I think would be really cool if it could be implemented. Mid-air refueling. If the current airplane system is kept it could work like this. You would station your mid-air refueling aircraft in citys or carriers and you would set them to "patrol" or "refuel" just like you set fighters to air superiority and what this would allow you to do is if any fighter or bombers range overlaped with that of the tanker, then it would allow the fighter/bomber to continou through the tankers range and then go its set range again. so if the tankers range was 6 then a fighter going through it would have its range extented 6 beyond that of the tankers range in all directions from the tanker. Also, you would be able to use multiple tankers to fly your bombers and fighters around the world to bomb/recon a target in a single turn. This from the fact that the US sends B-2s from Whitemans airforce base in the middle of missouri all the way over to afganastna and back. Of course only modern fighters/bombers would be capable of being refueled in midair. Also, I think it that the air base improvment should come back and that you can make a treaty with you allys (assuming that you can again have a strait allience and not just this ally vs enimy crap) to allow you to build an airbase in their teritory so that you could station fighters/bombers/tankers there. Also, you should be able to land your aircraft at bases other then from where they took off. Additionaly, fighters should scramble and bomb any units attacking their city/base if there is another ground unit in the city/base defending (the fighters scramble while the groudn units engage). Along those lines, if a city/base that has only fighters in it when it is attacked, there should be a 50% chance for the fighters to get off the ground and bomb the attacking unit. not 100% chance like if there were ground units in it because the enimy ground units have time to get the air base and attack the aircraft as they are taking off because there were no ground defenders to stop them. (A company of knights from the middle ages should not be able to walk into a city that has 8 f-15s in it and destroy all of the f-15s). Another thing, air units and artiery units should be able to destroy units. Why is is that I can bomb a city of size 12 with 15 city improvements down to size 1 and 0 city improvments and yet barely damage the defeneding units? (I know because I went gung-ho with f-15s as soon as I got them in a game I was playing because I thought they would kick royal butt). Once the city was at size 1 (which would be like me killing millions of civillions), and all the improvements were gone, I bombed it twice as much as what it took me to get it to size one and yet nothing happened? Does anyone see something wrong with this? Finaly, AEGIS crusiers should have a fairly weak bombard, and should be able to carry cruise missles. The cruise missles would be their primary attack form and cruise missles should have a range much farther then 2. When was the last time you saw a Ticondaroga class crusier bombard the shoreline? You dont see that because it doesnt happen. We (meaning USA) destroy stuff by attacking with cruise missles and fighters/bombers. Perhaps instead of having the ablitiy to bombard, the AEGIS crusier would have a missle attack option that would have a range of like 4 or 6 or somthing. It could have a limited number of shots before it has to return back to base for more missles, spending at least one turn in port to be resupplyed. Also, you should be able to station 1 ATTACK helicopter on the crusiers. This assuming that there is an attack helicopter put into the game. I wouldnt mind it if air units had less of a chance of damaging/destroying infantry units if the attack helicopter had an increased chance of killing soldiers. Ok, one last thing. Why is it cannons from the 15th century can bombard my battleship down to 1 health? the cannons first of all most likely cant shoot that far, even if the battle ship was just off the coast and secondly, the steal ball from the cannons would just bounce off the battleships, or any other modern vessle for that matter. Question, why is it that my battle ship only does damage like 1 out of 6 bombards? Doesnt its guns do tons and tons of damge? thats what I thought, maybe Im wrong. Subs should have a strait out chance of sinking any vessel with no damage. I want there to be the possiblity for me to sink a battle ship with my sub, yet not have the battleships defense so low that destroyers esily sink them, or the subs attack so high that destroyers cant defend agasint them. Ok, I just thought of something else, if you bombard a bombard unit (with ground/sea bombard units, then there is the chance that that unit being bombarded may bombard you back (assuming it has the range to do so. thus simulating artillery duels.
Ok i know this was a long list of stuff, but it is stuff that I have not yet read on the forums that I thought people should hear about. If you read all of this then you have my thanks.
HERE IS THE STUFF ON HIT POINTS
There are many things that I like about this game, yet there are just as many things that I highly dislike. I am not going to go over all the bugs here because they have already been posted about millions of times. My bigest thing with the game is the combat system. I hate it when my elite tank that is in a forest is forced to retreat when attacked by a regular longbow men (this has happened too many times)
People keeps saying that we need to bring back firepower. They are wrong because only a few units had fire power. The major deciding factor in civ2's combat system was the hit points. warriors had 10 hit points whereas musketeers had 20 hit points. thats why musketeers defending at 3 won when being attacked by catapults with an attack of 6. What needs to be done about this is to give more modern units more hit points.
Does anyone else find it funny that in civ3 an ancient warror can take the same amount of damage as a battle ship and tanks? I think that ancient warriors should have only 1 hit point starting out. As more modern units come out they should have an ever increasing amount of hit points, just like in civ2 (battle ships had I belive 40 or 50 hit points in civ2 and tanks had 30. this is why tanks, unless they were all the way damaged, would never get killed by ancient units). With a system like this in civ 3, the battle out comes in the game would be much more realistic. Also, if something like this is implemented, then the veteran elite system would need to be redone. I belive that the units should gain an attack and defese bonuse each time they gain a level. I also think it would be kool if a unit became elite, that It would gain an extra movement point per turn.
HERE IS MY 2 CENTS ON OTHER STUFF.
One addition note about movement and aircraft ranges. Air craft ranges should be much much more then they are now. I would not mind it if their range was determined by the size of the map but I just started a game in a world that is 256x256 and it is unbeliveably huge. I also want to be able to decided on the dimensions of the map I want to play on in the new game screen. I dont like the preset options. There should be a custom size available too. I don't like having to go in and edit the huge map dimensions so that I can play on a map that is 256x256. Also, along the lines of huge maps, I should have the option at start up of making all units have twice as much rate of movement a-la civ2 multiplayer gold multiplayer games. This is because it will take me 50 years for my modern task force to reach another country in the map I am currently playing on (256x256). One additional thing about the start new game screen. I want to be able to choose a mix of continents and archipelogo. The real world is not made up of just continents or islands. It is made up of a combination of the 2. I want there to be a mix option that makes some big continents and some small ones, and then a bunch of islands, or perhaps one really big continent and then a bunch of really small islands. We should be able to mix it up.
Another Idea. This is just an idea I have that I think would be really cool if it could be implemented. Mid-air refueling. If the current airplane system is kept it could work like this. You would station your mid-air refueling aircraft in citys or carriers and you would set them to "patrol" or "refuel" just like you set fighters to air superiority and what this would allow you to do is if any fighter or bombers range overlaped with that of the tanker, then it would allow the fighter/bomber to continou through the tankers range and then go its set range again. so if the tankers range was 6 then a fighter going through it would have its range extented 6 beyond that of the tankers range in all directions from the tanker. Also, you would be able to use multiple tankers to fly your bombers and fighters around the world to bomb/recon a target in a single turn. This from the fact that the US sends B-2s from Whitemans airforce base in the middle of missouri all the way over to afganastna and back. Of course only modern fighters/bombers would be capable of being refueled in midair. Also, I think it that the air base improvment should come back and that you can make a treaty with you allys (assuming that you can again have a strait allience and not just this ally vs enimy crap) to allow you to build an airbase in their teritory so that you could station fighters/bombers/tankers there. Also, you should be able to land your aircraft at bases other then from where they took off. Additionaly, fighters should scramble and bomb any units attacking their city/base if there is another ground unit in the city/base defending (the fighters scramble while the groudn units engage). Along those lines, if a city/base that has only fighters in it when it is attacked, there should be a 50% chance for the fighters to get off the ground and bomb the attacking unit. not 100% chance like if there were ground units in it because the enimy ground units have time to get the air base and attack the aircraft as they are taking off because there were no ground defenders to stop them. (A company of knights from the middle ages should not be able to walk into a city that has 8 f-15s in it and destroy all of the f-15s). Another thing, air units and artiery units should be able to destroy units. Why is is that I can bomb a city of size 12 with 15 city improvements down to size 1 and 0 city improvments and yet barely damage the defeneding units? (I know because I went gung-ho with f-15s as soon as I got them in a game I was playing because I thought they would kick royal butt). Once the city was at size 1 (which would be like me killing millions of civillions), and all the improvements were gone, I bombed it twice as much as what it took me to get it to size one and yet nothing happened? Does anyone see something wrong with this? Finaly, AEGIS crusiers should have a fairly weak bombard, and should be able to carry cruise missles. The cruise missles would be their primary attack form and cruise missles should have a range much farther then 2. When was the last time you saw a Ticondaroga class crusier bombard the shoreline? You dont see that because it doesnt happen. We (meaning USA) destroy stuff by attacking with cruise missles and fighters/bombers. Perhaps instead of having the ablitiy to bombard, the AEGIS crusier would have a missle attack option that would have a range of like 4 or 6 or somthing. It could have a limited number of shots before it has to return back to base for more missles, spending at least one turn in port to be resupplyed. Also, you should be able to station 1 ATTACK helicopter on the crusiers. This assuming that there is an attack helicopter put into the game. I wouldnt mind it if air units had less of a chance of damaging/destroying infantry units if the attack helicopter had an increased chance of killing soldiers. Ok, one last thing. Why is it cannons from the 15th century can bombard my battleship down to 1 health? the cannons first of all most likely cant shoot that far, even if the battle ship was just off the coast and secondly, the steal ball from the cannons would just bounce off the battleships, or any other modern vessle for that matter. Question, why is it that my battle ship only does damage like 1 out of 6 bombards? Doesnt its guns do tons and tons of damge? thats what I thought, maybe Im wrong. Subs should have a strait out chance of sinking any vessel with no damage. I want there to be the possiblity for me to sink a battle ship with my sub, yet not have the battleships defense so low that destroyers esily sink them, or the subs attack so high that destroyers cant defend agasint them. Ok, I just thought of something else, if you bombard a bombard unit (with ground/sea bombard units, then there is the chance that that unit being bombarded may bombard you back (assuming it has the range to do so. thus simulating artillery duels.
Ok i know this was a long list of stuff, but it is stuff that I have not yet read on the forums that I thought people should hear about. If you read all of this then you have my thanks.
but thems the reasons.
Comment