National debt, reputation and guerrilla

[J10]

I want to suggest three options for the upcoming patch, if they've already been stated elsewhere, then well someone's with me

1) National debt. That's for the 20-terms payment plans. Now I do understand that some "risks" are under taken when you agreed on a payment plan, but right now as it stands, the risk is too big. More than once had I sold some technology to another civ and the next turn he signed a trade embargo or even declare war on me, and the payments? Boom, gone. We as human players can expliot that too, it should be patched so that when the two civs signed a peace treaty or re-establish a normal trading relationship, the debt resumes, if not, the reputation of the civ in debt would be lowered, which brings me to my second point...

2) Where the he|l is reputation? Am I missing something? If there's such thing as reputation factor at work while we're dealing and trading with other civs, then why wouldn't we be able to see them? Buying 3 technologies and agreed to pay 200 bucks per turn then turn around and sign a trade embargo against that civ should lower your reputation, signing a peace treaty then attack next turn should lower your reputation, signing a military alliance with a third civ then make peace with the second while laughing your rear-end off should definitely lower your reputation. I remember "spotless, excellent..." reputation levels for Civ2, where is it in Civ3? I want to be able to SEE them. (Unless I miss it then I'd appreciate if someone tell me where it is I failed to find any mention in the manual neither) We, being the leader of our civ, should have a freaking reputation! That makes the game more fun too.

3) Guerrilla. I like the way culture influences your conquests, but like many people stated before it's too... much. I would rather have some really uncooperative, furious foreign citizens in my conquered cities turning into guerrillas and taking strategic positions in the city square (like an Iron mine) after a couple of turns, and your rival civ should be able to control them. Angry citizens should also be able to destroy city improvements, sabotage your units (I know they do too in domestic civil unrests, but hardly when you conquer a city, usually it's querreled within a few turns then the whole city with their happy citizens revert). Either that, or they simply leave your city and add population to the nearest enemy city or something. See, 12 fxxking riders beaten to death by 2 happy merry female farmers is just a bit ... unrealistic.

And of course, for each age, a different guerrilla unit, preferably weak in relative terms, and is a 2 hp conscript unit, say warrior for ancient, swordman for middle, musketman for industrial and infantry for modern.

[/rant]

Any other suggestions?

[rid102]

Now I do understand that some "risks" are under taken when you agreed on a payment plan, but right now as it stands, the risk is too big.

Why? If they are stealing your money in this manner, go and wage war on them and take some back. Alternately, do it to them first.

) Where the he|l is reputation? Am I missing something? If there's such thing as reputation factor at work while we're dealing and trading with other civs, then why wouldn't we be able to see them?

Reputation seems to have turned more into "attitude" in many ways (i.e. based on relative military sizes, cultures, scientific advancement etc.). The reputation concept that was seen in Civ2 (which was somewhat zealous) seems to have gone or replaced with something more subtle. Anyway, the AI never actually paid attention to reputation levels, as it always just banded together against you.

I would rather have some really uncooperative, furious foreign citizens in my conquered cities turning into guerrillas and taking strategic positions in the city square

You mean Civ2 style guerilla/partisan units? But then what about in the case where a city is razed, is the populace simply slaughtered? I think for citizens to get to the stage where they destroy improvements during rioting etc. the disorder has to be pretty severe and ongoing for several turns (at least, that's what I've seen).

If I were you, I'd be more worried about the patch fixing bugs and streamlining the game engine. There are bigger issues to worry about with the game mechanics (e.g. the fact that Civ3 is now something of a resource management game where you build an empire, as opposed to an empire building game where you also manage resources).

[cort]

1. well, i dont agree with your first idea. those kind of things happen in real life and you should choose your trade partners carefully

2. definitely aggree. this is a strategy game and I WANT TO BE ABLE TO SEE EVERY SINGLE ISSUE effecting the game. reputation, combat odds, corruption causes, anything hidden should be visible. unhappiness reasons they have implemented is a wonderful example for this. you know unhappiness reasons but do not know corruption reasons? why at all?
and combat odds, might be optional, similar to SMAC, i want to see the odds, before initiating an attack.. very simple to implement..

3. there is a very interesting thread in the forum, similar to your request. a guy says that using the editor, he has given the explorer unit privateer specific abilities and AI civs are using it effectively, raiding his territory with them, enslaving workers, destroying improvement without causing war. very very good idea (if AI usage is really effective)

[J10]

Originally posted by rid102


Why? If they are stealing your money in this manner, go and wage war on them and take some back. Alternately, do it to them first.

My point exactly, I don't want to do that to them first, I consider that uhm... unconventional, to say the least

Reputation seems to have turned more into "attitude" in many ways (i.e. based on relative military sizes, cultures, scientific advancement etc.). The reputation concept that was seen in Civ2 (which was somewhat zealous) seems to have gone or replaced with something more subtle. Anyway, the AI never actually paid attention to reputation levels, as it always just banded together against you.

Attitude and reputation I believe, are two seperate mechanism. Reputation is not relative, but attitude is.

You mean Civ2 style guerilla/partisan units? But then what about in the case where a city is razed, is the populace simply slaughtered? I think for citizens to get to the stage where they destroy improvements during rioting etc. the disorder has to be pretty severe and ongoing for several turns (at least, that's what I've seen).

If I were you, I'd be more worried about the patch fixing bugs and streamlining the game engine. There are bigger issues to worry about with the game mechanics (e.g. the fact that Civ3 is now something of a resource management game where you build an empire, as opposed to an empire building game where you also manage resources).

When a city is razed, the citizens would become my slave workers unfortunately . But I agree with you on the last part, seems like a lot of people are having performance problems I read. I don't have a problem with resource management being more important though, and I don't think a patch is likely to change that anyway. My suggestions could be easily implemented and contained in a patch of reasonable size.

[PMLF]

Nice ideas!

[barefootbadass]

Here's a hint about dealing with reneging on payment plans, generally only do that for something where they are paying for a continual benefit thing, like a resource or luxury. If you are selling a tech go for a lump sum(as much as you can get) and then if they will pay all their money add as much per turn payment as they will take.

Also for anything one shot, like a loan to be paid back over 20 turns with modest interest, don't reneg if you are borrowing unless absolutely necessary and don't give such a loan to a civ if they aren't polite.

Reputation, or at least attitude(which I think is related to reputation) has a significant effect on the game. If a civ is furious with you you will get raw deals trading with them. This one civ which is furious with me won't even give me 38 gold(all they have) for banking while many of the others give me more that and all they have(up to about 73 which is the most any of them had except the one that already had it) and more.

I like the current system better than the old partisans to the hills of civ2. Sure it sucks if a city defects, but at least it makes the game more interesting. Just take it back if it defects, no biggie. And if you had such strong defenses that you can't take your own city back then you were doing something wrong.