The Yin and Ven(ger) of what Civilization III should have been like

[gachnar]

Wow... um... hmm...

Ozymandous and whoever it was that showed how to fix upgrade paths around the UUs just gave me an idea...

I could actually make a mod where the availability of resources changes the available units. You'd have to upgrade, but it might be free.

Here's the idea:

Swordsman 2.1.1 (No resources required) (Presumably using Bronze)
upgrades to:
Iron Swordsman 3.2.1 (Requires Iron) (Standard)
upgrades to:
Modern Swordsman 3.3.1 (Requires Iron & Coal) (Presumably using Steel)

(I dont know any good names for the Modern Swordsman. Perhaps "Bayonette Pansies" or "Machinegun Targets"...)

So long as you set up the upgrade path correctly, the game will pick the best unit. The AI has already shown the ability to handle things such as this.

I'll see what I can do tonite. Anybody interested?

(Sorry, I know I'm supposed to be complaining... but people might enjoy this...)

[nato]

When you increase units hit points, doesn't this devalue bombard units? Don't they still only take off one hit point a shot?

Sorry if this has been dealt with already.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by yin26
Civ3's Tech progression, for example, has made it vitually impossible to research faster than 4 turns per. That's not so bad in and of itself ... until you realize that even if you have VAST sums more to spend than does the computer, the tech progression has been rigged (in my view) to keep the computer more or less even or ahead of you in tech.

I you play on Regent difficulty-level, you plays on 100% equal terms with the AI-players. That goes for the tech-progression, as well. So, what you call "rewarding mediocrity", is in fact an example of how the team has managed to emphasize science-progressing improvements, like librarys & universitys and so on, much more then before. Theres NO "free lunch" whatsoever for the AI-civs on Regent level. Why is it so hard for you to believe that? If you cant handle the AI-competition; then try out a weaker level instead.

I think if you've done the hard work to afford faster tech progression, you should be able to pay for it, but Firaxis has put in place an artificial system to prevent or seriously hinder that. And slowing down the tech progression even more post patch shows me that Firaxis sees its primary method for making the game challenging is to slow the pace so the comp can leverage its advantage further into the game.

But if the slowed down pace is applied equally, both on the AI-civs and the human player - and the conditions for achieving faster tech-progression is the same (at least on Regent level) - then what the heck is the problem?

I understand that point, but to raise up the comp by hacking off the legs of the player is not satisfying.

OK, you want a game that rewards massive investments in science-related improvements. Perhaps to the point that you can race ahead 6-8 techs before the nearest competitor. But why "hacking off the legs" of the AI-civs then, by not letting them emphasize science-allocation/improvements just as much as you do? And besides: if you COULD race ahead that much; wouldnt you and others complain about the "crappy AI" then?

In other words, I lose motivation if I know I can get more or less the same results with half or a third of the 'work.'

Have you ever completed a full game, with few/hardly any tech-related improvements/wonders in your empire? And STILL - without having that many more cities then any of the AI-civs - STILL being able too keep almost equal, or even ahead in the tech-race?

If not - you cant say you get the same results "with half or a third of the 'work".

But that also makes me lose a lot of motivation to seek those superior troops when I can simply pile on vast numbers of cheap troops that I don't worry too much about upgrading.

This is not my experience. On the contrary - premodern mounted units for example, doesnt stand a change against tanks. Hell, even ordinary tanks are frustingly impotent against modern ones, or even german panzers. If anything, the combat strength-difference between each era, has been increased, compared with Civ-2.

Is it me, or does Civ3 have a LOT more units and cities all over the place?

In Civ-2, you had perhaps 1-3 relatively strong AI-civs. The rest was weak "left-over empires". In Civ-3 each and every AI-empire is emphasized and maximized, and theres no large chunks of no-mans-land near the end-game, like there often was in Civ-2. And thats a good thing.

Might just be me, but the sheer number of units / workers on the map that CANNOT be stacked begins to just wear a person down.

I agree that they should add unit-stacking for move-purposes only (but still; only in leader-created "armies" they fight as a whole), and also multi-activating simoultaneous airplane and ground-unit RR-movements. About the Workers; they should add that Civ-2 sleep-function as well, in a future patch.

I won't pay twice just to get MP purely because of the way Firaxis handled that issue.

But you WILL try out that pirate-copied expansion-pack regardless? So, maybe Civ-3 isnt that "tedious" after all.

[Blackadder667]

I would tend to agree that there are several things which were implemented in CTP2 which i would have thought automatically would be included in civ3 as they seemed at the time to be nice touches to the whole genre, such as army stacking and their combined arms combat model.

And i would certainly agree that i have been flaberghasted when my modern units were whupped by "Stone age" units. In no way can anyone make me sugest that this is a fair aproximation of combat units.

But i do find it amazing (well sort of) that some people here don't seem to agree. It really makes me wonder if they are playing the same games as i, but surely there can't be 2 versions!!
Well it's proably all in the eye of the beholder or maybe they don't have such high expectations of what their unit's are able to.

Well i'll still continue playing the game though i am a bit disapointed that civ3 wasn't a best of CIV2,CTP2 and SMAC combined which i think was what everybody hoped for, or at least what I had hoped for. Maybe if there was a posibility of CTP3 or when CIV4 is eventually developed???

My couple of $.

[EnochF]

Just stopping by briefly to disagree with virtually everything Ralf just said.

Happy holidays, all!

(Tropico: Paradise Island, coming January 2002! Woohoo!)

[cutlerd]

Ralf,

I agree with you that in CIV3 a modern army will always whoop a non-modern one. If anyone thinks their 4 swordsmen per tank army can defeat my tank army, they are full of crap. While individual battles may go the ancient-troops' way, overall the weight of 100 tanks versus 400 swordsmen will ALWAYS see the tank nation win. No question about it, though they may lose half their tanks in the process.

However, I disagree vehemently that the separation between modern and non-modern units is MORE in CIV3 than in CIV2. This is just not so. The introduction of firepower in CIV2 basically made the outcome of every combat pretty much predictable from the outset. After all, the chance of getting a whacky variance in 10-30 combat rolls is very rare as compared to the 3-5 combat rolls in CIV3.

But I like the fact that there is less separation. In CIV2 combat was way too much a foregone conclusion. You got tank first and then with some tanks and spies and the enemy's raillines you shot through their empire like butter in 1-2 turns. Very boring. Very standard. Very predictable.

But CIV3 takes it a little too far the other way. I ideally would like to see something perched about halfway between Civ2 and Civ3.

CTP's modification for historical unit values got it about right. You could still have archers defeat cavalry (Custer's last stand anyone?), but it was rare indeed.

As far as the whole tech complaint goes. By definition, a tech system that makes techs less costly as more people discover them is going to flatten out the tech dispersal amongst civs. For one thing this is realistic. Not too many civs in real life still using cavalry in this day and age. But you can get ahead of the other civs...and by a substantial amount too. I find if I am maxing tech out I am usually about 2-3 techs ahead of the nearest guy and between 4-6 techs ahead of the rest. That is certainly a nice advantage.

Devin

[Chronus]

But i do find it amazing (well sort of) that some people here don't seem to agree. It really makes me wonder if they are playing the same games as i, but surely there can't be 2 versions!!

I sometimes wonder about this myself. Yes, I do occasionally see the weird combat results but they are just that . . . occasional . . . which I kind of like. I've seen tanks lose to medieval units but never ancient units. As a rule of thumb, I don't think I've seen any unit lose to another unit that was two eras beneath it, and only occasionally when it's a one era difference. But that's just me, I suppose.

[AzureFlame]

Things I'd like:

• Greater movement for ships standard
• Planes can kill ships; ships can kill planes in defence. You can kill a ship by bombardment from another ship, artillery or a COASTAL FORTRESS.
• Specialised anti-air ship for defending a stack from planes
• "Sea Superiority" Missions allowing Planes to autointercept ships from Carriers or Airports
• Yes there should be slightly more differentiation between ancient/modern units
  [

Also, on the whole "Spearman killing a Tank" thing .. obviously the units are abstracted. Do you think there is actually 8 people in that Size 8 city? Do you think that one guy waving a sword actually just took control of that city? Each unit on the map is an abstraction of a large force. I think of a spearman unit as "a force of poorly equipped partisans" and a Tank unit as "a force of modern mechanised units". Sometimes the poorly equipped partisans can defeat a more modern army. It should happen less often than it currently does in Civ 3 though.
Similarly with the strategic resources .. yes everyone would have SOME iron around, but do you have access to a large enough source of supply to equip a significant force of Swordsmen? That's what the Iron resource represents.

[Barchan]

Originally posted by gachnar
Swordsman with Iron & Coffee: 3.2.2.

I think all these suggestions are excellent, although I still disagree with the "spearman should never beat tanks" assertion. It's improbable, but possible, and so I think the possibility should exist in the game.

I really like the highway/rail yard improvement suggestion. As much as I hate making every city of mine look like LA, I have to in order to maximize production.

I've also opined previously that the strategic resources should be used to build enhanced units, but that the basic units (including UUs) can be built without them. Sure, your swordsman might be 2.2.1 without iron, but they'd be better than warriors.

Speaking of warriors, I'd feel a lot better about them if they updated themselves by era. Frankly, much of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan is little more than a collection of modern warriors. I can accept that, throughout the ages, there'd be a really cheap, virtually ineffective unit used to do little more than occupy space (and keep the population quiet in strong-arm governments, like the Khmer Rouge). But I just can't accept that they'd be wearing a fur loincloth and carrying a stone axe. By the modern era they should be packing automatic rifles and have better stats (perhaps 3.3.2; this would still be ineffective resistance against real military units but could hold out against anachronistic holdover units from previous ages.) Anyway, it'd be a simple touch that would add a bit of polish to the overall game.

I also would like to see the concept of "gray ops" expanded. I personally love the concept of privateers (although they are still, in practice, worthless without a bombard capability) and would love to see more "gray" units at your disposal. Why shouldn't you be able to build Barbarian units to unleash on your enemies? Sort of like returning your Mind Worm boils to the wild in SMAC. Perhaps with the advent of Espionage you could even develop a set number of "gray" military units (Infantry, for the most part) to use to attack enemy units and terrain without revealing your nationality. As a counter to this, discovering Espionage would increase the chance that a "gray" unit's nationality will be revealed each turn. Admittedly, this would be much more interesting with MP than SP, but I think it would be cool anyway.

I guess that's enough for now. *sigh* Perhaps if we wish hard enough, it'll all come true in the next version of Civ, eh?

[Jeje2]

Worker problem

One of the big problems IMHO is the Automated worker NOT WORKING, thus leading to that one doesn't put own workers on Automnate mode.

Currently I think that if Automated Worker would work right or almost right - CivIII would be much more fun to play. (OK, long waiting times instead) So FIRAXIS should really try to solve how workers are to move on the map.
Sceptics what is your opinion: Would CivIII be better/acceptable if the automated worker could be trusted and used??


O.K. There are other problems too, but this one should have been fixed already IMHO.

---

P.S. I do have an idea of a possible solution to the worker problem, but I'm not ready to present it (yet).

[Deornwulf]

Combat should include an order of attacks that is dependent upon what kind of unit is engaging in the attack. This would mean that air units would go before mounted units, mounted units before foot units, etc. There could even be a category of some units being faster than other units and thus getting precendence in resolving their attacks before other attacks.

Units should resolve attacks as suggested by GeorgeG but taken a step further to include a ratings for ranged attacks and melee attacks. Units capable of ranged attacks would resolve their attacks before other units. This would not be the same as a bombardment. To accurately represent differing levels of ranged attacks, rate of fire would need to be added. Basically, a musketman might get to resolve 2 attacks on a unit while modern infantry might get 4 or 5. Once units complete ranged attacks, melee attacks would take place.

Order of precedence could also be applied to units attacking in the open, defending in certain terrain, fortified versus unfortified. (I've noticed that in Civ III a unit defends the same regardless of fortified or unfortified.)

Even without bringing back firepower ratings, combat would be a whole lot more fair. To prevent ancient units from defending against industrial or modern units, a flag could be included to set the defensive value of the ancient unit to 1. This would still allow a slim chance at best for the ancient unit but would bring combat results more in line with what a player should expect.

Changes like these might make it more difficult for the AI but going along with Barchan's idea, as the leading Civs in a game progress through eras, the warrior unit could be upgraded for all civs, regardless of tech level.

I have to go teach my class so that's it for now.

[GeorgeG]

Deornwulf,
You just hit it! "Initiative rating".
I know we are really dreaming beyond Civ III here, but yes. if combat is resolved in "rounds", then an order can be set up for which unit gets to attack at the begining of each round.
Initiative is the term used in a role-playing game I was fond of called "Warhammer" that I played in college (not Warhammer 40K). A units initiative would be its rating for when in a round it gets to attack.

Archer attack before warriors, horsemen.
Pikemen attack before legions.
Pikemen attack before horsemen? Not sure
Knights attack beore pikemen? Not sure

Modern examples:
Tanks attacking a stack of rifles and artillery
Artillery still go first, tanks second, rifles last.

The AI could be kept in the game by keeping the science rate "stacked", or making tech stealing cheaper. Does an opponent ALWAYS know a tech has been stolen. Shouldn't it possible that tech stealing can be done without alerting the Civ that it was stolen from?

[nato]

I would tend to agree that there are several things which were implemented in CTP2 which i would have thought automatically would be included in civ3 as they seemed at the time to be nice touches to the whole genre, such as army stacking and their combined arms combat model.

I want to respond to this because it is just exactly how I feel.

I remember naively assuming that stacked combat similar to CTP would of course be in the game. Never for a moment did it occur to me that it might not.

Can anyone explain why such a basic thing would not be included in Civ? I am not whining; I am seriously asking ... does anyone have any good reason to defend this at all?

Again, I am not a whiner / basher ... it just really stuns me this is not in the game. What were they thinking on this issue?

[Dadeo]

I am with you Nato. I thought that the stacked combat in CTP2 was great using different strengths from various units. You had to use some planning to build a good army. The "armies" in civ3 are useless, they can only defeat one defender in a turn and are easily destroyed by well positioned attackers.

[Barnacle Bill]

Just a general note on the CTP series.

The expectation that anything from CTP or CTP2 would be reapplied in Civ3 automatically is just unreasonable.

Civ1 was programmed by Sid M.
Civ2 was programmed under Sid's banner and bore his name in the official title.
SMAC was programmed under Sid's banner and bore his name in the official title.
Civ3 was programmed under Sid's banner and bore his name in the official title.

CTP was programmed by people having no relationship with Sid M. and working for a company having no relationship to the publishers of Civ1, Civ2 or SMAC. It used the "Civilization" name only through legal chicanery - it seems the board game "Civilization" (which is utterly unrealated to Civ as we know it) predated Civ1 and the owner of the rights to it have the legal claim to the name so arguable Civ1 was a copyright infringement, and the creators of CTP bought the right use that name from the board game people and made CTP - cloning many game concepts ("look and feel") creating the impression of being a sequel to Civ2. CTP2 does not in fact use the word "Civilization" because the holders of the rights to the computer games Civ1 & Civ2 have purchased the owners of the rights to the boardgame, thus acquiring undesputed sole right to the name "Civilization". So, any boosting of game concepts from CTP by Firaxis at this point is arguably copyright infingement under the "look & feel" doctrine (which originated in Apple's lawsuits against Microsoft over Windows being to MAC-like). It is certainly unreasonable to expect that as a matter of course they would use anything from CTP.

SMAC is a someone different story, but still potentially legal issues. At the time SMAC was created, Firaxis had no legal right to any sort of "Civilization" - not the board game, not Civ1/Civ2 and not CTP. However, being by the same PEOPLE (as opposed to the same corporate entity) and essentially picking up where Civ2 leaves off (assuming a spaceship victory), it is arguably a defacto sequel to Civ2. Nevertheless, the very murkiness of that relationship means you can't reasonably expect as a matter of course that Civ3 as the "official" sequel to Civ2 would be in fact a defacto sequel to SMAC.

I personally think Civ3 would have been a better game if started with SMAC-minus-planet. I can certainly live without cheesy CTP stuff like Televangilist units, though.