Desires For Future Civ3 Patches

[Encomium]

More Complaints

22. Why is there nothing left to explore by the time we get to caravels?? I'm convinced it's because the AI cheats giving its civs ocean-going galleys.

23. Why are AI's so dumb their civs start producing Great Wonders WHILE UNDER ATTACK and BEING INVADED?? This same problem occured in Civ II, and it has not been corrected.

24. Many unit values are non-historical and bad for playability. But it is just too stupid to give horse units, armor, and even elephants (!) AIRLIFT capabilities - while cannon and leaders do not. Elephants, armor, and cavalry have never been airlifted anywhere being to heavy and impractical. At least I can change this in the Editor.

[hoppy39000]

I agree about exploring and caravels.....seems to me that "historically" triremes such as the native americans had musta worked had eskimos and native americans , the vikings discovered america long before caravels....how on earth if not be sea vessel did "islanders" get to the hawaiian islands ?????? lets be real by the time you can even achieve "map making" its too late to explore , same goes for explorers..they should be 1st units you are allowed not 150 turns into the gm it takes 40 to discover alphabet .. seems egyptians had alphabet much earlier than even 4000 bc....even world spanning empires came and went long before roman times, or even 1 AD too much weight is placed on the late part of the gm, i want realism 1 year per turn... with more techs, and techs that are at least somewhat era specific

also i agree fix the AI cheating, expansion and tech tradin....its almost impossible to get a tech lead or build a wonder....soon as you discover somethin who ever has great library gets it and sells it globally, then someone always finishs the wonder 1 or 2 turns before you can...

[Environeer]

General - Allow cities to occupy more than one square when they grow to a certain size.

[Uncle Thade]

Originally posted by Environeer
General - Allow cities to occupy more than one square when they grow to a certain size.

Maybe expanded city borders Environeer a la CTP2. Meaning a larger footprint than the usual "x".

[Encomium]

WANDERING WORKERS

Here's another Civ III problem.

Rival civ's workers WANDER around my territory. This has happened many times, and even after I repeatedly ordered them out they continue to stay blocking my movement. If I attack them I am considered a "warmonger"!

It is so stupid.


Yes, if Firaxis wants to buy back the strategy guide and game CD for the $55 I spent I might be willing to do so - and wait until they fix the game.

[Willem]

Re: WANDERING WORKERS

Originally posted by Encomium
Here's another Civ III problem.

Rival civ's workers WANDER around my territory. This has happened many times, and even after I repeatedly ordered them out they continue to stay blocking my movement. If I attack them I am considered a "warmonger"!

You ever hear of illegal immigrants?

One thing you can do is create a unit with a hidden nationality, like a Privateer on land, so if they come around you can whack them without risking a war. I hear though that the AI uses that tactic quite well itself.

[Musketman]

First, I would like to say that I am new to Civ, so I don't have any of the previous Civ biases. I picked up Civ 3 as soon as it was available and I was completely hooked! For those who whine and rant about the game, it really shows ignorance regarding the incredible programming and work that went into this. Sure, I may not ever be completely satisfied, but I still understand and appreciate the great job done by the developers. If you don't like it, then don't play it or rant about it.

As for some changes that I would like to see....

1. As we all know, the "land grab" can get quite irritating! I suggest that if you see a settler in an area that you are interested in that you should have be able to right click on the settler and select something like "I found this area first, so please leave." Another Civ should be able to do this to you as well. The responding Civ could have several options such as outright ignoring you, or "Sorry, but I have just as much right to this land as you do", to "Sorry, I will look elsewhere."

2. I have seen a lot of discussion about older era units vs. modern. My suggestion is that as Civs reach the ability to create certain units, this will start a timer for all Civs that they must begin phasing out certain units within so many turns. If it is a non-upgradable unit, the sooner that a CIV dismantles it, the more they will get for it. If a Civ is unable to dismantle the specific units within the specified amount of turns, then all units of that type will die. It is just plain silly to have Spearman fighting Infantry...

3. Resources...... I really don't like the way that as you learn a new tech, you can see where a specific resource is everywhere. I think resources should be more challenging and there should be some risk in locating them. For example... oil... Once I get the technology for oil, I should have to drill for it before I get it and there should be some risk in that. So, once I get the technology, maybe I would have a Geoligist who would show on a map the areas where I would most likely find oil with percentages. Then, I should have to build an oil well and move it to that location and start drilling. After so many turns, I will find out if I hit oil or a dry well! This may be difficult to program.... but, I am just saying that what makes this game fun is the realism. The more realistic it can be made, the more challenging and interesting to play.

4. This has probably been brought up before, but I have not seen this exact issue in the forum... Many times I have seen much stronger units such as a level 5 Swordsman that is fortified in a mountain lose to a level 3 Warrior who is in grassland without any damage to the Warrior! Sure, I can see a far weaker unit get lucky once in awhile, but this happens way too often and the weaker unit should sustain some damage! On a related note... I have also tested the game by saving before attacking and trying various scenerios. Clearly, the attack outcomes are calculated prior to each turn. If this could be more "real time" it would be much more interesting. Also, at least early in games, it appears that the AI try's to balance things. Many times if I have more than one battle per turn I will split the first two - win one, and lose one. If I win the first battle, I can almost gaurantee that I will lose the next - or vise versa. It is almost predictable.

5. Maybe someone has posted these, but I couldn't find them..... What the heck is "approval rating" and how is it calculated? I have not found this anywhere... Also, how are the top cities prioritized? It would also be cool to see exactly where everyone is as far as population, productivity, etc...

Thank you for your consideration regarding these suggestions and thanks again for a great product!

[hoppy39000]

hi musketman....in your above statement you said "i'm new to civ and have none of the biases from previous civs..."

then go on to say please dont rant rave etcccc......Dont take this wrong ok...

I ive been a CIV player for as long as the game has beeen around..have every version, of it and its off shoots, or clones IE Masters of Orion series "Colonization" SMAC, and all the CTP's

since as you say you havent tried it I'd reccomend going out, and spending $10 and buying CIV2, and or CIV2 "test of Time"

we "rant" because tho CIV3 has many great points... it lost MANY key features and abilities you had in CIV2. S ome you even mentioned...resources being harder....were in 2 and YOU Could eventually as i mentioned above change a terrain tile IE desert to plains flat lands to hills...And if you knew where to look...ok given we ALL knew the patttern....butt if you "terraformed" a tile enough you had a randomish pattern of finding a previously unknown resource......workers lost over half there abilities..in CIV3

also in CIV3 we actually LOST tech advances and wonders that were in CIV2 , and many of the factors that were said to be fixed IE "culture borders" corruption, exploration, and unit loss dicrepency ie (warrior beating tank) still a prob....and some are even worse than than CIV2

dont misunderstand I too LOVE CIV3, but go and try a game of civ2, and get 1 of the strategy books that were written that explain all the units, techs, diplomacy, and wonders

finish a whole game....then come back and play civ3 I'm sure by then you'll understand why we are upset

you by saying dont buy it , or dont cry over it is kinda unfair since many of us are loyal longtime players versus you being a relative "newbie"

many of your ideas are great and i agree ! not meaning to flame you here, just advising you to try other versions so that you have an "informed" experienced opinion... rather than a short term judgement

[Palisol]

supply

In real life not a single army ever fought any battles without food or for example weapons, gasoline, ammunition and so on... I will call these generally as 'supply' from now on. I was thinking that in order to function properly units would have to receive supply from a nearby supply source.

Cities would be supply sources. A unit far away from a supply source would have a greater possibility to get immobilized (or even die) than a unit closer to a source. Unit on a road connected to a city gets supply much easier than units wondering in wilderness. Units inside your borders also get supply easier. Scouts could have a special ability to move great distances without supply.

A unit that doesn't get supply could destroy irrigation or mines to get supply for a turn or two.

Enemy units could cut through supply lines. In this way, supply lines could get a lot longer or units could even get trapped behind the enemy lines without any supply and get hurt.

Naval units could have mission to defend supply lines (just like fighter and jetfighters have air superiority missions)

You could build special colonies (for example military camps) that would function only as supply sources. Using these special colonies is would be necessary if you're running a military campaign far away from your own cities.

Supply is a wild thought and most likely cannot be implemented in the game but it would add a certain amount of realism.

[Whistler]

Re: supply

Originally posted by Palisol
In real life not a single army ever fought any battles without food or for example weapons, gasoline, ammunition and so on... I will call these generally as 'supply' from now on. I was thinking that in order to function properly units would have to receive supply from a nearby supply source.

Cities would be supply sources. A unit far away from a supply source would have a greater possibility to get immobilized (or even die) than a unit closer to a source. Unit on a road connected to a city gets supply much easier than units wondering in wilderness. Units inside your borders also get supply easier. Scouts could have a special ability to move great distances without supply.

A unit that doesn't get supply could destroy irrigation or mines to get supply for a turn or two.

Enemy units could cut through supply lines. In this way, supply lines could get a lot longer or units could even get trapped behind the enemy lines without any supply and get hurt.

Naval units could have mission to defend supply lines (just like fighter and jetfighters have air superiority missions)

You could build special colonies (for example military camps) that would function only as supply sources. Using these special colonies is would be necessary if you're running a military campaign far away from your own cities.

Supply is a wild thought and most likely cannot be implemented in the game but it would add a certain amount of realism.

Hey, I like this idea! I wouldn't kill off units that get cut off from supplies though. Immobilize them (fortify them), but not kill them. I see this as a great way to accomplish what the designers are currently using corruption to accomplish. Currently, corruption is used to limit the size of your civ. If supply lines had to be maintained, then waging war in far off lands would be harder to do, which would limit the size of your civ. Once the infrastructure of your conquered territory was built up, then you could wage war further out. Then corruption could be lowered to a much more managable level!

Good idea!

[star mouse]

Cities should atempt to revert or rebel more often, but change the way it works so it's not always successful.

* When a city rebels, temporarily convert half the citizens into Conscript-level offensive units of the best offensive unit that can be produced in that city. Citizens of the same civ as the owner are not counted except for cultural defections.

* The rebellion takes place as combat with the attackers attacking the troops that are garrisoned in the city.

* Combat takes place until all the troops on one side are killed. If all the defenders are killed, the city defects.

* Half of the temporary conscripts that are lost in battle are deducted from the population of the city.

* Rebellions can be incited by spies

* Rebellions have a chance of occurring each turn a city is in civil disorder (and increases each turn the city remains in disorder)

* Rebellions can occur through cultural domination

The combat that takes place need not be made visible to the player. What the player will see is a rebellion report from the military commander, a reduction in the city population and the city sometimes changing sides. If the city doesn't change sides, some defenders will be missing or damaged.

This model makes reversion and rebellion work in a more intuitive fashion.

[Cybernut]

Movement of large numbers of troops

I know that this has probably been mulled over many times before, and I know that there may be a solution to this issue ... but here goes anyway ...

One of the primary drawbacks of Civilisation (in all its previous manifestations) has been the huge number of units you have to move during wars. I don't know how many games I've quit while nearing the end just to avoid these tedious practices. More than anything else, I hoped Civ 3 would solve this issue. Apparently however it hasn't.

I try to group all my bombers and artillery; I try to keep my armies in large single square grouping (10+ units) ... but even then, I have to move the units individually (which can be very annoying if you're moving all of your units to the other side of the map). Why can't we simply have an addtion series of instructions like: Select All Units, or Select All Units of the Same Type, or Select all Ground Units, or Follow Previous Unit ...

In addition, when I select a bomber or an artillery unit, the computer should automatically select the next bomber or artillery unit from the same square until all the units are exhausted. The same with Tanks and Infantry. The AI should be able to predict patterns of usage ... if I have 10 bombers situated in a city, chances are I will want to use (or move) them en masse. It is so frustrating if for instance I'm trying to bombard a far of city with artillery, when every other time I select a unit in the war theatre, the AI takes me back to my capital which has just built a new infantry unit ... which is irrelevant to what I'm doing at the time.

These were FUNDAMENTAL problems with the previous versions of Civilisation, and they have never (in my mind) been properly addressed. Or am I being a dunce here ... are there solutions?

[Eric S]

All general, no editor comments.

1) Cybernut: After lurking here for a while, I registered just to address the exact issue you did.

I think the problem is that Civ3 has a circular queue for when units turn up next, and a pointer into the queue, so that it never has to change the order of the queue, just the pointer, so it might take some coding to make your suggestion work. Still, it would be easier than actual stacked movement.

My idea is that if I pull up the menu for a square, shift-click 7 units and then click an eighth, those should be the next 8 units that I give commands to, I should not get dragged back half way across the map to a bomber waiting to rebase depending on the outcome of this combat, especially if I'm giving the bomber the wait command every time it pops up, but that is exactly what is happening.

Either your solution or mine would require something more complicated than a simple circular queue, however, but the game definitely needs one or the other.

2) how about hotkeys for each of the following? "GoTo same place as last goto command", useful for dispatching workers when the place they're going is over a screen away. "Put screen back where it was last manually put" so when you do get pulled out of a meticulous battle just because a worker is looking for something to do, you can easily go back to the battle.

3) Corruption/Waste. I don't have a severe problem with them, usually, but I'm not out for world domination. I think the way to handle it without just handing the world to the warmongers is to make it something that decreases with time. Either based on travel/communication-oriented technologies,
the Era, total culture points,or just how many movement points it costs to go from the capitol to the city in question (reducing in time due to roads/railroads/airports). I think the last would be overkill in that a railroaded city would have corruption identical to the capitol, though it makes sense in the "How likely is it that the boss will drop in to check up on us?" sense. The other option is to have the government type "Modern American Democracy" where the capitol is most corrupt, and corruption is reduced the farther away you get.

[Willem]

I'd like to see more specialists. Playing SMAC, I thought it was great that the specialists evolved over time, but here they are again, the same as they were in Civ I essentially. How about a Technician when Steam Power becomes available. He fixes the machines that modern society needs in order to function, increasing productivity. I've read someone suggesting a Poet, which would make sense with these new culture rules.

And maybe some variations of this theme. I once sent an email via "Ask the Civ Team" suggesting having one of the scientists occasionaly turning into a "Genius", in the same way that Leaders are created. There's always someone who ends up excelling at their tasks, which could provide some sort of bonus in the city in which they reside.

[Kryten]

I have read all the posts in this thread and I do agree with almost all of them. But there is one thing I'd like to see that has only been slightly mentioned (I don't know if this would be a patch change or a suggestion for civ4. I originally raised this in a similar thread on the Civfanatics site; I hope you don't mind me mentioning it here as well).

MORE HISTORICAL ACCURACY BY ALLOWING 'DEAD' CIVS TO REAPPEAR IN THE GAME

Let me explain. I want to try and create an historical mod (using Gramphos's Civ Placement Tool) that has England, France, Spain (we must have Spain in the game!), Rome, Greece and Egypt all in their correct starting locations. But in reality Rome conquered all these nations. So they are out of the game for good and the Roman Empire lasts forever. Not very historical or realistic.

All I want is for civ3 to 'remember' a conquered nations CAPITAL CITY and at a later date (maybe after a random number of turns, depending on the type of government of the conquerer) that capital 'culture-flips' back into existance with a sizable up to date army in it. This would allow history to continue for that nation and simulate the fall of Rome. Imagine the 'fun' you'd have trying to keep the empire together when conquered capitals keep rebelling (it might explain why the Romans had a civil war about every 20 or 30 years!).

The same thing with the Mongols (both Spain and the Mongols had more impact on history then the Aztecs or the Iroquois). I'd like to see Mongol horse archers conquer all of Asia/Russia/China, and at a later date these nations reappear. Then watch the Russians conquer all of Asia and the Mongol lands, only to have their own Communist empire break-up in the 1990's when they become a Democracy. You could even have England 'remember' that one if it's distant cities will one day rebel to become the capital of America....

I don't want hundreds of nations, that would slow the game too much. Just the conquered capital cities. So there would never be more nations in the game than you started with (well...maybe one more than you started with: America). And if it's YOUR nation that is conquered then you may have to watch the computer play itself for a while till your capital rebels and pops back into existsance.

Remember, ALL empires decline & fall (think of how civ3 could be used to simulate the break-up of Alexander the Great's empire, or how Spain/Egypt/Persia became independent nations after the Arab conquests of the 7th century, or how Rome-Italy can still be around after being conquered by the German Holy Roman Empire and Spain, or how Greece is still with us today when it was conquered by the Ottoman-Persians, or how India gained independence folowing the break-up of the British Empire, and so on).

This idea could also help remove the 'boredom' of the later civ3 ages. You'd not only have to BUILD an empire to "stand the test of time", you would have to try and KEEP it together as well!
Would you be good enough?