Desires For Future Civ3 Patches

[Jrad]

How about a new game to go along with that patch?

I'm back playing Civ II scenarioes (Hint for patch)

[LordLothaR-Az]

MAKE REAL ALLIES!!!

- In Civilization III you never make real allies, they never give to you gifts, like gold or technology (in Civ2 the another allies civs gives to you gifts), and If you ask for a "ally" for a technlogy, gold, luxuries or resources they NEVER gives to you, and also they can maked annoyed, caution or furious if you ask for that many times.

- Please show a pop up message when a city is captured or taked back from another civs in war (we do not have to see always to the map to see what cities the another civs are loosing or taking at the war).

PLZ PLZ PLZ make something about that Firaxis...

I dont agree when you make a Mutual Protect pact you have to automatcly have a right of passage. Eg: OTAN is a great Mutual Protect Pac, but English troops can walk along the USA?

Well, that´s it. Do you agree with me, dont you?

(Sorry, my english is not good, but I believe you can understand)

[LRotan]

I'm beginning to wonder if there is going to be another patch. I may be talking out of my rear end here (I'm not up to speed on either the forums or any chats) but it doesn't seem like anyone at Firaxis has mentioned anything about another patch for a good little while now. But again, I could be wrong.

Here's to hoping.

LR

[odisseus]

Re: MAKE REAL ALLIES!!!

Originally posted by LordLothaR-Az
- In Civilization III you never make real allies, they never give to you gifts, like gold or technology (in Civ2 the another allies civs gives to you gifts), and If you ask for a "ally" for a technlogy, gold, luxuries or resources they NEVER gives to you, and also they can maked annoyed, caution or furious if you ask for that many times.

- Please show a pop up message when a city is captured or taked back from another civs in war (we do not have to see always to the map to see what cities the another civs are loosing or taking at the war).

PLZ PLZ PLZ make something about that Firaxis...

I dont agree when you make a Mutual Protect pact you have to automatcly have a right of passage. Eg: OTAN is a great Mutual Protect Pac, but English troops can walk along the USA?

Well, that´s it. Do you agree with me, dont you?

(Sorry, my english is not good, but I believe you can understand)

I've discovered that CTP2 can do it! You can implement (almost) whatever you like in CTP2! And now I love CTP2

The only problem of CTP2 is that Activision is missing

[Willem]

Re: Civ 3 patch

Originally posted by mattbolas

Maybe Fireaxis can restrict the max number of units produced, rather prohibiting building any units. Fireaxis could add a option to the standard game that the user could simply could turn on or turn off the restrictive Strategic resources rule or select an alternate rule.

I agree. I like the idea of the resources, but I think it could be implemented more realistically. I was thinking that if there were a limit to how many cities could be supported by a single resource, rather than one source supplying the entire civilization, they could still play a strategic role in the game without crippling a player if they disappear. You'd simply need more of them in order to support a larger empire. That would make trading arrangements with other civs more dynamic as well.

[andeen]

Another suggestion

A very simple change: when a city has filled its growth box, but would not be able to sustain itself with one more citizen, don't let the city grow. Leave the growth box full.

This will happen when a city has no free squares with reasonable food production around. It can happen in the early game with cities surrounded by mountains and/or penned in by cultural borders, and it happens a lot in the late game when cities grow to more than 30 citizens.

The problem is that cities in this situation often get into a growth/starvation cycle, with N citizens and +1 nutrients for a while, only to grow to N+1 citizens and -1 nutrients and starve the next turn.

The Longevity wonder should also respect this, and only grow by one citizen if one more is sustainable but two is not.

[Willem]

Re: Another suggestion

Originally posted by andeen
A very simple change: when a city has filled its growth box, but would not be able to sustain itself with one more citizen, don't let the city grow. Leave the growth box full.

This will happen when a city has no free squares with reasonable food production around. It can happen in the early game with cities surrounded by mountains and/or penned in by cultural borders, and it happens a lot in the late game when cities grow to more than 30 citizens.

The problem is that cities in this situation often get into a growth/starvation cycle, with N citizens and +1 nutrients for a while, only to grow to N+1 citizens and -1 nutrients and starve the next turn.

The Longevity wonder should also respect this, and only grow by one citizen if one more is sustainable but two is not.

And tell that stupid advisor to shut up about building an Aqueduct if there's no excess food being produced. I have several cities on my plains that I've purposefully halted at a population of 6 or 7, whatever, since I don't see the point in having my Workers continually chop down forests and irrigate. They can be put to better use elsewhere. Yet I still get reminded about building an Aqueduct.

Oh yeah, one other thing. I'd like to see a Zoom To option on those particular pop ups, the ONLY ones that don't include this. I have no opportunity to have a look at the cities the advisor is talking about in order to see whether building one is even worth it or not.

[Vivisector]

Re: Re: MAKE REAL ALLIES!!!

Originally posted by odisseus


I've discovered that CTP2 can do it! You can implement (almost) whatever you like in CTP2! And now I love CTP2

The only problem of CTP2 is that Activision is missing

HEY! I got CTP2 but haven't really played it. I noticed the forum is dead. How do you customize it - plz tell me! Have you got a script or something I could see?

[Vivisector]

Originally posted by zorbop
***** a better way to incorperate corruption. maybe it could be calculated by the distance it is from capital by calculating movement points. so building roads lowers coruption

manhattan project should be a minor wonder

THE MANUAL SHOULD BE EDITED!!!

there should be a new form of settler(like engineers in civ2) one that would start a city with certain improvements.

more bonusses should come to expansionist civs, like faster sea movement or settlers at the cost of 1 pop

and finally GUYS WITH STONE AXES AND POINTY STICKS SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BEAT TANKS!!!OR EVEN HURT THEM
expanding on that, certain units shouldn't function at all verses others, and should either be captured or simply die.
E-theres no way a warrior could hurt a tank, so there shouldn't be combat between the 2, the tank should win auto.
E2-a gally isn't equiped to fight a sub, so the sub shouldn't be hurt by it and should win 100% of the time.

Good point about corruption. Corruption seems to be overdone. Too few ways to fight it.

I disagree with most of the rest of this post tho. Particularly:

1) Settlers who build cities pre-equipped with certain improvements. Well, what's the difference really? Surely you would have to pay a lot of shields for such a settler. You can build up a city pretty rapidly by other means (workers, joining, rushing, disbanding obsolete units...)

2) More bonuses for expansionist?!? I don't think so. I find expansionist civs to be the easiest to play already...

3) Guys with sticks vs. tanks. Well, I see what you mean. But think of it this way. A guy with a stick represents a military unit, albeit a very poorly equipped one. The fact that the symbol for a warrior is a guy with a stone axe doesn't have to mean that the unit only has stone axes. If a warrior were running around in the modern world, don't you think he would pick up some better weapons? Even a poorly equipped unit can damage or destroy a tank in the right circumstances. Think mujahedeen vs. Soviets.

4) I agree with you on naval units tho. A galley vs. a sub?!? Come on. The galley should be instantly destroyed. They would never know what hit them. Literally. For that matter, the same should be true of a frigate vs. a battleship or destroyer. I mean really - an 18th century frigate wouldn't even get within range of a modern destroyer before being blown out of the water.

[Willem]

The Manhattan Project should be a Small Wonder. It's a bit silly that as soon one Civ builds it, everyone else can make nuclear weapons. This is highly classified information and requires very specialized facilities, so each Civ should have to develop them on their own. After all, the technology has been around for quite awhile now, but only a handful of nations so far have nuclear capability. I realize this might unbalance the game, but that could probably be corrected by introducing the Atrocity function, as found in Alpha Centauri. Once a Civ uses a nuke, it might find itself at war with all the rest, and/or suffer instant war weariness with it's citizens, regardless of government type.

[LordLothaR-Az]

The Manhattan Project should be a Small Wonder. It's a bit silly that as soon one Civ builds it, everyone else can make nuclear weapons. This is highly classified information and requires very specialized facilities, so each Civ should have to develop them on their own. After all, the technology has been around for quite awhile now, but only a handful of nations so far have nuclear capability. I realize this might unbalance the game, but that could probably be corrected by introducing the Atrocity function, as found in Alpha Centauri. Once a Civ uses a nuke, it might find itself at war with all the rest, and/or suffer instant war weariness with it's citizens, regardless of government type.

I totally agree with you.

[odisseus]

Re: Re: Re: MAKE REAL ALLIES!!!

Originally posted by Vivisector



HEY! I got CTP2 but haven't really played it. I noticed the forum is dead. How do you customize it - plz tell me! Have you got a script or something I could see?

See on http://apolyton.net/ctp2/modification

Tons of information about how to modify CTP2.

See related forum, too.

[Optimizer]

Let Improvements provide resources

To decrease the dependence on some of the strategic resources, certain city improvements should be able to provide them. Making that an option in the editor would be enough, but one can always hope for synthetic fuel and rubber plants in the actual game.

[bloodysmurf]

General Ideas

Kudos to those organizing this thread!

A few thoughts on the Trade Advisor:

Possible bug: When I offer a Technology for trade and ask what the civ will give in return, they often offer a great deal. However, when I remove one of the items that they're offering, the deal suddenly becomes insulting.

The Trade Advisor is currently omniscient... he always knows the exact point at which a deal becomes acceptable. There should be a point at which he says "This deal may be acceptable", where you can risk trying to make the deal... with the possible consequence being that if the civ doesn't accept your offer, their asking price goes up a bit.

Railroad Movement

It would be nice to have the option to disable unlimited railroad movement in favor of a small movement cost (1/10th?). Otherwise, the railroad really reduces the need for strategic unit-placement and makes defense against attack too easy.

Errata

I'd like to second the request for a pop-up warning of civil disorder before it happens.

I'd also like to second the request for a "balloon" indicator for workers that tell you how long they will take to finish their current project. Also, an option to "activate automated worker after completion of current project" would be much appreciated.

ollie

[Satis5d]

Re: peaceful leaders

Originally posted by pchang
Did anyone mention something about a peaceful way to generate great leaders? If not, then I'm asking for it.

Perhaps if a city size 7 or higher converts culturally it should spawn a great leader.