Disenchanted

[Harovan]

Velociryx: Great posts, great suggestions! I like these ideas, especially the "Sell units to allies" option and the "peace keeping forces", but also all the other, without exception. Most of them should be not so hard to implement, and would be the difference that makes an already very good game great.

Firaxis: I'd like to see you to implement at least half of Vel's suggestions. Don't look too much at the money. Heck, I would pay twice as much for a game twice as good. Civilization has always been worth the money I spent for it.

[Asmodean]

Vel: Great ideas. My own Civ3mod.bic already has a lot of these implemented.

I remember we had a debate some time ago, over whether it was okay to change the game rules. Some called it cheating - some said that you wouldn't be playing the game that Firaxis wanted you to play. I say: If the game makes sense to you/is more fun to play for you, if you change the rules, then by all means do so. Fun is the keyword here, and I believe that most of what you are proposing will make the game funnier to play.

A few of my own ideas:

1) Culture. Do one of two things. Either tune the AI to make it understand what happens if it neglects culture. Or, tone it down, making defections less likely. And definately make it harder to achieve cultural victory.

2) Combat. What's wrong with firepower, for crying out loud. The combat system in Civ2 was perfect , why do we have to watch spearmen defeat armor all over again??

3) Terraforming. Make it possible with the discovery of explosives. It should at least be possible to terraform Hills, plains and grassland. I'm not too sure about desert, tundra and mountains.

Keep it up Vel - I'm looking forward to the Mod. Let's hope that Firaxis are willing to listen with regards to the rest.

And for the record: I love Civ3. I just happen to think that it can be made even better.

Asmodean

[Jumping Choya]

Well, I was thinking while I was cutting the grass today, and I came up with something that would appease both those who wanted SMAC's government options and those who see them as unrealistic in a history game like Civ III. So what I have decided is...

Split government into two sections: Economical, and The Other Stuff (sorry that I wasn't able to think of a better name for that).

The idea behind this is that not all democracies are alike, nor are all communisms alike. In fact, communism wasn't so much of a government model than an economic model (although when implemented, it did change other rights of citizens).

For the Economic section, options should include Frontier (nothing special, sortof like the Despot model), Capitalist/Free Market (like Democracy's current system), Communism (like it is now), and varying levels in between (something to fill in the gap between Frontier and Capitalism, for example). Your Economic system will determine in part how much corruption your cities experience, any bonuses, and worker speed.

The Other Stuff is more concerned with how the government is run. Options would be Frontier (again, Despotism), Republic, Democracy, Fundamentalism, Fascist, and Communist (even though I said it was an economic theory, I am at a lack to put a better term in for Soviet-style governments). This can also determine corruption, bonuses, and perhaps worker speed, as well as stuff like supported units and war weariness.

Using these two systems, you could mix and match. Each system could have some downfalls, so you might want to bring some balance to what you choose.

So, it is a rather rough plan, but I think it has some merit. What does everyone else think?

[notyoueither]

Economic: Barter, ..., Capitalist, Socialist.

Political: Despotic, Feudal, Democratic, Totalitarian, Fundamentalist (necessary?)

Rome was Despotic, ...
Elizabethan England was Feudal Capitalist
Nazis were Totalitarian Capitalist
USSR was Totalitarian Socialist
USA is Democratic Capitalist

What I am missing is the word for the proto-capitalism of the entire Roman Empire through early modern England (with the exception of the regressions after the fall of Rome, what used to be called the Dark Ages). Coinage is the the basis of much trade. Immense amount of goods are moved from place to place to satisfy local demands. Profits are earned by classes of individuals who are able to anticipate and supply these demands. Ahah! Mercantile.

Thus
Economic: Barter, Mercantile, Capitalist, Socialist.

and Elizabethan England was Feudal Mercantile.
They weren't quite forming corporations with share holders yet were they?
and Rome was Despotic, Mercantile.

Of course this still doesn't work, does it? Is Socialism immiscable with Capitalism? Ask the French, they'd say no.

But I'm done for now. Does anyone care to improve on it?

I just really wish a patch could implement such ideas. Now I'm wishful thinking, just like KM.

Salve

[Vercingettyrex]

Velociryx has got it spot on. I've play Civ 1, Civ II, SMAC plus a host of other stratgey 4x games like MORII and EU and I agree that the early to mid game is good but the mid to late game is unbalanced in some way.

I'm not sure whats causing it, but its definetly there. I think Firaxis were right to deliberately make conquest of the world a lot harder. I agree with this in principle, though the manual should have made this a lot clearer

On the other hand, I strongly agree with Velociryx that the player then has to be given some goals in the latter half to offset the inertia that comes with running a larger civilisation which has reached its optimum size. There are also other tweaks that could be made as have already been discussed making unit selection less of a chore.

The things I like in the game are Culture, Trade and Diplomacy. I think these are still in a raw state and could deal with further development. But the idea behind them is excellent.

Things I don't like so much are Espionage, and Unit handling. Corruption I'm still not sure about. It's there and maybe not much can be done about it.

However ... One possible solution is that if Corruption is considered lawlessness, the concept of law could be introduced and play something like Culture. Buildings and Wonders could promote law every turn and produce internal "Law" frontiers within your state. War of course, increases lawlessness, especially for border cities. The end result might be the same (ie expansion becomes harder), but at least it would allow players to feel as though they are tackling the problem. This concept would then allow certain diplomatic agreements to be setup to help with Corruption/Law such as Extradition treaties, Cross Border Agreements etc. One aspect of Civilisation in the broadest sense is law. Afterall Pax Romana meant Roman law. Global Capitalism relies on certain laws, ie property and contract, being consistent between countries etc. Of course this is not a patch issue but more of a CIV IV issue ?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Slax
The simplest end-game improvement: Add a great picture or movie for each type of victory (besides conquest and space race).

The current popup windows are such a huge let-down, especially after the late-game tedium.

No thanks. In fact I'd even like to turn off the pop-ups. How many times do I have to see a picture of a Pyramid? I don't even pay attention to it anymore. Besides, they cause problems for the Small Wonders I've created, the game keeps trying to crash as soon as those graphics pop up.

[Slax]

Originally posted by Willem


No thanks. In fact I'd even like to turn off the pop-ups. How many times do I have to see a picture of a Pyramid? I don't even pay attention to it anymore. Besides, they cause problems for the Small Wonders I've created, the game keeps trying to crash as soon as those graphics pop up.

Huh? You want to see nothing when you win the game?

[Skanky Burns]

Thats crazy talk!!

Well, i agree with Willem that another picture pop-up wouldn't add much, but a victory movie for each victory condition is nearly a must!!

Has anyone here played Carrier Command (old game, around the 386/486 era). Well, after months of playing, i finally won that game. I got a popup "You Win" and then it was back to the main menu... talk about a let-down.

While Civ 3 isnt quite as bad as that with the replay and the ranking, it still feels like an empty victory to win by any means other than spaceship. To me.

[Velociryx]

Ideas for the Editor

Everybody who's taken a peek at Civ3's editor knows it could use some enhancing. Off the top of my head, as I've been pondering ideas for the "Mod-with-no-Name" here are some things I'd really, really like to see:

1) An easy way to add new techs, units, etc, AND update the civlopedia right there on the screen.

2) A "this unit cannot attack cities" flag and/or a "this unit cannot leave your Civ's borders" flag (useful for creating Partisan/Militia defenders (especially colorless units) that could be used to whack settlers and other denizens from neighboring civs who REPEATEDLY violate your borders. If the AI will not let you be, there should be a way to keep all comers out without starting a world war. Such units, as I envision them, would be powerful enough to go head to head with whatever the standard defender is, assuming he's out in the open (but probably not have sufficient punch to actually attack a town, except in large numbers) to keep your rivals at bay. Trouble is, especially in the ancient era, there's simply no "room" given the default A/D/M values to do that (unless you wanna totally overhaul the entire system :: shivers:: ). So, a flag like this would allow me to create a colorless swordsman who could NOT leave my borders, or at the very least not capture enemy towns. (As it stands now, colorless units can attack and capture towns without causing a general war....the AI, in fact, does not even respond....not good! (as it stands now, I'm creating units that are x/x/1 - All Terrain as roads and requiring such units to cost one or more pop points as well, and even still, given their ability to capture cities without triggering a war, they're verging on being unbalancing). Such flags as mentioned above would open a whole HOST of interesting possibilities.

3) Working Gov-specific wonders/units (as it stands now, the "on" flag works fine for such units/wonders, but when you change governments, those units can still be built).

4) Age-specific HP bonuses (ie - a Veteran on an Industrial Age battlefield has experience that *should* count for more than a veteran of the Stone Age (reflected in higher HP's as the game progresses thru the ages).

Others? I've got more, and will post more later....right now, it's to bed with me!

-=Vel=-

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Ideas for the Editor

Everybody who's taken a peek at Civ3's editor knows it could use some enhancing. Off the top of my head, as I've been pondering ideas for the "Mod-with-no-Name" here are some things I'd really, really like to see:

-=Vel=-

I'd like to see an option that ties units to certain improvements. I've never understood how a city can build an aircraft without an Airport, or a Battleship without a Shipyard.

[Libertarian]

Vel:

Your suggestions are good ones, of course. But how can they be implemented without massive coding changes on a scale that is likely prohibitive? New flags in the Editor, for instance. For every new flag, there must be new conditional branching algorithms hooked into the present code in every place that the flag might have any effect.

The musings are interesting, but how will they get done?

[notyoueither]

Good point Lib.

There are many great ideas for a new game being flung about, BUT...

I fear that our hopes for Civ3 must be more limited to fixes for current problems rather than major coding efforts. At least until an expansion that is. I just hope that stacked movement is not a *major coding effort*.

Salve

[player1]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Good point Lib.

There are many great ideas for a new game being flung about, BUT...

I fear that our hopes for Civ3 must be more limited to fixes for current problems rather than major coding efforts. At least until an expansion that is. I just hope that stacked movement is not a *major coding effort*.

Salve

I don't think it is. Look my post at start of this thread.

[player1]

Originally posted by player1
One programming advice to Firaxis: thing about stacking.

It is much easier to do this for human players only. Let AI use old ways, because if we force AI to use stacks then A LOT of code needs to be changed.

So stacks should be programmed like some sort of batch procedures. Like players is binding several units toghter. And when player says: "move", then batch proc. is started and computer moves them one by one (with animations turned off for all exept first unit). Same for bombard & worker tasks.

At the end it could be included for some other orders: forify, activate, air superiority, etc...

This is really NOT DIFFICULT to programm.

P.P.S.
Dan, if you are actually reading this, and Firaxis intends to make stacking orders, then let Soren read this last advice (stacking).

[notyoueither]

I really hope so. It would do so much to sooth the wound that is workers in the late game. If only for that.

Salve