What needs to be done to make this game great.

[Dida]

I have a suggestion to make handling workers easier.

Let say we want to build a railroad from LA to NYC, and they are half way across the nation. What we would do is lay down the framework (or whatever you wanna call these) where you want the rail to be built. And then just assign workers to the job. It works like in Age of Kings, where you lay down foundation of the wall, and have the villagers work on it.
Laying down the framework, of course cost you nothing, and note that, before the rail gets actually build, the framework provides no benefit. They are simply there to tell you workers where to work next.
Same goes for other terrain improvements.

[Harovan]

Re: Re: Ideas

Originally posted by Dida
What do you mean by no bombers on carriers? The carriers are already having very limited use. w/o bombers on board, they will be completely useless, same for the bombers. w/o having carriers to carry them to where they are needed, bombers would be pieces of crap. Historically, bombers can always fit onto a carrier, except for the land-based bombers. Go learn some history before making ridiculous suggestion.

Examples? I know none, except for F-14-like tactical fighterbombers. They are not meant to be bombers in Civ3. Real medium and long range (strategic) bombers never have been carrier-based. I wonder what would happen, if a B52 or a B2 plane would try to land at the USS Enterprise.

[Dida]

Re: Re: Re: Ideas

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Examples? I know none, except for F-14-like tactical fighterbombers. They are not meant to be bombers in Civ3. Real medium and long range (strategic) bombers never have been carrier-based. I wonder what would happen, if a B52 or a B2 plane would try to land at the USS Enterprise.

Civ3 is a game, it is not meant to be absolutely real. Note that, the max. range for air units are 8, we simply do not have long range bombers such as B2. There is also no airfield, a bomber with range of 8, and does not fit onto a carrier is useless.
Should think of those bombers as Kate Level Bombers or such. Note that also, there were carrier based bombers during WW2. Nowadays, of course, the fighter-bombers can pretty much do everything, so there is no need for carrier-based bombers.

[Harovan]

What about creating 2 kinds of bombers:

- a cheap light bomber, that can be carrier-based, but has a very limited bomb value.
- a quite expensive long range bomber, with a deadly high bomb value, but land-based only, and with a 20+ range. May be, this range can be increased even more, if something like a (new to create) fuel supplyer plane is located in the same city?! This plane also could carry nuclear weapons or cruise missiles.

[Dida]

That is indeed, how the whole bomber thing should have been. Addition of airfield would be nice too.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Sure it will. Culture doesn't make you like them. It makes the people in your towns like them. And they'll flip if you don't pay attention to the culture of your Civ.

You don´t read manuals much, do you? Culture is also supposed to help me in Diplomacy, so I get better deals etc.

In MP, this will work exactly the opposite way. If I want to keep my allies, I will need to keep my Culture low.

Also AI leaders will not hold me responsible for a Culture Flip away from them; human players will.

Btw, try to understand an argument, before you post something.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Martin Gühmann
Actual it is very entertaining to drive into a serious discussion at least I thought I did it.

And for the fact that I don't have Civ3, I prefer to play a game in German and not in English. That is another problem on the list, but if you wait long enough it will be solved.

-Martin

OK Martin, you want serious discussion, eh?

Do you have any idea how absurd it is to go on at length about a game/book/movie that you have never played/read/seen?

Your comment that you will not play Civ3 because it still uses units for terrain improvement and maintenance is perfectly valid. Good point, as a point of view. No offence should be taken by it. Except that you have gone on and on at length. You have made assertions of fact that you have had to retract. Yet you continue to snipe with caricaturizations such as Civ 1.8.

You can't be taken seriously. No serious and intelligent person would go into the lions den, pull the tail of the beast then scream for civil discussion when the lion bites you. That's what you have done.

You've come into a civ3 forum and magnified your ignorance by making assertions based on false assumptions. You've made disparaging remarks about the game that a good many around here like to varying levels. Don't cry when the going gets a bit rough. What did you expect? Everyone would follow you to the promised land?

Salve

[CharlesUFarley]

Here Here!

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Excellent ideas. But why not additionally:

-Discourage as many people as possible from buying that substandard game? It serves a good purpose, and it´s fun!

Charles.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Also AI leaders will not hold me responsible for a Culture Flip away from them; human players will.

A possible solution would be to turn off "peaceful" culture flipping in MP mode, but to allow flipping back conquered cities. This would it still make worth to build cultural improvements, without the fear of losing cities in the outer area and the following diplomatic conflicts.

[Ironikinit]

The addition of airfields would make bombers much more powerful, IMO too powerful.

Currently bombers are limited in that as you advance into former enemy territory you are forced to base your bombers in cities that may revert.

Personally, if another bomber type was added, I'd prefer a tactical bomber that has the ability to destroy units.

[Dida]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
The addition of airfields would make bombers much more powerful, IMO too powerful.
.

What do you mean by too powerful.

[Ironikinit]

Just that a big limitation on their power that's currently in the game would be removed.

What would be the benefits of airfields? You could base your bombers a bit closer to the enemy, and not have to worry about losing them to reversion. Am I missing something? I assume you'd have to keep them in your territory.

[Dida]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
Just that a big limitation on their power that's currently in the game would be removed.

What would be the benefits of airfields? You could base your bombers a bit closer to the enemy, and not have to worry about losing them to reversion. Am I missing something? I assume you'd have to keep them in your territory.

that means they will have a little more power, but does that mean they will be overpowered? prove your theory.

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Yet you continue to snipe with caricaturizations such as Civ 1.8.

Actual it is bitter for a game if people get the feeling that they get something less than they had expected as Civ3. I shouldn't tell you how CTP2 was judjed and at least the umodded version below CTP2. Yeah you maybe right that I started here a little bit to exagerated but people can only really discuss if the initial statement has true and false aspects. And it helped me to corrected my opinion in some aspects about Civ3. But the fact is that Civ3 is not worth 50 Euro. To be honest I wouldn't buy any game for 50 Euro. I bought CTP2 for 80 D-Mark in December 2000. That should be something like 40 Euro. Maybe 45 Euro are ok for a new game but not 50. And what I now is that 35 Euro for Civ3 would be the maximum.

-Martin

[Ironikinit]

Hard to prove w/o actually doing it. It would make them a lot more powerful, IMO.

What would be the advantages of having airfields?