Good Idea For Improving Civ3?

[MarkG]

Originally posted by KoenigMkII
Yes, but why cant we have some sensible default values distrubuted in a patch, and values that adjust for Map size??

see Grumbold's post below yours

Or are you saying I should use an editor for each map size?

that can actually be done as well. you can have different bic files, specialized according to the map size you want to play

Using an editor destroys any hope of ever synchonising versions for a MP edition of Civ III.

well, at least in the cases of ctp1 and ctp2, after a lot of work, there have been 1 or 2 major mods, created by the community and also used in MP(pbem) games

[Nadexander]

Originally posted by kailhun
In my opinion, the first step to making a better civ3 is to start from scratch.
Robert

Actually I think that the fact they started mostly from scratch is one of the major problems with civ3. They entirely abandoned many of the small touches that civ2 and smac so good. If they had started with either one as a base im sure they could have had the same product out in half the time. Its not like they added anything particularly revolutionary anyways. Mostly a makeover that could have been easily accomplished by simply morphing the old code.

[player1]

Originally posted by MarkG

Using an editor destroys any hope of ever synchonising versions for a MP edition of Civ III.

well, at least in the cases of ctp1 and ctp2, after a lot of work, there have been 1 or 2 major mods, created by the community and also used in MP(pbem) games

CTP was MAJOR failure without MODs, while Civ3 isn't.

While I played many CTP mods I doubt I'll play any of those for Civ3.

Plus, we heen to be compatibile in Story forums.


Basicly:
If 60% of payers think that something needs to be chaged, and agree what chage that should be, that that chage should be done in basic Civ3, not MODs. Mods should be reserved for remaining non-satisfied players (40%).

I don't think that 60% of players think that actuall setting are OK.
(not counting casual gamers)




And...



All best strategy games had balance patches.



Or Civ3 isn't supposed to be best strategy game?

[yin26]

Grumbold:

Hmm, it looks good at first glance, but then you find that they haven't asked the questions you really want to answer, and havent left any space for comments. So its about as useless as any other tickbox questionnaire.

The difficulty is that there is not yet any concensus on what are the best values for these things.

I think this admittedly simple questionnaire is designed precisely to gather a consensus. And besides, if I were a betting man, I'd bet on the lame horse wobbling forward over the paralyzed horse choking on its own tongue.

[Pyrodrew]

1.Corruption is insane, but currently this is the only thing preventing the lategame from being easier. The AI should learn how to balance the power in the game & try to win. Most my games the AI could care less if I finish building my spaceship... as long as I give them Ivory or something. Would a human let me win for Ivory?

2.Espionage should be cheaper &/or better, I agree.

3.Disagree - I'm glad I cannot throw a boat on the pyramids & call it the pyramids. Leaders are fine. Although leaders do highly favor the warmonger over the pacifist... making war always the way to go. No reward (not even bonus points at the end of the game like in Civ2) for being peaceful to everyone.

4.Air & Bombardments should be stronger. If Naval units were faster & stronger, then air units could be made to sink ships (since the task would be more difficult). Of course the naval units need to improved tho. As many have said, non-wind naval units *definitely* need to be faster.

5.I don't mind the dead end techs, but I do mind that the AIs will spend time researching them or give you their soul for a dead-end tech... even if the Wonder in the dead end tech is built.

6.Despot Pop Rush should have a much higher price to it.

7.I never been at the losing end of a Republic/Democratic Defensive war... but I suppose they would fall apart. Again gives less incentive to be a pacifist.

9.I usually don't have any problem with culture-flips. Only if I see a Civ has a much higher culture (not often) do I have to worry.

10.I agree, nukes should be stronger.

11.Given the advantages we have over an AI, the few cheats it does are welcome. We don't need this game any easier.

12.Factories should be weaker... they make the strong MUCH MUCH stronger.

Originally posted by Roy H Smith
and (my personal favorite)...if you start on a penisula (60% chance) you will get 3 or 4 decent cities at most. Where you begin is infinitely more imporant than they civ you pick. I'd rather have a good location and NO benefits at all than pick Expansionist/Whatever and find myself on another desert island...again.

I strongly agree with this. In Civ2 no one wanted to start in the jungles, but atleast you had banannas (the best growth bonus there was). Deserts were no fun, but they had oasis & oil. The terrains were well balanced for the most part. No starting position was extremely horrid.

In Civ3, starting in a jungle isn't just horrid, it's suicide! Banannas were replaced with DISEASE (editor won't remove this). Oil is no longer limited to desert... plains can have them & since plains are more common than desert, you'll typically find more oil in plains. A desert's flooded plains might seem like a valid oasis replacement, but starting next to 1 in the beginning means disease again. By the time any goodies are discovered in the jungle or desert you're too far behind in tech to know they are there... and being in the middle of the map (where jungle & desert is placed) makes you strategically the perfect target for the next feeding frenzy... especially given how strong distance corruption is. Grasslands went from good in Civ2 to being the *perfect* terrain in Civ3 now that they can be mined. Sadly, forests have no strategic use on grasslands like they did in Civ2. Where a Civ starts dictates how successful they will be hands down. True starting position & unbalanced terrain did play a role in Civ2, but not to the extreme degree it does in Civ3.

If I could have only 3 wishes:
1)A better AI - for the AI not only to try to win, but try to prevent the potential winners from winning by understanding the balance of power & teaming up.
2)More options in the World Generation Screen... currently a dry hot world looks VERY similar to a wet cold world. Use your editor & you will see. More options means more variety... using random world would then mean more surprises. More options would also hopefully mean turning off disease, mining in grasslands, etc. as well as possibly turning on random natural disasters, resource quantity (increase, decrease, random), etc.
3)A better editor... a much better editor.

[MOHonor]

Hey guys let's try to stay off-topic here. This is patented "yin26 cry for attention" thread so let's get back to his desperate need for people to listen to his whine. Anyone.

[Capt Dizle]

I can always stand a littlemo yin.

[yin26]

For you, sir, certainly.

[Zachriel]

Good game, Dan. I got more than my money's worth. I play Civ3 all the time. I look anxiously forward to any patches, updates, or sequels. I'll buy them too.