Announcement

**Willem** · February 21, 2002, 23:36

Re: Government modifiers

Originally posted by star mouse
I would like to see more government modifiers. At present, we have the Despotic reduction in tile bonuses, and the Republic/Democracy trade bonuses. I would like to see a few more:

-2 Happiness penalty - The citizens are not very happy with this form of government, perhaps because they repress the people too much. Works well with military police because undefended cities would be less happy. (Fascism)

Now that gov specific buildings are working, you can include that into any structures you make for them. It provides a lot more options for differentiating between the various government forms, as well as for creating new ones. I've been coming up with ideas all day.
Communal corruption - Instead of this being a corruption setting, it should be a separate selection, so we can control the settings of corruption levels better with custom governments.

**Spiffor** · February 22, 2002, 01:34

A small thing which could add some flavour, and was in Civ 1 :
in the Civilopedia, if I want some info about a knowledge, you could write who discovered the knowledge I have. For example, after aquiring philosophy, I could see in the Civilopedia
"Pilosophy
Discovered by the Greeks (possibly the discovery date)"
This way, I could know if my philosophy, my state religion, or my idea of communism etc. are proper to me, or if I share them with other cultures. No effect in gameplay terms, but I could get more involved in my civ.

EDIT : Well, actually, it could have gameplay effects. Someone on these boards had an idea to make tech trading less attractive, and own discovery more attractive : when you discover a tech by yourself, you get culture points from it. I assume every tech doesn't provide the same amount of culture (having your monotheism gives more culture than having your magnetism), so I think this amount of culture should be adjustable for each tech in the editor.

**TheRascalKing** · February 22, 2002, 03:26

Another thing I'd like is if additional science points you're leftover with would carry over to the next advance you research. The only argument against it is "Well, research in one field isn't necessarily compatable in another field" and it's a bad argument. Why, praytell? It could naturally be assumed that, as soon as something is mastered, research would then progress in a different direction, and being that each turn is at least a year long, it would only make sense that, during that year, when they discovered amphibious warfare, they would stop researching that and move on to, for example, combined arms.

Also, there should be a way to destroy units in cities on 1-square islands before the advent of amphibious warfare. I have a game in which the annoying Russians were entirely destroyed in the second age, but I could not finish them off because they had a lousy city on a size-1 island. Stupid Russians... (BTW I realize I could give a unit amphibious assault before amphibious warfare, but I think a lot of problems would be solved if bombardment could destroy any unit)

And how about male AND female leaders for each civ? I want my Stalin back!

**Willem** · February 22, 2002, 11:24

Originally posted by TheRascalKing

Also, there should be a way to destroy units in cities on 1-square islands before the advent of amphibious warfare. I have a game in which the annoying Russians were entirely destroyed in the second age, but I could not finish them off because they had a lousy city on a size-1 island. Stupid Russians... (BTW I realize I could give a unit amphibious assault before amphibious warfare, but I think a lot of problems would be solved if bombardment could destroy any unit)

Ever heard of Gibraltar? Even with modern weaponry, that place is almost impregnable. Any attacking force would suffer huge losses. I don't believe that there has ever been a nation that has attempted to capture it by force, though I could be wrong here. It just wouldn't be worth it.

**TheRascalKing** · February 22, 2002, 13:24

Originally posted by Willem

Ever heard of Gibraltar? Even with modern weaponry, that place is almost impregnable. Any attacking force would suffer huge losses. I don't believe that there has ever been a nation that has attempted to capture it by force, though I could be wrong here. It just wouldn't be worth it.

Actually we could probably just firebomb it into dust.

But seriously, just because there are a few instances of nigh-impregnable islands in the real world (such as Cyprus and Gibraltar) doesn't mean we should be entirely barred from attacking such islands in a game which exists solely for the purpose of having fun. Really, if someone WANTED to frontal assault Gibraltar in real life, they could if they so chose, which one cannot say for Civilization 3.

Also, using the argument of "it would be too dangerous" in this instance would force the "zone of control" argument, then. It's far too dangerous to leave one's flanks unsecured. Thus, if we're going to completely disallow one, it's only sensical to completely disallow the other, too, but as it seems Firaxis just had a bunch of seemingly unrelated and poor ideas they wanted to try in a new strategy game and Civ3 was the poor scapegoat.

**Scientia** · February 23, 2002, 08:28

Originally posted by TheRascalKing
Another thing I'd like is if additional science points you're leftover with would carry over to the next advance you research. The only argument against it is "Well, research in one field isn't necessarily compatable in another field" and it's a bad argument. Why, praytell? It could naturally be assumed that, as soon as something is mastered, research would then progress in a different direction, and being that each turn is at least a year long, it would only make sense that, during that year, when they discovered amphibious warfare, they would stop researching that and move on to, for example, combined arms.

Not necessarily. The argument could be made that all knoweldge is ultimately related, but "breaks" in knowledge aren't so simply defined and the results acquiring knoweldge are often far from instantaneous. Of course, in a turn based system, you have to have "break point" somewhere, but this may contribute to a misconception in epistemology.

That being said, I would like to see the current system of instantaneous tech trading become moderated by a "learning period" where the civ receiving the tech outside of "normal" research towards the advance must wait a few turns before being able to employ it.

Think of it as time spent absorbing and understanding the new information. The actual time required to master the new information could be modifed by the scientific capabilities of the civ receiving it, with possible additional modifiers from scientific ability of the civ teaching it. Also, the more techs someone receives in trade, the longer the waiting period, although the time delay for each could run concurrently. It might even be "fair" to penalize the tech the civ is currently researching, since manpower and resources would have to be devoted to bringing the new knowledge online. I think this approach would redefine the balance that appears to be lost due to the AI collaborative trade network and "tech-whoring" in general.

Comments?

**hetairoi22** · February 23, 2002, 12:14

More Editor Options:

Units could require a certain City Improvement, Wonder or Government to be built.

Option to allow artillery to destroy land/sea units (not my idea).

"Long Range Artillery" option. Allow an artillery unit to fire at double range, but with lower bombard attack strength/RoF.

Allow for operational ranges of over 8.

City Improvement option: A city improvement could increase the number of free units a city can support.

My 2 cents........

**Willem** · February 23, 2002, 12:25

Re: More Editor Options:

Originally posted by hetairoi22
Units could require a certain City Improvement, Wonder or Government to be built.

I've thought of that as well. The problem is that the AI is a lousy builder, it can't plan nearly as well as a human can and usually builds improvements haphazardly. So if by chance it doesn't construct that particular building, or very few of them, then it's left with a serious disadvantage. Unless the units are so feeble that it doesn't matter whether it does or not, making it rather pointless to have them in the first place.

**candidgamera** · February 24, 2002, 03:01

These specific changes to editor (recognize this repeats ideas from above - meant as summary):

*Add the "airpower" slot of improvements/wonders menu to units menu for sea, land units, auto blanks out for air units - provides AA ability now to units.

*move selection window for "chance of interception" from general settings menu to units and improvement/wonders menu - probably asking too much.

*Have to differ with Willem here - add "required improvement" slot from improvements/wonders menu to units menu.

*Eliminate range 8 limit on operational range.

*New air mission - "tactical missile attack" would allow designated aircraft to do air-launched cruise missile attack - not as strong on this as others, but this would allow some modding to reflect increasing firepower of bombloads with tailored "cruise missiles" make it work like a combination of bombardment and airdrop. would have to let air units carry cruise, tactical missiles.

*let helos land on carriers - follows from above.

*Add "made obselete by" slot on units menu - removes unit from build options when made obselete.

*a base unit like the warrior for each age, that makes its predecessor obselete - 111 goes to 221 goes to 331 goes to 441 or something like that - maybe not in the next patch, but in an xpack.

**hetairoi22** · February 24, 2002, 03:32

Re: Re: More Editor Options:

Originally posted by Willem

I've thought of that as well. The problem is that the AI is a lousy builder, it can't plan nearly as well as a human can and usually builds improvements haphazardly. So if by chance it doesn't construct that particular building, or very few of them, then it's left with a serious disadvantage. Unless the units are so feeble that it doesn't matter whether it does or not, making it rather pointless to have them in the first place.

Firaxis could set priorities to which improvements/wonders the AI would build or somethin'. Or would that be make the game to predictable. Or Soren must "just" improve the AI...

IMHO they should add the option anyway. The more options the better I say!

Any ideas...?

**Ironikinit** · February 24, 2002, 06:07

Surrender of units. When the probability of losing is over, say, 90%, the unit surrenders. It's realistic and would cut down on complaints about goofy combat results.

**hetairoi22** · February 24, 2002, 07:33

Nice idea Ironikinit! Maybe there should be a chance of not surrendering, like mounted units don't always retreat.

On my way home from church, this idea came to me:

What if you split the "Bombard" setting in the editor into two options:

"Bombard" and "Ranged Fire".

Bombard units can only destroy improvements in a city, and cannot damage units. Well, maybe if the square they were in was attacked, like bombard units do now. I dont know if this new kind of "Bombard" units should be able to kill citizens? They could be hiding in the structures of the city or somethin'.

Ranged Fire units would be able to damage units ONLY. Again these should be able to attack the attackers of its square. I dont know if they should be able to kill citizens. These units, if they had an attack rate, would be able to capture zero defense units and if they attacked another ranged fire units they would use their normal stats; a/d/m (if they had any).

If you gave a unit both options, it would work almost like bombard units work now.

Bombard units would be Catapults, Trebuchets, Mortars and Rocket Launchers.

Ranged Fire units would be Bowmen, Longbowmen, Crossbowmen, Flamethrowers etc.

What do you'all think of this? Is it to complicated/stupid/hard for the AI to understand? Comments are welcome.

EDIT: These ideas could also be used for air/missile/sea unit of course.
Like Chemical weapons (missiles) could only attack units.

Sea units with both options checked would work EXACTLY as they work now.

**tishco** · February 24, 2002, 09:26

my 2 pence

i would like in the editor:
civ specific and any civ starting places
changing wonders more: manhatten proj as a small wonder mainly

and in game:
better diplo
better foreign advisor screen, and others better (doubt it'll happen tho

_)
less crashing

apart from that its ok

**benjdm** · February 24, 2002, 10:46

This would probably be a non-trivial one to implement but anyway:

Have air missions be possible to be done with 'packages'. I'm imagining you hit a button saying 'create air mission' or something. Then you would select the air units that would be part of the 'package' (a mix of bombers and fighters). Fighters would duke it out first and surviving defensive fighters would hit bombers. Surviving bombers would hit the target.

**Willem** · February 24, 2002, 13:28

A couple of things:

In the governments section of the editor, I'd like there to be two settings that need to be checked for corruption. The first would be for selecting one of the two basic choices of the current models, centralized or communal. The second would be the degree of each of these, i.e. Rampant, Minimal etc. Right now there's no way to adjust the communal model, other than the trade bonuses.

Secondly, with gov specific buildings, I'd like to be able to multi select different gov types for various improvements. So for instance, the Cathedral could be used by every gov form except Communism. I would also like to be able to select a principal gov so that, using the same example, the Cathedral would be more effective with Republic than with Democracy or Monarchy. Or maybe make it so that a principal gov would give the structure some bonuses, rather than reducing things with other govs.

Announcement

Ideas for v1.18f?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment