Tweet
I'm an occasional but regular gamer who has been playing Civilization 3 on-and-off since it was released. While I think the game is foundationally strong and builds upon solid core gameplay features in Civ 2 and Alpha Centauri, I no longer find it enjoyable, due to various playability issues and a lack of real diplomacy options.
After playing a long game throughout last week and becoming endlessly bogged down in the later ages in wars and war weariness, I noted some ideas for enhancements that I believe would improve the game that I wanted to share with the Civ 3 community:
Diplomavy - Alliances: Diplomacy in the game needs to be expanded. Right now alliances are too fleeting and arbitrary. Mutual protection pacts are a start, but should be modified to include Alliances. Making an alliance with another nation should grant you a military base in that nation's territory (one for each continent if the territory encompasses more than one large
landmass). Then you can send units to that military base to support your ally. Movement as such can be scratched here and instead units you designate from homeland cities will be routed automatically to the foreign base, the number of turns to arrive based on the distance of the unit to the respective foreign base. This will improve immensely moving units around the map and
getting them to faraway hotspots. And to ensure that players don't abuse this feature, you should simply not be allowed to attack an nation while it is an ally. You can at any time break the alliance but, at that time, your units would be returned to you and your foreign military base shutdown.
Diplomacy - Supporting Allies: As with a mutual protection pact, if an ally is attacked, you would be expected to lend support. However - and this includes mutual protection pacts - this should not automatically cause you to declare war on the nation attacking your ally. Diplomatic options should include financial aid (lump sum or per turn), giving your ally units,
sending troops to your ally's nation to help repel an attack, declaring war on the nation attacking your ally, or a refusal to get involved. Some examples:
* You are America, and have an alliance with England. Pursuing an imperialistic path, England attacks France and asks for American support. You refuse to get involved in a war of conquest and either a) break the alliance with England and pull your troops out, or b) maintain the alliance but do not get involved in the French war. England could have wide-ranging reactions (no reaction, breaking the alliance) to your decision, based on
your past efforts as an ally and what you provide as an ally. France should also recognize your action or non-action and note your choice. The point is that you would have greater diplomatic latitude in responding to various situations in the game.
* You are America, and have an alliance with France. Russia invades France, and France asks you for assistance. You decide to help but have a choice of the following measures:
- You can grant France financial aid.
- You can give France tanks or other units (per turn or a lump
total).
- You can jump in to the war fully and declare war on Russia.
- You can offer partial military "peacekeeping" aid, meaning your
units will only be authorized to fight within France to defend against Russian units. This would translate to arming the French army with your units and technology and would let you engage in
fighting against Russia in an "undeclared" war so long as you only fight in France and do not attack any Russian units outside of France. Russia could of course declare war on you for your participation but may choose not do so, preferring to not refer to the incident officially but leverage it for negotiating powers. In this sense, two superpowers could really engage in a "cold war" against each other, never fighting each other in an all-out war,
but skirmishing to hold the line on the other in other countries in undeclared capacities. This feature would also promote nation-building in the later age, as propping up and winning lesser nations to your side could be an new enjoyable strategy to winning the game.
Diplomacy - Trade Agreements and Treaties: You should be able to suspend or amend trade agreements or treaties at any time given the actions of your trading partner or ally. Of course, as always, your trading partner or ally can note your actions and respond appropriately.
Diplomacy - Trade: Foreign aid and foreign sanctions should be added to this feature, as well as a Favored Nation and Favored Trading Partner designations you and other nations can bestow.
Military - Occupation: During war, you should have more options than simply razing or taking over a city:
* Limit razing to cities size 2 or under. Being able to raze modern metropolis-sized cities instantly takes away from the Civ-building plausibility the game is trying to otherwise create.
* Your ability to take over a city conquered during war should be
retained.
* Add the ability to "occupy" a city. In this case, you would
simply be occupying a city during the war, after which you could return it to your defeated foe for some concessions or to show your willingness for peace. Occupying cities should be much easier to control than cities that you have fully taken over - but the city should not produce anything for you or be treated as one of your cities. Occupied cities would basically be cities that produce nothing for anyone that you are only holding until the
war is over, at which point you can keep or return.
* Add the ability to liberate a city of one of your allies. In this
case, after taking a city back or from under occupation from the enemy of one of your allies, you could simply immediately give the city to your ally.
Military - War Victory Conditions: Options available to players following a war need to be expanded. The victor should be able to demand more from a defeated nation, such as a guarantee of resources or luxuries or reparations. Additionally, a nation that is significantly more powerful than a defeated nation should be able to impose additional victory conditions, such as a permanent garrison (military base) within the defeated nation or a
limit on the standing army the defeated nation can maintain. Think here of the terms of the Japanese surrender in WWII. In this instance if a militaristic nation invaded you and you repelled them, you would be rewarded some assurances for the cost of war. Perhaps you could even help rebuild the defeated nation (as the US assisted with the rebuilding of Germany and Japan) and win them over as an ally, or perhaps you could impose too many sanctions on them (as the Allies did to Germany in WWI), and they will defy you and attack you again.
General - War Weariness: War weariness has a place in the game but it needs to be modified so the game doesn't become unplayable if you can't get out of a war and all of your cities start rioting. Generally, war weariness should set in under a variety of situations:
* if you are constantly at war and you are not regularly victorious
* if people are not happy in your nation generally during war
* in the later ages, if you are a democracy and after you build universities, if you engage regularly in unjust or dubious wars, a portion of your poulation could protest the war
War weariness constantly springing up after you have responded to an attack by a militaristic foe and are defending yourself isn't realistic and bogs the game down. If you'e fighting for your survival, you're citizens will have more pressing concerns than simple weariness.
Diplomacy - Foreign Aid - Espionage: Espionage should be modified to allow you to fund rebels in other nations. Rebels can be represented as units (either units you control or independent units, like barbarians) and can be strengthened (to a point) by your aid. Rebels can be funded to help stir up insurrection when there is unrest in a foreign nation and when you want the current regime overthrown and a puppet ally government in its place. The possibilities here could get interesting if two superpowers both fund rebels in a strategically important minor nation.
After playing a long game throughout last week and becoming endlessly bogged down in the later ages in wars and war weariness, I noted some ideas for enhancements that I believe would improve the game that I wanted to share with the Civ 3 community:
Diplomavy - Alliances: Diplomacy in the game needs to be expanded. Right now alliances are too fleeting and arbitrary. Mutual protection pacts are a start, but should be modified to include Alliances. Making an alliance with another nation should grant you a military base in that nation's territory (one for each continent if the territory encompasses more than one large
landmass). Then you can send units to that military base to support your ally. Movement as such can be scratched here and instead units you designate from homeland cities will be routed automatically to the foreign base, the number of turns to arrive based on the distance of the unit to the respective foreign base. This will improve immensely moving units around the map and
getting them to faraway hotspots. And to ensure that players don't abuse this feature, you should simply not be allowed to attack an nation while it is an ally. You can at any time break the alliance but, at that time, your units would be returned to you and your foreign military base shutdown.
Diplomacy - Supporting Allies: As with a mutual protection pact, if an ally is attacked, you would be expected to lend support. However - and this includes mutual protection pacts - this should not automatically cause you to declare war on the nation attacking your ally. Diplomatic options should include financial aid (lump sum or per turn), giving your ally units,
sending troops to your ally's nation to help repel an attack, declaring war on the nation attacking your ally, or a refusal to get involved. Some examples:
* You are America, and have an alliance with England. Pursuing an imperialistic path, England attacks France and asks for American support. You refuse to get involved in a war of conquest and either a) break the alliance with England and pull your troops out, or b) maintain the alliance but do not get involved in the French war. England could have wide-ranging reactions (no reaction, breaking the alliance) to your decision, based on
your past efforts as an ally and what you provide as an ally. France should also recognize your action or non-action and note your choice. The point is that you would have greater diplomatic latitude in responding to various situations in the game.
* You are America, and have an alliance with France. Russia invades France, and France asks you for assistance. You decide to help but have a choice of the following measures:
- You can grant France financial aid.
- You can give France tanks or other units (per turn or a lump
total).
- You can jump in to the war fully and declare war on Russia.
- You can offer partial military "peacekeeping" aid, meaning your
units will only be authorized to fight within France to defend against Russian units. This would translate to arming the French army with your units and technology and would let you engage in
fighting against Russia in an "undeclared" war so long as you only fight in France and do not attack any Russian units outside of France. Russia could of course declare war on you for your participation but may choose not do so, preferring to not refer to the incident officially but leverage it for negotiating powers. In this sense, two superpowers could really engage in a "cold war" against each other, never fighting each other in an all-out war,
but skirmishing to hold the line on the other in other countries in undeclared capacities. This feature would also promote nation-building in the later age, as propping up and winning lesser nations to your side could be an new enjoyable strategy to winning the game.
Diplomacy - Trade Agreements and Treaties: You should be able to suspend or amend trade agreements or treaties at any time given the actions of your trading partner or ally. Of course, as always, your trading partner or ally can note your actions and respond appropriately.
Diplomacy - Trade: Foreign aid and foreign sanctions should be added to this feature, as well as a Favored Nation and Favored Trading Partner designations you and other nations can bestow.
Military - Occupation: During war, you should have more options than simply razing or taking over a city:
* Limit razing to cities size 2 or under. Being able to raze modern metropolis-sized cities instantly takes away from the Civ-building plausibility the game is trying to otherwise create.
* Your ability to take over a city conquered during war should be
retained.
* Add the ability to "occupy" a city. In this case, you would
simply be occupying a city during the war, after which you could return it to your defeated foe for some concessions or to show your willingness for peace. Occupying cities should be much easier to control than cities that you have fully taken over - but the city should not produce anything for you or be treated as one of your cities. Occupied cities would basically be cities that produce nothing for anyone that you are only holding until the
war is over, at which point you can keep or return.
* Add the ability to liberate a city of one of your allies. In this
case, after taking a city back or from under occupation from the enemy of one of your allies, you could simply immediately give the city to your ally.
Military - War Victory Conditions: Options available to players following a war need to be expanded. The victor should be able to demand more from a defeated nation, such as a guarantee of resources or luxuries or reparations. Additionally, a nation that is significantly more powerful than a defeated nation should be able to impose additional victory conditions, such as a permanent garrison (military base) within the defeated nation or a
limit on the standing army the defeated nation can maintain. Think here of the terms of the Japanese surrender in WWII. In this instance if a militaristic nation invaded you and you repelled them, you would be rewarded some assurances for the cost of war. Perhaps you could even help rebuild the defeated nation (as the US assisted with the rebuilding of Germany and Japan) and win them over as an ally, or perhaps you could impose too many sanctions on them (as the Allies did to Germany in WWI), and they will defy you and attack you again.
General - War Weariness: War weariness has a place in the game but it needs to be modified so the game doesn't become unplayable if you can't get out of a war and all of your cities start rioting. Generally, war weariness should set in under a variety of situations:
* if you are constantly at war and you are not regularly victorious
* if people are not happy in your nation generally during war
* in the later ages, if you are a democracy and after you build universities, if you engage regularly in unjust or dubious wars, a portion of your poulation could protest the war
War weariness constantly springing up after you have responded to an attack by a militaristic foe and are defending yourself isn't realistic and bogs the game down. If you'e fighting for your survival, you're citizens will have more pressing concerns than simple weariness.
Diplomacy - Foreign Aid - Espionage: Espionage should be modified to allow you to fund rebels in other nations. Rebels can be represented as units (either units you control or independent units, like barbarians) and can be strengthened (to a point) by your aid. Rebels can be funded to help stir up insurrection when there is unrest in a foreign nation and when you want the current regime overthrown and a puppet ally government in its place. The possibilities here could get interesting if two superpowers both fund rebels in a strategically important minor nation.
Comment