+ and -

[McZosch]

My (-)-List (or: wishlist) is as follows:
- a possibility to declare a terrain type, that can be squared by both naval and land units (like swamps; and/or the possibility to create an terrain improvement like 'channels')
- this can be made as follows:
On the units screen we get two listboxes: one for the terrain-types the unit can square and one for the terrain types the unit can square.
On the worker actions page an possibility to convert existing terrains into others should be added, maybe desert into grassland.
On the terrains-page, an option stating 'can build city' would be nice. Also, the possibility to decrease the usefulness of an improvement like road should be added. (an road 'in' the mountains is not as useful as an road 'under', i.e. an tunnel)
- make the option, which lets an unit die in jungle, editable
- unique landsquares, like Niagara Falls or something like that
- When making a diplomatic agreement, it would be useful to negotiate the time it lasts on a 'per round'-base. What is th value of an 20-round mutual prot. pact, if you can negotiate a 50-round-one.
- terrains with a square greater than 1*1, like very huge mountains

and YES - of course - the MINIMAP in the editor-window

My (+)-List is as follows:
- the game now plays quite wonderful --- veeeeeeery good work!

[Spec]

[Nym]

Re: + and -

Originally posted by McZosch
My (-)-List (or: wishlist) is as follows:
- a possibility to declare a terrain type, that can be squared by both naval and land units (like swamps; and/or the possibility to create an terrain improvement like 'channels')

It could be really interesting.

On the worker actions page an possibility to convert existing terrains into others should be added, maybe desert into grassland.

I would suggest to limit this ability. For example you may only be able to convert desert to plains or grassland if the square is already near another plain or grassland square or near a river.

- When making a diplomatic agreement, it would be useful to negotiate the time it lasts on a 'per round'-base. What is th value of an 20-round mutual prot. pact, if you can negotiate a 50-round-one.

I agree.

[steelehc]

I agree with you for the most part. My disagreements:

- a possibility to declare a terrain type, that can be squared by both naval and land units (like swamps; and/or the possibility to create an terrain improvement like 'channels')

Trying to drive a battleship or submarine, or the like through a swamp won't work very good. The canal/channel idea, however, is very good.

On the units screen we get two listboxes: one for the terrain-types the unit can square and one for the terrain types the unit can square.

Whats the difference?

On the worker actions page an possibility to convert existing terrains into others should be added, maybe desert into grassland.

There needs to be some limitation on this, but it is a good idea.

Steele

[Thrawn05]

Re: + and -

Originally posted by McZosch
My (-)-List (or: wishlist) is as follows:
- a possibility to declare a terrain type, that can be squared by both naval and land units (like swamps; and/or the possibility to create an terrain improvement like 'channels')

I'm compelled to reply to this. Very good idea, I might not agree with the swamp, but it is logical for smaller ships.

Civ3 already has a "channel" feature in the game. But you need a city that you control on a piece of land, in which water is directly connected to both sides of the city. You can send ships through that city as if it were a cannel.

I would like to see this enhanced in furture patch/XP (I don't care either way). Say, if a city is has a cost on one side, but only 1 or 2 tiles further away from another cost, you can build a cannal from the city to the cost (there should be a limit to how far you can build a cannal. You shouldn't be able to build a cannal that goes accross the entire pangea continent.

I would also like, some sort of toll to be added to this feature for other civs to use it (if they don't have a ROP, or, in time of war, MPP). Example of a ability to use someone else's canal:

Me:
I would like: to use the canal at [CITY]
I give: 50 gold.

Them:
I would like: Fission, 50 gold.
I give: The use of the canal at [CITY]

Me:
I would like: to use the canal at [CITY]
I give: 100 gold, World Map

Them:
No deal

Me:
That's it, prepare for WAR!

, eh, I have to keep it real.

[Andrew Cory]

I'll agree with a lot of the things on your list. There were a few things that I want to see on it that are not currently on it, however...

1) VTOL ability. This would be a chequeable ability, and would basicaly allow a unit to airdrop without needing an airport. Think of a Helicopter with this ability: it could land _anywhere_. OR, immagine a harrier; it could attack ground units (only), and then land on any non-water square...

2) A.A. ability (not Associates of Art, or Alcoholics Anonymous!). This would allow any unit to fire at air units. Think of being able to build patriots, or adding that ability to mobile artilary. Suddenly certain sea units can defend themselves...

[Grrr]

Trying to drive a battleship or submarine, or the like through a swamp won't work very good. The canal/channel idea, however, is very good.

Well at least have ships which count as ICE BREAKERS in glaciers.