Commemorating Military Victories

[HazieDaVampire]

yeah, nice, you should get to build them when you get a major defeat or its a long drown out war/battle when loads of people died.

you win war = big white memorial to show whos boss (Also opens a screen to show how units moved around).

you lose more stuff than win before a peace treaty is made = big black memorial with a field of crosses (graves).

You win but its a long battle with no clear winner (you mite of killed them, or taken most of their stuff, but you've lost alot of units) = White memorial with lots of crosses!

[HazieDaVampire]

I'd also like to see revival of civs (When allies invaded france to get rid of germans, thos citys didn't become American/English did they?). I'd also like to see an AI that feels sorry for a civ thats losing alot of citys, and the enemy is razing them all, or slautering their troops!.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Navyman
If this isn't a war game then what is the Modern Times for? There certainly isn't anything else to do!

It's all technical my friend.

As stated in another thread (I think?), Civ is just too mainstream and "dulled around the edges" for a large audience. Some people when they see a screen that says "please enter a name for your victory statue to place in your capital" would say "what the hell is this and why is it wasting my playing time?" I'd like to see a lot of things more complex and in-depth in Civ, but that's just not the kind of game it is.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Trip

It's all technical my friend.

As stated in another thread (I think?), Civ is just too mainstream and "dulled around the edges" for a large audience. Some people when they see a screen that says "please enter a name for your victory statue to place in your capital" would say "what the hell is this and why is it wasting my playing time?" I'd like to see a lot of things more complex and in-depth in Civ, but that's just not the kind of game it is.

We all expected and hoped years ago that Civ 2's successor would be more sophisticated and involved with more scenario capabilities, more techs, more units, etc.

Instead we did indeed get a dumbed down version with Civ 3 to appeal to a lower level, and to those whose dismal "knowledge" of military history is almost as bad as Firaxis'.

[Capt Dizle]

Man if you start comparing the innovation in EU with Civ3 it really looks awful, doesn't it.

[nationalist]

I like the idea of getting to build a small wonder in your capital (provided that wonder is not too expensive. Maybe 200 shields or sop.) each time you destroy an enemy civ. It gives even more of an incentive to conquer your weaker neighbors, and makes the destruction of a civ a more momentious occasion.

[Cookie Monster]

Definately want to be able to name units. Would settle for commemorating victorious wars, commemorating victorious battles might be a bit too much but I could be wrong.

Loved the ability to name places in SMAC/X


That's all for now, let me get to work......................

[Jon Shafer]

I think they should also add something like SimCity to the game, where you can actually plop text right down on the map if you want. Name all the rivers, important battle sites, provinces, etc. whatever you wanted. I think that would be pretty cool.

[zulu9812]

Now that's what I'm talking about! It's a great idea, I can't believ it's not in the game.

[Captain]

naming places (like smac) and units has been asked for countless times with almost 100% agreement. why no response by firaxis?

victory statues cool but not as necessary as the first. I'd just name a region after a battle, or after the civ I killed. (currently I rename their cities or name new ones in honour of their memory.)

civ 2 had the casualty list. we had a poll earlier asking for it back in Civ 3, and it was 100% agreement IIRC. I thought it would be a no-brainer to put it in. (we did want one change, we wanted the list to hold a dead civ's casualty list instead of having it disappear)

it's funny, Firaxis listens to lots of thing speople say and I am happy with many of their responses... but strangely, nothing I ever chime in on gets worked on. maybe it's bad luck?
it must be, because I've never been impolite to them, and I think most of my posts are rational, if not always feasible.

maybe I shouldn't say anything anymore, and then I won't hurt the chances for this request....

[Fidel]

Xpack should definitely include some of the possibilities you mentioned. plus more stats i want to see spreadsheets

[zulu9812]

The ability to keep, say up to 12 units, together over the game would be cool as well. They could be regiments or companies which eventually acquire a history of their own. Not like 12-unit armies, so you the units in the regiment can be attacked seperately - thus you could have armies in regiments.

[HazieDaVampire]

They should have a distance from each other that they can go! two squares in all directions (must finish in this area)

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by zulu9812
The ability to keep, say up to 12 units, together over the game would be cool as well. They could be regiments or companies which eventually acquire a history of their own. Not like 12-unit armies, so you the units in the regiment can be attacked seperately - thus you could have armies in regiments.

Each unit probably represents at least a division or regiment of about 2 to 3 thousand troops (at least for ground troops... I doubt 1 battleship unit represents 3000 battleships ). Though they could be organized as corps, armies (not in the civ III game sense of armies) or army groups.

[zulu9812]

I always thought of it as more a company of men: say, a few hundred.