Simple way to make CIV more "real"

[Panag]

Originally posted by bobbo008
I transport can carry 8 units, and that's just...little. An aircraft carrier is...big...there's no reason it can't carry land units, especially for helicopters.

hi ,

, an amphibious landing ship would be intresting , something that caries helicopters and a couple vstol aircraft , it should be able to hold a couple transports , .....

the transports itself need to be looked at , one transport for "foot" units only , the other one for "heavy" vehicles , .....

it would be intresting to see a hovercraft , ....

have a nice day

[TomCB]

Yahweh Sabaoth

I agree with you on almost every point, (and since I made most of the points you brought up, my ego has NOTHING to do with it)however, there are some factual errors I would like to fix, and since this thread is SO far off topic already, I am amazed there are not tons more.

I think you over estimate the impact of the USA on the western hemisphere, at least that is how it appears to this American.
However, how could the designers put any sort of impact into the game?
Refuse to declare war on a country they feel all warm and fuzzy towards?
I believe the 35% number was attributed to LePen, not Buchanan, who I think may have gotten 35% in the primary in some states, which is most assuredly not the same thing.
Assimulation would be great to include into the game.
The US used to insist on it and not we act like we should change to suit them.

Please remember that everything is relative.

A conservative in Europe is a left moderate here in the colonies, where as a leftist in Europe is a Soviet communist to us.
That is why LePen is considered a Ultra conservative over there and considered a right wing moderate to us here.

I wonder how (or if) political parties could be introduced into the game.

Perhaps as certain policies are implemented and the effects occure the population can change what options are available to the leader.
Populations can be fickle and players may feel like they have the senate from CIV2 working against them all the time.
It would make communist or monarch or even despot gov. look good sometimes.

WOW
How about refugees? They jam up roads, preventing reinforcements from getting to the front
Holy sites and pilgrams?
Sure the holy site would help in culture, but could hurt in spying and prevent you from allowing it from falling into enemy hands, or face the wrath or being declared not worthy to lead.

Until the size of units are stated, I would leave transports as is, even though they really should carry only one unit each, that would make the game to detailed
In my games, I have DRASTICALLY increased the cost adn the movement of ships in order to make them more realistic.
Battleships move about 25 but cost around 100 shields.
I don't like stealth bomber flying off carriers but since there is not an alternative, I have left it as is.
Carriers are not all that big.
We could not move more than a few dozen tanks on one for instance, and getting them on and off would be difficult at best.
Tanks are very heavy.
If we reduced a carrier to a troop ship, we may be able to move a total of 10k or so, but that is about it.

How about expelling the embassy of someone you are upset with but not enough to go to war with?

As far as suburbs go, as long as each city must feed itself that won't happen.

I would like to see a "national" food bank being created.
Surplus could be exported or shortages imported.
This could have the effect of having areas like Iowa and Nebraska, which can grow enough food for the entire US by themselves.
Talk about a resource you beter damn well defend, or one that is a prime target for a nuke.

If this sort of thing was put in, it would allow cities to be close to each other in order to create a huge industrial base.

Master of Orion 3 in coming out in the next few months, and it is supposed to have alot of these features.

We shall see.

How about cities not each being the same shape?

How about each item you assign for export bring in so much money and you people, without your consent, import others items that they want and that costs you money.
You can run the risk of denying your people what a given civ exports at the risk of pissing them off.


The possibilties are endless.............................

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by panag
and can we please keep BS politics in the OTF instead of a civ thread , .....

have a nice day

Good idea. I even created a special place for all the OT to go. Bash away!

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72515

Things that might make the game more realistic:

1. Foot units require population to produce. (This is why a small country cannot easily take and hold a larger one.)
2. Modern units cost more.
3. Horse get combat bonuses on flat terrain, Archers get bonuses in forest, Foot get defense bonus on hills.
4. Horse have an advantage over Archers, Archers have an advantage over Foot, Foot have advantage over Horse.
5. Archers don't automatically move after they attack (so they won't jump out of a city or stack when they attack nearby enemy units).

have a nice new year

[Saint Marcus]

The option in CIV would be like demanding a square (s).

you could do this in Microprose´s (Firaxis) Birth of the Federation. I´m sure it will be in MOO3 as well.

[TomCB]

To Zachriel

I agree in principle with your ideas about unit advantage, however, it would be very realistic to to gauge the various units according to real world examples.
Mongol light infantry should dominate against even knights, since they were so much faster and their bows outranged anything until the Welsh (English) longbow.
Any use of gun powder on a civ without gun powder should have a HUGE effect on enemy units just like the Spanish had on the Aztecs.

Light infantry that are not spearman (pikemen) should get run down by medium or heavy cavalry.
Horse should not be able to attack into forest or jungle more than one square.
Knights usually got mowed down by archers if the archers had pikes protecting them, ie. Agincourt.

Desert should be a a barrier (except for native units, or Arabs units or what have you) until combustion or something like that.

Once desert is irrigated (long enough and with enough water) it could turn into plains.

SOMETHING must be down about anything other that air units and other modern armor from killing modern armor at the rates they currently do.

[Panag]

hi ,

we should be able to give various cost to each unit , a tank should cost two gold a turn , a nuke three , a regular foot soldier one , etc , ......

have a nice day

[TomCB]

Unit values

I was thinking about that this problem.

Why does a unit have to have a set value?

Couldn't the value be relative to what and where it is fighting?

A Roman legion could have a 20 attack vs a swordman on open terrain, but a lousy defense in forests, but a great defense in open terrain.
However, even on open terrain, it would have a 1 defense vs a modern armor.
And against say Welch longbows, they would be wrecked in short order.

Armor attacking a city would have a lousy defense if the defenders had at least gun powder and the defenders defense value could increase as their tech got higher.
Think about Berlin at the end of WWII when the Russian armor was chewed badly by old men and boys with anti tank rockets.

This could cause seiges of cities and forced surrenders.

Legions could move say 15 squares on roads and they should double as engineer units.
Maybe legions should cost a small fortune in exchange.

With a varied strength that is dependent on terrain, the game strategy would take on HUGE importance, instead of the current mass as many guys as you think you may need and throw them at the enemy.

Also, unless stopped by terrain or ambush, a unit should have the option to withdraw before a battle.

Legions did not ambush, but swordsmen could for instance.

I think leaders should be more common and they should have good and bad effects on units and cities.

What if a king or great general in captured.
Think of the effect of the few Roman Ceasars that were captured or even King Richard of England on his way back from the crusades.
What is things are going badly and a great general decides he should run things instead of you?
What if a general is just plain lousy and leads his men into defeat.
You would not know his value, it would have to be learned.
And just because a general is great at attack does not mean he is great at defense, or retreat or even attacking in every type of terrain.
Maybe he just got lucky and fought a really lousy general on the other side.

Your empire should be kinda easy to maintain.
However, if you are losing a war badly and it does not look good, the people, through a leader, may sue for peace and offer your head up as part of the pay off.

Just a few thoughts

PS

Why is my PTW crashing every two turns all of a sudden?

[Panag]

Re: Unit values

Originally posted by TomCB
I was thinking about that this problem.

Why does a unit have to have a set value?

Couldn't the value be relative to what and where it is fighting?

A Roman legion could have a 20 attack vs a swordman on open terrain, but a lousy defense in forests, but a great defense in open terrain.
However, even on open terrain, it would have a 1 defense vs a modern armor.
And against say Welch longbows, they would be wrecked in short order.

Armor attacking a city would have a lousy defense if the defenders had at least gun powder and the defenders defense value could increase as their tech got higher.
Think about Berlin at the end of WWII when the Russian armor was chewed badly by old men and boys with anti tank rockets.

This could cause seiges of cities and forced surrenders.

Legions could move say 15 squares on roads and they should double as engineer units.
Maybe legions should cost a small fortune in exchange.

With a varied strength that is dependent on terrain, the game strategy would take on HUGE importance, instead of the current mass as many guys as you think you may need and throw them at the enemy.

Also, unless stopped by terrain or ambush, a unit should have the option to withdraw before a battle.

Legions did not ambush, but swordsmen could for instance.

I think leaders should be more common and they should have good and bad effects on units and cities.

What if a king or great general in captured.
Think of the effect of the few Roman Ceasars that were captured or even King Richard of England on his way back from the crusades.
What is things are going badly and a great general decides he should run things instead of you?
What if a general is just plain lousy and leads his men into defeat.
You would not know his value, it would have to be learned.
And just because a general is great at attack does not mean he is great at defense, or retreat or even attacking in every type of terrain.
Maybe he just got lucky and fought a really lousy general on the other side.

Your empire should be kinda easy to maintain.
However, if you are losing a war badly and it does not look good, the people, through a leader, may sue for peace and offer your head up as part of the pay off.

Just a few thoughts

PS

Why is my PTW crashing every two turns all of a sudden?

hi ,

last line ( P.S. ) its normal , it does that from time to time , ......

try a reinstall

have a nice day

[ceroomaster]

Re: To Zachriel

Originally posted by TomCB
Mongol light infantry should dominate against even knights, since they were so much faster and their bows outranged anything until the Welsh (English) longbow.

At least somebody else know the credit should lie with the Welsh and not the English.


The Celt in me emerges again...

[Panag]

hi ,

one way to make this game more "real" is the re-introduction of a casualty time line from CIV II

have a nice day

[Master Zen]

Screw the PC liberals, screw the fascist, racist and imperialist conservatives. Countries prosper when patriotism goes before ideology.

As for the US being the "greatest nation ever to bless the Earth", I beg to differ, and 99% of the rest of the world - which many of you sometimes forget exists - will probably agree.

I just wish it were George W. Bush's face who appeared, taunting and threatening, in the Civ3 diplomacy screen, and I would enjoy crushing the US even more. Somehow I admire Abe Lincoln too much to feel the same.

In the meantime, i'll vent my fury against the Russians, even though Catherine happens to look like my grandmother...

As for realism, I mentioned in another threat, that a combat sistem like Panzer General could be adapted perfectly to a Civilization game making it the greatest strategy game to ever be designed in history!!

Experience in warfare or technology could also make you improve or customize existing units, i.e., some civs could opt for longer-range bombers, others with more bombardment power, etc. The design of units in Alpha Centauri kinda went along this line.

[Master Zen]

More realistic ideas: BTW, some of you have really put some pretty interesting stuff which hopefully Firaxis will consider.

- Cruise Missiles that act more like Tactical Nukes instead of artillery, and could be launched from subs or cruisers.

- A WAR HISTORY screen which shows how many units you have lost and enemy units destroyed in each of your conflicts. Hell, just a loss screen like in Civ2 would suffice.

- This one is moddable: Fighters and Jet Fighters could have Lethal bombardment against Ships. This will make naval warfare more realistic since planes DO sink ships. However, it would be to easy to make Bombers do this. Fighters, with their lower bombard rates would make it more challenging. (BTW I have yet to try this, it's just an idea). In fact, Bombers should not even be allowed to be carried on carriers, since when do B-17s or B-2s fly off the flattops??? Not even Doolittle could have pulled it off...

- A DOCK which could funcition as a coastal colony.

- Diplomacy: the option to urge AI civs to make peace with another and the tendency to ally between 2 or 3 camps at the most. I hate it when an ally is fighting an enemy but is at war with another ally who is fighting another enemy who happens to be my ally, etc. etc. Whatever happened to Axis vs. Allies?

- Trading cities should be possible again, this was removed in the 1.29f patch just because the AI was too stupid to make decent deals.

- The ability to conquer an enemy civ and make it your colony or protectorate or something like that.

And THIS could be a revolutionary one:

A HEX BASED 3-D SPHERICAL MAP. Basically it would mean a "rounded" hex-based map, kinda like a soccer ball.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by raguil_79


As for the US being the "greatest nation ever to bless the Earth", I beg to differ, and 99% of the rest of the world - which many of you sometimes forget exists - will probably agree.

I just wish it were George W. Bush's face who appeared, taunting and threatening, in the Civ3 diplomacy screen, and I would enjoy crushing the US even more.

The contempt, no, the hatred, I feel for the likes of you, and the rest of the jealous, pathetic, failures in the Third World is I am happy to say growing throughout the U.S. - which has foolishly been far too generous for the past half century. You can all go to hell.

Now go tell the rest of the Mexicans who illegally FLOOD our borders with illegal aliens and illegal drugs TO STAY OUT if they hate America so much.

See you in Baghdad. And if you don't like, too effin' bad.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by panag
hi ,

one way to make this game more "real" is the re-introduction of a casualty time line from CIV II

have a nice day

We first asked for that literally twelve months ago. Firaxis ignored us, just as they ignored requestes for a return of the Cheat Mode.

FACT: there is no way to make Civ 3 "realistic" at all without a complete bottom to top redesign.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Coracle
Now go tell the rest of the Mexicans who illegally FLOOD our borders with illegal aliens and illegal drugs TO STAY OUT if they hate America so much.

Fighting the Mexican settler diarrhea again, Coracle?