What Else could be Included?

[Admiral PJ]

I think buildings like ports should be reintroduced, they can be the only shipbuilding repair building again and be part of a bigger improved trade system.
I'd like to be able to trade more than 1 luxury with each civ, and maybe resources too, and have each luxury only supplying 4 cities or 8 towns with happiness, and maybe each resource only allows 3 units to be built with it.
This would make trade quantatitive more, and make resource strategy more important, trying to gain every last resource. What doyou think?
Something that annoys me is when you lose a resource you can continue building things with it that you've started, dosen't seem right.. but its just a minor niggle.
Air defence ability for land and sea units would be good, and units that can move on land and sea would be nice(its nearly working already)

[Panag]

Originally posted by Admiral PJ
I think buildings like ports should be reintroduced, they can be the only shipbuilding repair building again and be part of a bigger improved trade system.
I'd like to be able to trade more than 1 luxury with each civ, and maybe resources too, and have each luxury only supplying 4 cities or 8 towns with happiness, and maybe each resource only allows 3 units to be built with it.
This would make trade quantatitive more, and make resource strategy more important, trying to gain every last resource. What doyou think?
Something that annoys me is when you lose a resource you can continue building things with it that you've started, dosen't seem right.. but its just a minor niggle.
Air defence ability for land and sea units would be good, and units that can move on land and sea would be nice(its nearly working already)

hi ,

yep , and only a port should be capable to fix naval units , hmmmm, ports of allies also , ...

have a nice day

[Jethro83]

Being able to position your troops into the cities of those you have an MPP and Right of Passage with. Just like pact brothers/sisters in SMAC could do. When engaging in a war overseas, I'd like to be able to deploy my bombers in the cities of a nearby ally. Or use an allied city as a staging area for my invasion of the enemy.

When you try to enter an ally's city like this, the military advisor could ask you if you want to just enter the city, or betray and attack them. Of course, for this to be implemented, the AI will need some extra work.

[Dinner]

I want a tech tree with more options plus more wonders and underwater cities ( a la CTP2) would be nice.

[da_jaymz]

Only main grip I have in Civ3 is lame combat...
A different combat system is all I'm asking for, little more strategic, attack bonuses, mass fighting, it gets a bit boring fighting one after one after one...
Combat like in CTP(12vs12) or maybe a variant like in Age of Wonders(you could have all armies adjactent to the attacking square involve in combat)...
They could leave the current combat system as a choice for newbies..

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by da_jaymz
Only main grip I have in Civ3 is lame combat...
A different combat system is all I'm asking for, little more strategic, attack bonuses, mass fighting, it gets a bit boring fighting one after one after one...

There are some really simple things that could be done to fix combat. Really simple. I probably sound like a broken record about this, but I just hope that Firaxis is following this forum and reading some of these ideas.

1. Group Attack
The ability to order groups of units to attack with one simple command and that group will attack in their correct order: air superiority, bombing, bombarding, ground attack.

2. Flanking Bonus
Give a small percentage bonus for every adjacent tile occupied by friendly troops to represent flanking. This would discourage the use of large single stacks and make players think more strategically about troop movements.

3. Increased Air Range
Nuff Said

3. Anti-Aircraft Units
Nuff Said

5. Upgradeable Army
Nuff Said

6. Increased Army Movement
Army moves as fast as slowest unit.

7. Terrain Bonuses Specific to Unit Type
Right now the terrain does not really make a difference in combat because the terrain modifiers effect all troop types equally. But a rolling unit should be penalized more for being in the mountains than footmen. As a corrollary, fortifiying in the mountains should confer a much greater bonus than fortifying on the plains. Foot troops should be at a disadvantage in the desert. etc. etc. The bottom line is that the more specific the terrain bonuses, the more players will use terrain strategically.

7A. Make Roads and Railroads Fewer and Strategic
This is a rant I've given at least a half a dozen times but no one seems to be listening as I've had no feedback good or bad on it, so I'll say it again.

Roads and railroads make the game unstrategic because their bonuses make players and the AI put them everywhere. When railroads cover every single tile, no one tile is of strategic importance.

My fix is simple. Do away with the bonus per tile that having a road or railroad on that tile confers. NO per tile bonus. Instead give a city an OVERALL percentage bonus for each of the four closest neighboring cities connected by a DIRECT road or railroad.

Additionally make building roads and railroads significantly more difficult. The end result of all this will be that each city will only have four roads/railroads leading out of it, and each one will be of serious strategic importance.

Come on. Someone back me up on this idea.

7B. Auto-Cut Railroads
When you take over a city all rail tiles adjacent to the city, which your units do not already occupy, auto-destruct. This would prevent the phenomenon of stacks rolling through an empire on a single turn using the enemies rail lines.

7C. Rolling Units stuck in the Mountains/Jungles
If you have rolling units on a road or railroad in a tile they normally can't move through, and the improvement is bombed away. They are stuck and are essentially sitting ducks. This would make you think twice before leaving that stack of Modern Armor sitting in the mountains at the end of your turn.


8. Remove Culture-Tile Sight
What I mean by this is that as it stands you can see one square beyond your cultural border. I'm saying take that away. Only cities and units can "see".

How would this make the game more strategic? It would force you to put units on sentry duty. And the sneak attack would become a viable strategy.


I'd really like to hear what you all think about these ideas. I try to throw them out there as much as possible, but sometimes I wonder if anyone is listening.

[Panag]

hi ,

maybe two more era's ,
a lot of people would love that

have a nice day

[Andrew_Jay]

I find it interesting how with the announcement of the XP everyone has a lot of great, and complex ideas. It's almost like they announced a civ4 by the some of the big new features some people are advocating. Not that there's anything wrong, can't fault you for your big ideas, just I guess Firaxis can be commended for announcing an XP with quite a few additions, and giving the impression that anything is almost possible for the expansion.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Andrew_Jay
I find it interesting how with the announcement of the XP everyone has a lot of great, and complex ideas. It's almost like they announced a civ4 by the some of the big new features some people are advocating. Not that there's anything wrong, can't fault you for your big ideas, just I guess Firaxis can be commended for announcing an XP with quite a few additions, and giving the impression that anything is almost possible for the expansion.

hi ,

well , maybe the fact that firaxis hired some new people and that they spend time on apolyton has something to do with it

have a nice day

[Andrew_Jay]

I didn't know they had new staffers, cool, though I heard something about it in another post. That's good news, and that explains all the new ideas, such as turnless MP.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Andrew_Jay
I didn't know they had new staffers, cool, though I heard something about it in another post. That's good news, and that explains all the new ideas, such as turnless MP.

hi ,

with Mike in their now , well , he did a lot on other games , ....

have a nice day

[Momboman]

Ability to Provide handicaps in MP?

Maybe its already been mentioned (although I haven't seen it), but what I would really like to see is the ability to create handicaps for one or more of the players in multiplayer games. My son and I both love to play single player Civ3 and are really looking forward to playing against each other in MP. While I'm sure I'm no match for most of the people on this board I know I am a much better player than my son. My concern is that unless I can provide a handicap on my game (or make his game easier) our games will quickly become no fun for him. If however we could set my game at a harder level and my son's at one of the beginning levels we could play together and both be suitably challenged.

[SpencerH]

Anything to improve our capabilities to make new unit animations would be nice.

[Grrr]

Re: Make The Manhatten Project A Small Wonder

Originally posted by Insigna
They should definatly make the Manhatten Project a Small Wonder. I don't think a single person is happy with it as a major wonder. There should at least be an option. Does anyone know why it was made a Regular wonder and not a small one?

Definately. That will slow down those AI idiots.

[civman2000]

yeah, they made apollo program a small wonder, shouldn't manhattan project be a small wonder for the exact same reason??