Tweet
You got a new capital in Civ2 didn't you if you paid a rather large sum for it?
-
You sunk my Scrableship! -
Yes you could move the capital for 1000 gold I think.The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power.
Join Eventis, the land of spam and unspeakable horrors!Comment
-
Increase air units range .
Bigger map .
More diplomacy , fix the worker and settler identity .
Terraforming .
Keep pollution , but switch the change of the terrain off .
More unit's .
More era's .
Exchange units , with and without technology .
More buildings .
A second UU for each civ .
More Civ-Specific-Abilities .
More turn's .
Comment
-
Actually, speaking of leaders in Combat, I think a great system would be like that in "People's General" (A great game, BTW, if you like turn-based combat games!)
Under certain situations you get leaders who give your unit special abilities-sometimes random, but most often based on the manner in which the leader became available! Example: If your unit has survived an attack from a more powerful oponent, you might get a leader who grants you a "strong defender" trait! The important thing, though, is that you don't get the leader as a seperate unit-it is an integral part of the unit which recieved the leader! I don't know guys, what do you think?
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.Comment
-
A couple of new civ traits i'd especially like to see so maratime or naval one so i could put in a civ like polynesia or change englands expansionistic to it i dunno what the other one would beComment
-
Hm, some kind of special combat bonus for victorious units? Sounds interesting, but would add some more micro-management to the game. You'd always have to check which kind of bonus your current unit has (offensive/defensive/bombard or whatever).Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
Actually, speaking of leaders in Combat, I think a great system would be like that in "People's General" (A great game, BTW, if you like turn-based combat games!)
Under certain situations you get leaders who give your unit special abilities-sometimes random, but most often based on the manner in which the leader became available! Example: If your unit has survived an attack from a more powerful oponent, you might get a leader who grants you a "strong defender" trait! The important thing, though, is that you don't get the leader as a seperate unit-it is an integral part of the unit which recieved the leader!
So this system is perfect for a TACTICAL combat simulation, but not for a STRATEGY game.Comment
-
Leaders
Could possibly have a few leaders with definite abilities ascribed to certain names; for instance, Foch would be an attacking general whereas Pétain (ignoring his World War II regime for a modest instant) would be a defending general. Each civilization would have about two or three of each type who could control up to eight units. Unlike the present system of armies, you could add in or remove the constituent units by selecting them in a window similar to selecting which units you want to land from a transport.
An improved expansionist trait ought to define the scout unit one would receive--either land if the capital is inland or canoe if near water--as well as be otherwise ameliorated.
The Polynesians would be a good inclusion to the mix, and it is quite surprising they've been forgotten so long.
As for the medieval infantry, the player should have the choice of retaining specialist units (Celtic swordsman appears to have 4.2.2 [probably remembering wrong] and Roman legionary has 4.2.1) over accepting the new medieval unit.
Another problem I have is why the transport can move as quickly as a battleship while the carriers can't. Makes absolutely no sense--carriers ought to move at least as fast as a battlegroup. This probably can be changed in the editor, but it shouldn't have been an issue.Comment
-
No More ICS
One other thing.
GET RID OF ICS!!
Infinite City Sprawl - packing your towns close together and rushing units - is not so much a "strategy" as a gimmick, a trick. Something that exploits a design flaw.
It is NOT in the spirit of the game, and makes a mockery of realism and history.
Get rid of it, one way or the other.Comment
-
Re: No More ICS
It would not be that wise to do so .Originally posted by Coracle
One other thing.
GET RID OF ICS!!
Infinite City Sprawl - packing your towns close together and rushing units - is not so much a "strategy" as a gimmick, a trick. Something that exploits a design flaw.
It is NOT in the spirit of the game, and makes a mockery of realism and history.
Get rid of it, one way or the other.
In the real world towns are also close together .Comment
-
I don't think they should get rid of ICS... it's a tactic, just like grid spacing. A lame tactic, but a tactic nonetheless. It should just be balanced better. The advantages of packing in early with no though to placement should be balanced with consequences.Comment
-
Actually, regarding my idea of having great military leaders being integral to the generating unit, I don't see why it should increase micromanagement. Essentially, when a unit creates a great leader, it should be marked by either a star or some other symbol. Passing the cursor over such units will bring up info regarding the units special abilities!
As for other types of leaders, I agree 100%! I'd love to see Great Artists who can either double the culture of a single city, or attempt to convert a foreign city to your cause! Or a Great Scientist who either doubles the research output of a given city, or can rush a single tech! Or a great Industrialist/Engineer who can either rush a single WOnder (Great or Small) in any city, or double the production of a single city (I believe that great "Leaders" should always give you one or the other!) Like existing great leaders, these great leaders should only exist one at a time, and should disappear either after a given time (eg 2-10 turns) or once they've been sacrificed for a one-off effect! I don't think you should be limited to just 1 MILITARY leader, but more like 2-4. I do believe though, that such leaders wopuld be lost when you upgrade the unit it is a part of (if that makes sense)
EDIT: I'd also like to see great Political Leaders and Great Religious Leaders.
Great Head of State: 0% chance of riots, and no effect from Anarchy for as long as the leader exists OR Can allow your Civ to change governments, ONCE only, without Anarchy-even if you haven't got the prerequisite for that government yet!
Religious Leader: Doubles effects of all religious improvements in a single city OR can eliminate all resistance in a captured enemy city!
Also I'd like to see various Small and great wonders be able to increase the chance of your civ producing a Great Leader of Various types!
Anyway, that's my opinion, it'd be really nice if it did happen!!
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.Last edited by The_Aussie_Lurker; August 23, 2002, 02:59.Comment
-
Perhaps instead of leaders the A/D/M of units could change in post-Elite victories.
Example: Your elite knight wins yet another battle. There is still the chance of a great leader, but there is also a slightly greater chance that that knight might get an extra attack, defense or move point. "The skill demonstrated by our elite knights in their victory have made them faster" etc.
Perhaps victory in defense would make an extra defense point likelier, same if your victory came through offense.
Perhaps when you upgrade these special units, they still keep their elite standing (rather than lose it like they normally do) but lose these extra points.You sunk my Scrableship!Comment
-
Hey Coracle, you forgot about borders! I can't believe you missed that one...
The current border system should be reworked, so that when a city is captured, its influence (in terms of cultural borders) should remain roughly the same, and that military presence can confirm or change borders.
Imagine:
"Sire, in spite of our 10 armor divisions in our fortress on the mountain top, we have lost our supplies of iron there because of the expansion of Roman culture! Their spearmen kindly asked us to leave the region, or else..."
What a joke...
Comment
-
Imagine:Originally posted by Martinus Magnificus
Imagine:
"Sire, in spite of our 10 armor divisions in our fortress on the mountain top, we have lost our supplies of iron there because of the expansion of Roman culture! Their spearmen kindly asked us to leave the region, or else..."
"Sire, how dumb are you not to take this roman city with our 10 armor divisions in our fortress on the mountain top? Oh, and let us hurry before this iron enables them to build pikemen.
By the way, Sire, forgive the simple mind of your military advisor, but what do we need iron for when we can build tanks?"Comment
-
Okay, maybe it's not a very good example, but the point is that you should be able to hold territory by military force, without having to capture the enemy city.
BTW: I would not DARE to attack those roman spearmen with my tanks, it's suicide!
Comment
Comment