What I hate in Civ3.

[Iroquois]

I like Civ3 very much, but I really hate some things which opposed me like this game at 100% rate.
I like to play via LAN in Civ2 and CtP2 with my friends and I would like that Play The World haven't so annoying issues. Sure, now to late to want this.

1. Railroad with unlimited movepoints. This allow very quick army dislocation to my opponents. Would be better if all ground units could move fixed number of squares (f.e. 9) via RR.
2. All naval units (even Trirema) and many ground units have at least 2 square vision.
3. You can see another one square off your country border. Even if no one your unit doesn't see enemy's unit.
By another words: my naval transport will necessarily spotted by adversary far away off unload point and he always will ready prepare "Hot Meeting" for me.
Where is my favourite surprised naval descent like Civ2 Gold or CtP2? I liked it very much. Adieu my favourite tactics.
4. Aviation. They can rebase across whole world on unlimited distance. This make airbases unwanted.
Looks like in Civ3 Lindberg was born before Brother's Write first plane. But making and defending Airbases Net was very fun and hard task in Civ2.

What about name for Islands and seas? That is first Discoverer can entitle new areas. Why not?

[Kingof the Apes]

The discoverer idea is interesting, kind of like colonization(or was it 1692AD?I dont remember)

[Sean]

Yes, there has been the odd disscussion about being able to enhance the game (add depth to it) by allowing civs to name newly discovered regions. Like lakes, rivers, seas, mountian ranges, valleys , islands etc. That old classic, conquest of the new world, had that feature.

[Carver]

Re: What I hate in Civ3.

Originally posted by Iroquois
4. Aviation. They can rebase across whole world on unlimited distance. This make airbases unwanted.

I would just like to be able to use another civ's cities as airbases if we have an RoP or a military alliance.

[Cyclotron]

Re: What I hate in Civ3.

4. Aviation. They can rebase across whole world on unlimited distance. This make airbases unwanted.
Looks like in Civ3 Lindberg was born before Brother's Write first plane. But making and defending Airbases Net was very fun and hard task in Civ2.

Airbases still have a clear purpose, because of bombing range. A bomber may move across the world in one turn, but it can't bomb a city or unit unless that unit falls within operational range of one of your cities or... airbases.

[Dinner]

I dislike the lack of efficency in the game. If Firaxis had stopped and thought things out before they rushed to program everything they could have found ways to do everything with fewer clicks. This would make the game go faster and be more interesting.

[Rebel67]

1. Railroad with unlimited movepoints. This allow very quick army dislocation to my opponents. Would be better if all ground units could move fixed number of squares (f.e. 9) via RR.

I've moved the railroad ability to the end of the modern era, may not be a realistic place in the tech tree, but it should make wars more challenging and fun it the industrial and modern eras.

[alva]

Originally posted by Rebel67


I've moved the railroad ability to the end of the modern era, may not be a realistic place in the tech tree, but it should make wars more challenging and fun it the industrial and modern eras.

actually, that's not such a bad idea , I might just do this next time

(some people just remove coal alltogether)

[statusperfect]

I would like railroads to work like airlift. I want them to take 1/3 och 1/4 movement point per square but you should still be able to move anywhere within you railroad network even when you've exhausted all your MP. This would result in units hat have moved over a continent and are unable to fortify, move inte enemy areas, attack etc. and would be an OK solution to the "railroad problem".

[Gen. Maximus]

If Firaxis had stopped and thought things out before they rushed to program everything they could have found ways to do everything with fewer clicks. This would make the game go faster and be more interesting.

I find most of the time I spent moving my units about like crazy in the later part of the game when you have big number of units. AT least what they have done now is to allow stack movement to reduce this inefficiency.

[Iroquois]

I find most of the time I spent moving my units about like crazy in the later part of the game when you have big number of units. AT least what they have done now is to allow stack movement to reduce this inefficiency.

Sure this stack moving better but CtP2-like stack even better. Because in Civ3 stack moving unit by unit but in CtP2 units moving all togetrher.

[WarpStorm]

PTW is supposed to have proper stack movement.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Iroquois
Sure this stack moving better but CtP2-like stack even better. Because in Civ3 stack moving unit by unit but in CtP2 units moving all togetrher.

CTP2 didn't just have stacked movement; it had staqcked combat. Civ3 does not. You may be confusing them... with the same units, at least, Civ3 does have stacked units.

[Myrddin]

Stacked combat a la CTP2 is far superior as both the composition of armies and their use becomes more interesting - you also get real siege warfare

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Myrddin
Stacked combat a la CTP2 is far superior as both the composition of armies and their use becomes more interesting - you also get real siege warfare

I'm not debating how good it is, I'm just saying that people saying that Civ3 should have "ctp2 style movement" are almost always lumping stacked movement in with that. Just taking the movement parts, the systems are quite similar... I actually found the locking in/ locking out of units in a stack in ctp to be quite infuriating, as it would always slip my mind. Then again, with ctp you could stack different kinds of units together... it's a toss up for me.