Announcement

**korn469** · February 23, 2000, 16:51

please start posting in this thread

**shmily_dana** · February 23, 2000, 19:00

I would change the concept that if you ar a democracy and you go to war, then your population will be unhappy. I would add the following conditions.

If you START the war, then the people would be unhappy.

If you are attacked, the people will most likely support the counter-attack.

If you don't counter-attack, the people might get unhappy.

If an ally is attacked, your people may demand war against the aggressor.

If an ally attacks and the asks for help, the people may or may not support the war.

**raingoon** · February 23, 2000, 21:23

Shmily_dana, your idea is actually a "Fix." Please let us know if you had another fix in mind, or if you'd like to repost this in the Fix thread.

**Glostakarov** · February 24, 2000, 12:50

Customizability. Is that a word? In essence, as much of the game as possible should be able to be toggled on or off, irrespective of difficulty level. This should apply both to normal games and the scenerio editor.

For example, suppose I don't feel like playing with regional politics, or trade, or whatever, I can just switch it off when I create the game. For scenerios, the toggle would be stored with the map as either on, off, or user selectable. An example I saw in another thread was a scenerio where the Earth was being invaded; because the people of Earth would band together they wouldn't want internal politics for that game. In such a case the person building the scenerio could simply switch off that option, so that it isn't used in the game.

Another part of being able to heavily customize/mod a game is the introduction of new units and modify the tech tree. Snazzy, high-res graphics and animated units are very nice, but they make it harder for fans to create their own units. You could include a lot of units in the editor that are not actually used for anything in the game, so we could pick them out and assign them whatever stats we see fit for use in our scenerios. However, a better idea would probably be to create the unit animations in a format that is relatively easy for end users to reproduce. It's still going to take a pretty knowledgeable person to go out and do it, but if the software is easy to plug such animations into, it will happen.

To answer the question in advance, the more that we can do to modify/enhance/enjoy the game, the more replayability it will have. Having more customization options keeps each game from being fundamentally the same as the last.

**klesh** · February 24, 2000, 14:22

This is an idea I've been pondering. I originally posted this thought in the Civ2Gen/Com, before I realized what this one was all about.
I find it a bit unrealistic that Field artillery, tanks, and ships must be adjacent to the enemy in order to execute an attack. In real life these weapons have the abbility to attack from very long ranges. Is it possible for Civ3to change the attributes of these units? Imagine an attack system for these units(perhaps others) that would be simmilar to the "Paradrop" command. You press perhaps the "a"(for attack) button, then you get a crosshairs pointer(like the parachute icon) that allows for an attack from a few squares away. Battleships maybe three squares, field artillary from two and tanks from one. It seems to me that only infantry should have to risk themselves by getting up close, and personal with the enemy.
This has major implications toward strategy. Imagine parking a battleship within a city and taking out oncoming units which are three squares away!
The argument against this that developed in the other thread is that the atk/def/mov points already take into account the units real life ability. But the Move catagory should be seen that way. Would a battleship go full speed ahead at a cruiser before it attacked it? No, it would fire upon it, and then move into the area. See what I mean? Costal bombardment can now stretch a little inland.
The crosshairs idea can be put on anything with large missiles or cannons.(not medievil cannons, of course)
Mainly I see only the modern units using this new idea.

**korn469** · February 24, 2000, 18:03

Field Marshal Klesh,

have you ever played Alpha Centauri? ships and units with the heavy artillary special ability have exactly what you are talking about. since this ideas has already been in corporated in a firaxis civ genre game i do not think that it is a new idea, because the changes you propose are slight. however you could post your idea in the fixes forum. the spirit of the EC3 New Ideas list, is to suggest things that have either not been incorporated in a firaxis civ genre game before or are radically different from the current implementation. if the EC3 list was an operating room, the New Ideas thread is where civ3 would come to get a transplant, the Fixes thread is where civ3 would go to get a broken leg tended to.

your idea is obviously a good one, since the creates of civ3 have already used it in one of their games. however i do not think that it belongs in the EC3 new ideas list. feel free to post it on the Fixes list, and feel free to check out the AC forum to learn more about how firaxis implemented your the bombardment idea.

the thread is current to this post. with New Idea #32 Customizability being the last new idea.

korn469

**klesh** · February 25, 2000, 01:16

Korn,
Sorry, I've never played AC. I would not've posted if I had known...

**korn469** · February 25, 2000, 02:19

Field Marshal Klesh

no problem at all...by the way, if you do have any other ideas...any little dream that you just wished civ3 would have please post it...this is for new fresh ideas that you think would really add to civ3, surely the ranged bombardment isn't the only new idea you had for civ3? surely you have another new idea...feel free to post it

i'm not trying to be a hardcase i am just trying to keep this list with basically new ideas, the fixes list is for improving old ideas

korn469

**raingoon** · February 25, 2000, 03:19

Field Marshall Klesh -- we want your idea over at Fixes! Cut and paste, pal! I'm ready to post it as soon as you submit it to the Fixes thread!

raingoon

**Jon Miller** · February 25, 2000, 03:24

Hi all

I would like to see more intercivilization components of the game. That is the weakness that the long empires and ics exploit, that control of your own civ is too easy. I would suggest greatly complicate the interior model with a much more elaborate governing system and citizen system. Where you are not garunteed of the control of your citizens and it is hard to keep it. This idea would provide a whole new range of choices and strategi options (including affecting foreign populations) for the Napolean in all of us.

Also I would like to say that while this is a good idea it is tooo late probably and should not be sent with mandate and maybe should not invlude grand ideas like the one I just mentioneed.

Jon Miller

**Changmai Beagle** · February 27, 2000, 01:58

Automatic patrolling. Let us set patrol routes the units will follow back and forth. Why? Patrol borders with less units than sentrying, and patrol range of control from airbases and carriers. In CTP - lookout for slavers, etc., with less moves and clicks.

**S. Kroeze** · February 27, 2000, 08:43

DOMESTIC POLITICS: give the people a WILL OF THEIR OWN

(I know this idea is allied to the CIVilians of Doberman and Jon Millers Intercivilization Components; yet I'll expound my view)

In CivII the people are only a passive element in the game, easy to control and almost 100% predictable. They'll never revolt when -like I do each turn- you meticulously control the factors influencing their behaviour. The only influence they ever exert is on foreign policy.

So domestic politics actually don't exist. Apart from SE I would like to introduce the possibility of spontaneous revolutions, coup d'etats, civil wars, feudal risings, secessions, peasant revolts, colonies declaring independence, famine and tax riots. Most governments spent most of their time just trying to stay in power!

I would like to introduce different levels of political control, like interest, influence, protectorates and actual annexation. And to control a region you would always need the support of the local elite, sometimes priests or the aristocracy, sometimes moneyed interests or local party officials. This would also create the possibility of interfering in the politics of an other great power by supporting the local opposition.

Finally the people should have its own character and loyalty to a religion or civilization, which wil not change easily. So factors like militarism, religiousness and conservative/experimental should be introduced.

GIVE THE PEOPLE A WIIL OF THEIR OWN!!

**korn469** · February 27, 2000, 10:35

thread is current to now, the last post being new idea #35 - domestic politics

**Napoleon I** · February 27, 2000, 20:20

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this idea before and if you have, I'm sorry.

How about having different levels of cities, say a village, a town, a city, and a megapolis. These levels would have progressively greater radii so that they could gather more resources, and the improvements that one can build would also be dependent on the type of city. For example, cathedrals would only be built in a town or above, while superhighways could only exist in a megapolis.

Furthermore, the cities would change status as they grow in population, so that any city below size three is a village, city under size seven is a town and so forth.

I realize that this would cause a problem in the modern times, but I think that a solution can exist. For example a city founded by an engineer instead of a settler could begin at size three or four and immediately achieve the status of a city. Meanwhile, the engineer would also be more expensive to build than a settler.

------------------
Napoleon I

Announcement

The Essential Civ3 - New Ideas

The Essential Civ3 - New Ideas

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment