10 GAMEPLAY FIXES *please read*

aznblader

Chieftain
Joined
Nov 6, 2001
Messages
11
First off, I LOVE CIV3 and can't stop playing. This is the first time in a LONG while I've gotten so much into a game that I go on the boards to complain. anyways, now i can start ranting:

I haven't really seen this mentioned much, but DAMN that broken air superiority pisses me off. It pretty much negates the usefulness of any and ALL air units for you. the uselessness of the fighters are evident, but since the A.S. isn't broken for the AI, it ruins the usefulness of the bomber.

what needs to be done:

I. FIX THE GOD DAMN AIR SUPERIORITY. It frustrates the HELL out of me when I've built like 8 jets just sitting around on a A.S. mission while bombers come in and kill all my roads.

2. ADD ESCORT MISSIONS FOR BOMBERS so A.S actually MEANS something. (i.e. they won't just be shot down with a stupid biplane and your jets just set there at home and can't do anything about it)

3. ALLOW units to be killed through <i>aerial</i> bombardment. AERIAL bombardment. Bombardment is pretty weak as it is. In modern warfare, the aircraft carrier is supposed to represent a HUGE tactical advantage both navally as well as on the ground, but that is not at all evident here. How can a freaking ironclad just waddle on up and destroy your carrier full of bombers!? Bombers should automatically be used to sink attacking enemy ships!

Which brings me to another point: eliminate the free artillary strike on the defense to tone down artillary units if you must, but GROUND bombardment should be done SMAC style, which damages ALL units in a stack with bombardment (which was GREAT, and i'd expect damage to decrease but that's FINE!) Artillary is VERY weak on the siege, especially since units heal to full in barracks, so they should be toned up to SMAC style to balance.

**The above suggestion has also the benefit of toning up the military portion of the game, which I feel is heavily compromised**

AERIAL bombardment should be ALLOWED to destroy units (which kills two bad birds with one stone, the carrier defense and the usefulness of bombardment.) I understand why ARTILLARY can't kill, and I'm fine with that. AERIAL bombardment should be considered seperately. I justify this by saying, if CRUISE missiles can kill, then so should aerial bombardment.

4. ARMIES shouldn't require leaders to start! MILITARY academies shouldn't require so much crap!! i mean, come on, it doesn't exactly take NAPOLEON to realize that "grouped units are good," does it? military academies should be available in the industrial age at the latest!

5. STACKED movement. The lack of ARMIES wouldn't be that much of a pain in the ass if there was some way (easily implemented with a shift click or something) to move entire STACKS.

6. INCREASE SIGNIFICANTLY the speed of naval units. It doesn't take 10 years for the Enterprise carrier battle group to get to Afghanistan. It takes half a month at worst. I know that the time isn't completely realistic, but come on, this is ridiculous. on the land, the movement time is fixed with the advent of railroads, but there's nothing of the sort for naval units, and the slow movement is yet another blow for the utility of naval units.

7. NUCLEAR WEAPONS need to be actually DEVESTATING. it should destroy AT LEAST half the units of the stack, and preferably ALL. come on, nukes are nukes. Cruise missiles seem more effective than nukes as is, and that's freaking ridiculous.

8. SORTING by unit TYPE when giving orders. eliminates a helluva lot of clicking, nuff said.

9. Unit OBSOLESCENCE (mentioned by someone else) When fighting a unit from any advanced AGE, combat stats should be halved. It's ridiculous to siege a city with 3 calvalry only to have it kill an equal number of mech infantry. 'nuff said.

10. ***Units should ONLY heal ONE bar when it has done nothing in a round, BUT has come under attack the prior round, even if it is in a BARRACKS*** This significantly improves the siege situation.

11. Take some of the othergood suggestions on this board. =)

Thanks for reading this! =)aerial aerial
 
1. Amen brother

2. Interesting Idea BUT maybe Air Superiority would cover that as well!?

3. Bombardment should kill! But the other thing... hmm. Maybe make it one free attack from the artillary per attacker instead of once per turn!

4. Well, I think the military academy should just require military tradition. even peaceful nations learn from the history and learn the value of armies. but unitl then GL should be the only way to get armies.

5. Amen brother

6. Amen brother

7. Nukes are fine as they are!

8. Doen't bother me much

9. Amen brother

10. Well, I see it that way: Thats what armies for! breaking through a siege even while the defenders heal fast.


Suggestions from me:

Add an upgrade/upgrade all button to the military advisor screen.

Tweak combat a bit (lost 3 nuklear subs in one round, each one killed while attaking an man-o-war!!!!)
 
Re: DaEezt

Re: #2: Good point. I was just considering that. I think the operational range for air superiority (if it really does fix the bomber escort problem) should be set to equal the operational range of the aircraft, not HALF as it is currently.

Re: #4: Complete agree.

Re: #7: Yeah, sure nukes are DEVESTATING against cities, but it's ridiculous how it doesn't even scratch units half the time. All I'm saying is that it should be implemented semi-realistically. Maybe the 9-square area effect should be eliminated for the sake of balance and in exchange the ENTIRE TARGETED STACK will be gone from existence.

Re: #10: Agree, but still. In a siege, units shouldn't miraculously heal to full after every turn. Maybe the barracks should give the unit stack 5 or 6 points total per turn?

Oh yeah... I think you can upgrade all units of the same type just by pressing "shift - u". It's in the manual somewhere.

About the nuclear subs: the obsolescence suggestion would have fixed that. =P
 
Originally posted by aznblader
Oh yeah... I think you can upgrade all units of the same type just by pressing "shift - u". It's in the manual somewhere.

About the nuclear subs: the obsolescence suggestion would have fixed that. =P

I know about the shift + U but for that you gotta activate the unit and after upgrading(forgot to include that in my suggestion) all units are activated. 20 cities with 3 defenders each = F key dead ;)

About the Subs: Amen brother :lol:
 
>>
3. ALLOW units to be killed through <i>aerial</i> bombardment. AERIAL bombardment. Bombardment is pretty weak as it is. In modern warfare, the aircraft carrier is supposed to represent a HUGE tactical advantage both navally as well as on the ground, but that is not at all evident here. How can a freaking ironclad just waddle on up and destroy your carrier full of bombers!? Bombers should automatically be used to sink attacking enemy ships!
>>

I agree, it's stupid when you see your bombers attack a ship and can never destroy it completely. Bombers should definitely have the ability to completely destroy enemy ships.

As for ground units, I think it's OK the way it is now. Air units can only disrupt movement and power of ground units but can never destroy them completely(tanks could be an exception though).

>>
4. ARMIES shouldn't require leaders to start! MILITARY academies shouldn't require so much crap!! i mean, come on, it doesn't exactly take NAPOLEON to realize that "grouped units are good," does it? military academies should be available in the industrial age at the latest!
>>

Agree 100%

>>
6. INCREASE SIGNIFICANTLY the speed of naval units. It doesn't take 10 years for the Enterprise carrier battle group to get to Afghanistan. It takes half a month at worst. I know that the time isn't completely realistic, but come on, this is ridiculous. on the land, the movement time is fixed with the advent of railroads, but there's nothing of the sort for naval units, and the slow movement is yet another blow for the utility of naval units.
>>

I would say increase significantly the speed of MODERN naval units. Ironclad is practically as fast as destroyer/battleship/carrier, and only slightly faster than wooden ships. C'mon.

>>
7. NUCLEAR WEAPONS need to be actually DEVESTATING. it should destroy AT LEAST half the units of the stack, and preferably ALL. come on, nukes are nukes. Cruise missiles seem more effective than nukes as is, and that's freaking ridiculous.
>>

Wanna c good nukes? Try Alpha Centauri.

>>
9. Unit OBSOLESCENCE (mentioned by someone else) When fighting a unit from any advanced AGE, combat stats should be halved. It's ridiculous to siege a city with 3 calvalry only to have it kill an equal number of mech infantry. 'nuff said.
>>

Annoying as hell. Got the tech, got the tanks/marines/air, losing against Fortified spearmen.

>>
10. ***Units should ONLY heal ONE bar when it has done nothing in a round, BUT has come under attack the prior round, even if it is in a BARRACKS*** This significantly improves the siege situation.
>>

Good idea too.

-- Leo
 
Agree with everything except:

#3: No, airial bombardment is pretty true to life and game balancing as is- best used to destroy improvements and weaken the enemy but is no substitute for going in on the ground and kicking serious ass.

MAJOR EXCEPTION: Airial attacks should be able to destroy ships!


#9: I've covered this elsewhere in great detail. I can't DISagree more strongly with you. I have never lost a tank top a spearman in 6 games now. I am careful in how I attack, where I attack, and how I've softened up the enemy before I attack. I screen my cities and pick where I want to fight for the most part- the FEW times I've not been able to choose the battleground I've lost a few Cav. and Inf. against riflemen and cav. and a *rare* few against pikemen, but that's all seems ok to me. Attacking a tank aginst a fresh fortified spearman IS giving a spearman a 17.1% chance per turn to hit the tank- I don't take those odds and I don't think of the game in such strictly historical terms that a SPEARMAN is really a SPEARMAN by 1902- by then some jerk military arms dealer is supplying them with the occasional cheap anti-tank weapon and they deserve the chance.

I mean 5 to 1 man- I'll win eventually, I have the resources, the time, and the tanks- they don't! In the mean time I don't go into jungles with my tanks expecting to stomp over any primitive person I find. Even with the modern tank it is still: 11% chance for the spearman, and that is FINE WITH ME! When you factor in softening up a spearman to 1hp vs. my regular (not vet.) old-fashioned (off 16) tank with 3, the actual odds of the spearman winning drop to 0.5%! THAT happens far less often (and it has NEVER HAPPENED to me).


everything else gets a big :goodjob: from me- hope firaxis is listening.
 
Wait a minute. I agree with *most* of your choices. But let us make absolutely sure that changing them would make gameplay better, and we're not just asking for it because it would increase realism.

When I play a computer game, realism must take a backseat to gameplay every single time. EVERY time.
 
about the gameplay vs realism: see... i've only wanted to change things that as is, negatively effect gameplay. i'm not a realism freak. (if i was, then in the modern ages almost EVERY thing would have a movement of 36) there's limits to movement and things. it's BAD for gameplay that pikemen can defeat tanks. it's BAD for gameplay that ships take a decade to move anywhere.

most of these changes i've mentioned can be easily implemented yourself with the editor...
 
Top Bottom