General Suggestions (Patch or PTW)

[Jurimax]

Here I would like to propose some 'improvements' I'd like to see in the next patch or maybe in PTW. I'll try to explain the reasons for them too.

1)
After building the Wall Street wonder, there shouldn't be any 50 gold limit. In reality there is no limit, so why should there be one in the game?

2)
People should be able to build cities on mountains. Just like in the real world (ex. Denver), and it helps when you build your cities according to the OCP.

3)
As stated in another thread, you should be able to make hills and mountains produce food. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showth...threadid=33064

4)
Research shouldn't be capped, no minimum and no maximum number of turns. It worked in Civ I and Civ II. It just doesn't make any sense.

5)
Increase the movement ratio of ships. In comparison with land units their movement ratio sucks.

6)
Terraforming should again be made possible. Perhaps it would take a lot of turns, thus being not very attractive, but at least it would be an option.

7)
Units in an army should attack all at once and defend all at once. This way they'd be more powerfull and more usefull.

I might add to this later on, any comments (good or bad) are appreciated.

[etj4Eagle]

Many of your suggestions would make a substantial change to the game, so you can't expect them in a patch. But at the same time lots of them are changeable in the editor.

2) In the editor under terrain, select "Allow Cities" for mountains

3) Again the editor. Give it a positive terraform bonus for Irrigation

4) You can change this, moving min down to 1 turn and max up to 100 turns. While that is not indefinite, it may be good enough.

5) Agree that the values should be larger. And again its a simple change in the editor.

[Yzman]

1. This is to prevent some one becoming too rich. More and more money would get you more and more interest and the results would not be good.
2. This again is for balance, try to take over a metropolis on the mountain. Plus the mountains in the game represent high mountains which no one settles on.
3. This would sorta unbalance also...you could have huge production and plenty of food...
4. This is to again to prevent unbalancing. How fun would the game be if someone found a tech a turn? Thought so...
5. Yes they should be larger.

And like the previous poster said...almost all these are changable in the editor.

[The Last Conformist]

The problem with increasing the ships' movement allowances is that you get stupid situations where ships leave port, cross a sea, sink an enemy ship, and return to port in the same turn. Highly unrealistic as a single BB can destroy an entire fleet of blocading BBs over a number of turns without ever risking being attacked itself. Without a SMAC-style system which forces ships to end their movement after attacking simply increasing the movement allowances isn't very attractive. Alternatively, you could use the editor to create a Civ2-style system where warships has comparable defensive and offensive strengths. Since this'd eliminate the advantage of initating combat, situations like the one described above wouldn't be a problem, but naval combat would then revolve much more on raw numbers and less on tactics and manoeuvre.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Jurimax
2)
People should be able to build cities on mountains. Just like in the real world (ex. Denver), and it helps when you build your cities according to the OCP.

Denver is not on a mountain, but in the Great Plains at the foot of the Rockies.

OCP (Optimum City Placement) was used during the settling of the Great Plains, and towns are often set at regular intervals. The interval was the distance between water stations as steam engines climbed towards the west. OCP ended when towns reached the irregular terrain of the Rockies, and was never completely regular as towns were always placed along rivers and other preferred terrain.

You might do the same.

[Zachriel]

-dp-

[Jurimax]

Originally posted by Yzman
1. This is to prevent some one becoming too rich. More and more money would get you more and more interest and the results would not be good.

Why is too rich not good? If you play it right (lot of marketplaces, banks) you deserve the money.

Originally posted by Yzman
2. This again is for balance, try to take over a metropolis on the mountain. Plus the mountains in the game represent high mountains which no one settles on.

This could be solved by having a universal defense ratio for cities, no matter what terrain they're on.

Originally posted by Yzman
3. This would sorta unbalance also...you could have huge production and plenty of food...

No, I disagree, it's either food or production.

Hills +1F with irrigation, no S bonus
Mountains +1F with irrigation, no S bonus

Originally posted by Yzman
4. This is to again to prevent unbalancing. How fun would the game be if someone found a tech a turn? Thought so...

Same reaction as to the interest; it means you have the right infrastructure in place.

Originally posted by Yzman
5. Yes they should be larger.

And like the previous poster said...almost all these are changable in the editor.

I don't want to mod, I want these changes standard.

[Chieftess]

I think one good change might be movement based on the world size. That is, a transport might have 8 (I think) in a standard map, but maybe *1.5 on a large map, and *2 on a huge map. *.5 in small, and maybe *.25 in tiny. It would mess up gallies and caravels, though..

[DaDoo]

The programmers in Firaxis made the game they way THEY wanted it. They have an editor in there so that if you want, you can make the game the way YOU wanted it.

Like many of the posters above already said, the rules as it is right now is to make the game more balanced; and it is. If you don't think so, feel free to change it to your delight.

and well.. my 2 cents on the last 2 subjects nobody touched...

6) I'm glad terraforming was taken out actually. This prevents people from terraforming *ALL* their core cities into 200+ shield/turn monsters. Without terraforming, choosing city sites would become a strategic choice and more important. I think it is actually for the better of the game.

7) Army is already powerful as is. I don't think there is any changes needed.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Denver is not on a mountain, but in the Great Plains at the foot of the Rockies.

Correct. Denver is actually quite far away from the mountains. About a 45 minute or an hour drive away.

Blast those uneducated folk who believe ski slopes are between the lanes of I-25.

[Grey Knight]

Originally posted by DaDoo
6) I'm glad terraforming was taken out actually. This prevents people from terraforming *ALL* their core cities into 200+ shield/turn monsters. Without terraforming, choosing city sites would become a strategic choice and more important. I think it is actually for the better of the game.

While the perfectionist in me dearly loved terriforming (and in Masters of Magic I always took enough Earth magic to do terraforming), it is really just more MM to do.

And as far as tech goes, in patch 1.17, I think I increased the minimum turns, just to have a sane game. IMO, the real problem is the tech tree is too small to allow real diversity. The only interesting age to me is middle, with the big democracy branch.

Cheers,
Shawn

[Jurimax]

First of all, I'd like to apologize for not knowing the exact location of Denver, I'm from Europe, so don't blame me.
And, as Grey Knight stated, there isn't enough diversity in the tech tree, but I'm still with the idea of bringing down the minimum number of turns for research. As for the terraforming, I could agree with all of you, but what would be wrong with being able to make hills or even mountains be able to produce more food? Like that guy mentioned in another thread, in large parts of Asia people grow rice on hills, for maybe even thousands of years, why not in Civ III?

Also my compliments for Chieftess, very wellthought concept about making the movement ratios of ships stand in relation to the size of the map.

If I come up with something else, I'll be back (won't be till tomorrow, over here past 2 AM, and I have to work tomorrow)

[Jon Shafer]

It's okay, the only places I know in Belgium are Antwerp, Brussels, Liege and the Ardenne Forest.

I think the no food on hills or mountains is a play-balance thing. While usually it doesn't really matter where you put your cities later on, it would still skew a few things if you could build a city just about anywhere.

[Shabbaman]

I thought Machu Pichu was on top of a mountain...

I was annoyed by the limited ships movement even yesterday btw. I'm playing a large pangea map, and I've got railroads all over the place. So I can move all my artillery from one end of my empire to another, but by transport it'd take fifteen turns. How long did it take that guy magelhaes to sail around the world?

My point exactly.

In ctp all remaining movement for ships was lost after battles too, btw.
Oh yeah, don't we have a sticky thread on this subject?

[warpstorm]

Originally posted by Shabbaman
How long did it take that guy magelhaes to sail around the world?

Well, technically he didn't make it as he was dead, but some of his crew made it.

[The Yankee]

The ships of Magellan took 3 years to circumnavigate the world. Of course, they spent quite some time in some places the Phillipines, for example, where a battle raged and Magellan was mortally wounded). Still, it couldn't take my super navy 20 years to attack the guy on some island.

[zygmuntt]

I would like to add two ideas I've seen in CTP despite I find Civ3 uncomparable, these seem to be done better in CTP:

1. Walls shouldn't add 50% strength. Walls play completely different role in ancient times and loose its importance with time. In my opinion walls should add, for example, always 3 strength points in defence. Moreover, the number of citizens shouldn't matter: walls just have to be always since they are built. It would make them:
a. more populer in game (they are rarely built). Imagine: your every spearman in such a city has 5 dp!
b. more realistic - Very useful (even necessary) in ancient times and later with declining significance.

2. Territory you got to know should be perceived in a state I saw it last time: I reffere to cities built by other civs and changes in their territory which I can see although I actually haven't trade their maps. It is unreasonable. My opinion is, I shouldn't know what's going on on these parts of earth I don't control. For example, my unit wandering should encounter a new border and new city. And just then I should know and cry "O my god! They are already so close!"
Moreover, this change would make maps very attractive and wanted good!

[King_Lewis]

These are excellent ideas I cant think of another one... gimme a sec

[Commander]

Originally posted by Jurimax
Here I would like to propose some 'improvements' I'd like to see in the next patch or maybe in PTW. I'll try to explain the reasons for them too.

1)
After building the Wall Street wonder, there shouldn't be any 50 gold limit. In reality there is no limit, so why should there be one in the game?

2)
People should be able to build cities on mountains. Just like in the real world (ex. Denver), and it helps when you build your cities according to the OCP.

Denver is not actually on a mountain... visited there this year. It's near mountains, as you can see them in the distance, but the city itself is quite clearly on flat land. I would think it'd be funny to actually have a city on the top of a mountain.

[Commander]

Originally posted by zygmuntt
I would like to add two ideas I've seen in CTP despite I find Civ3 uncomparable, these seem to be done better in CTP:

1. Walls shouldn't add 50% strength. Walls play completely different role in ancient times and loose its importance with time. In my opinion walls should add, for example, always 3 strength points in defence. Moreover, the number of citizens shouldn't matter: walls just have to be always since they are built. It would make them:
a. more populer in game (they are rarely built). Imagine: your every spearman in such a city has 5 dp!
b. more realistic - Very useful (even necessary) in ancient times and later with declining significance.

2. Territory you got to know should be perceived in a state I saw it last time: I reffere to cities built by other civs and changes in their territory which I can see although I actually haven't trade their maps. It is unreasonable. My opinion is, I shouldn't know what's going on on these parts of earth I don't control. For example, my unit wandering should encounter a new border and new city. And just then I should know and cry "O my god! They are already so close!"
Moreover, this change would make maps very attractive and wanted good!

yea I like the new fog of war idea, I loved that in the old Empire game a decade ago... where you would go to conquer a city of player #1 only to discover it's held by a different player.