My complaints

King Aldous XI

His Royal Eminence
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
41
My main complaint on Civilization III is that there no goverment differences. When under a different goverment, the only difference are the gold payments to units or worker efficiency. I say there should be A LOT more! When under an Absoulute Monarchy, there should be more riots. (BTW, riots shold be about goverments and Revolution mostly!!) Or under a Facist rule, free nations should be more aggressive towards your Facist state.


A feature I always thought would be cool is a Black Market feature. There you may buy Space ship parts, new units, techs, etc.

Religion is a main one too. Your civ should be able to have a dominate religion. That religion influences the moods of the people and your fellow leaders.

The civs are important too. I thik the following should be put under consideration:

Carthage replaced for: Poland
Hitties replaced for: Isrealites
Sumerians replaced for: Scots
Add a western native North american tribe (Sioux, Navajo etc.)
etc. etc. etc.

England's leader should be Edward I or William the Conqourer
France's leader should be Napoleon
Russia's leader should be Peter the Great

Immigration shold be a choice for free goverments.

I may be talking about a mod, but, those are my suggestions. I'll add more later.
 
Originally posted by King Aldous XI

A feature I always thought would be cool is a Black Market feature. There you may buy Space ship parts, new units, techs, etc.

This is a fresh idea... What would dictate what is sold in the markets and at what cost? I would rather buy a tech from another civ with lesser price than from black market. But I am curious about this :)

Religion is a main one too. Your civ should be able to have a dominate religion. That religion influences the moods of the people and your fellow leaders.

There is a thread about religion. Why don't you take part in that conversation?

Carthage replaced for: Poland
Hitties replaced for: Isrealites
Sumerians replaced for: Scots
Add a western native North american tribe (Sioux, Navajo etc.)
etc. etc. etc.

Sumerians for Scots? Why on earth? Sumerians are one of the single most important civilizations in history! They had a big part if the development of writing (cuneiform), agriculture, mathematics... you name it. Almost all Mid-East stories are actually sumerian stories (including Noak's Ark (or however it is spelled in English...)). There are Celts in Civ, which should suffice.
Israelities, now that would indeed be interesting (I always wondered why they are not included). Sioux would be nice too, but I would keep Carthage instead of Poland.
Interesting ideas, though!

Immigration shold be a choice for free goverments.

You might be interested in the Civil War thread, then...

I would like to hear more of these suggestions in greater detail: how would the religions actually affect, how you would choose them, what would they be, etc. This topic should be taken to the existing thread, though..

EDIT: There is much about immigration in evacuation-thread also.
 
You know, King Aldous IX, if you're talking about CIV 3, then there is a difference.
Goverment changes your popularity. It does more, but I'm too lazy to write it down! (and I don't really know!)
 
Black Market: Interesting concept.

Religion: Will be in CIV 4. How it will be protrayed is still anyones guess.

Cathage, Poland, Hitties, Summarians and Isrealites all deserve consideration for slots in CIV 4. However, I do not think that Cathage, Hitties or Summarians should be removed to make room. Iroquios, on the other hand, which leads me to say "no" for another North American Indian Tribe.

England and Russia's leaders are fine. Agree with France.

No opinion on Immigration
 
England's leader should be Edward I or William the ConqourerQUOTE said:
Erm...Why? William the conqueror was a NORMAN (read french) and Edward the first was King of Aquitaine as well as much (but not all) of present day England (read french).

If your looking for a true leader of England then i believe Elizabeth the first is the best choice...she actually ruled ENGLAND...not bits of france and bits of the british isles.

There arent many monarchs out there that did so much for England...while ruling over England alone...after her we had the Dual crown of scotland/England and after that we basically had the start of the BRITISH empire.
 
Considering the general crampedness of Europe and the Mid-East, I think having both the Babylonians and the Sumerians is rather OTT. So let me, for the nth time, suggest representing Sumeria, Babylonia and Assyria together as a single Mesopotamian civ.
 
Things is, even if they were bits of France, they were still under the sway of England. The monarchs were no less English for it, nor did they represent England any less.

Now Edward I, a good choice, but might upset a few of our Welsh and Scots friends. Alfred, the only English king to be called 'the Great'? A bit too cheesy for my liking. Victoria is definately a better candidate than Elizabeth, just because it was the British Empire it didn't mean she didn't represent the English peoples too. But if it wasn't her I'd settle for Henry V ;)

I totally agree about the changes to Russia and France. And the Byzantines should have Constantine. I know technically it was still the Roman Empire under him, but without him there wouldn't have been a Byzantine Empire. But I guess so many people would be upset at dear Theodora leaving.....maybe she could be included in the male/female option (which must be brought in!).

The Last Conformist said:
Considering the general crampedness of Europe and the Mid-East, I think having both the Babylonians and the Sumerians is rather OTT. So let me, for the nth time, suggest representing Sumeria, Babylonia and Assyria together as a single Mesopotamian civ.

You'll be pleased to know I think the same :)
 
Back
Top Bottom