Recent content by Cerberus

Good ones. The game does not reflect the very long suspension bridges and tunnels now in use. I understand they do not allow unlimited military movement, but they should increase it somewhat and add to trade. The Panama Canal remains the most important missing Wonder. (Maybe the Suez Canal...

A fair point. But remember, one Civ can always SUSPECT another is using privateers - Spain so suspected England in the 1580's by 1588 they went to war with them. I'm more concerned about the utter inability of privateers (and subs) to negatively effect trade and commerce. Cruisers (if we had...

I concur. CrushSlider and Cerberus have a lot more understanding of navies than Sid does. Movement Points should also be increased, especially if you're using a big map. The whole Trade/Naval situation is nonsensical. There is no possible way the crucial U-Boat War of the Atlantic in WW II...

There are plenty internal system bugs. But the strategic resources thing is just the result of not enough playtesting. Increase coal (iron, too?) a lot more than you have. Try 200. Oh yes, coal is so incredibly difficult to see maybe you missed it! That's another bug of sorts: resources too...

You build a courthouse - and the "reduces corruption" line in Editor is clicked ON - and you STILL have no reduction???:confused:

Espionage is not even worth the effort in Civ III. It is ridiculously expensive even to have a moderate CHANCE of success. I've greatly lowered the costs for the advance, the Sm. Wonder, and for missions. As for Diplomacy, the AI NEVER forgets. If you don't cancel an alliance, even after the...

You can increase ships' movement rates in the Editor. But changing they way Firaxis MISHANDLES the use of navies (as I and CrushSlider mentioned above) cannot be corrected there. Colossuems represent amusements. They are approrpriate in any age: now we have the NFL and WWF instead of...

The way Naval Warfare is handled in this game is worse than even in Civ II. Sid does not have the vaguest idea what navies are for. In Civ III we can't even attack a diplomat or caravan on a transport! Your above suggestions are a big improvement. In Civ III, bombers canNOT sink warships...

Yea, no matter how good a deal you offer, if you throw in a city you wish to GIVE AWAY you get a "they'll never accept such a deal" notice!! I once offered a civ three techs, two resources, and four small towns. I asked for one gold. NO DEAL!! :crazyeyes Why is it that if a civ has 0...

I went to Editor. Now all Destroyers CAN see subs. Bombers might, also. There should be a distinction between the subs pre-1950's, and those nuclear subs that came later and that ALWAYS remained submerged, UNLIKE the subs of WW I and WW II. I can't believe a lot about this flawed game. I...

Really? :crazyeyes Civ II was less historically innaccurate and illogical than Civ III. Sid should have called Civ III "Fantasyworld" and just made up fantasy units then. Civ III is rife with illogical and unit actions that make a mockery of History. The inability of bombers to sink...

Too bad Sid doesn't understand that once bombers and missiles became common battleships became too vulnerable to be the most important naval unit. BB's historically also rarely spent their time bombarding "improvements". Not cost effective, too time-consuming, and too risky.

If the stupid AI didn't do many weird things, and didn't cheat so much, I would be a 100% against that idea. But reloading still is a rather lame way to win. You also must have too much time on your hands to do that repeatedly.

That's a pretty lame substitute for not having an option to build canals in this game. The Panama Canal. Why doesn't Sid know this is a Great Wonder??

True. And good. But as for iron, I can't think of a single time in History a war was began just because one civ had iron and the other did not. That is NOT the case in Civ III - in the game wars start because iron is all too rare. Solution: use the Editor and increase the number of iron tiles...