It would be excellent if you made new units, but almost equally great if we can see some of your old ones in the game
C7 Feature Requests
- Thread starter WildWeazel
- Start date
It would be excellent if you made new units, but almost equally great if we can see some of your old ones in the game
If they follow in your footsteps there should be a ‘Battle For England: 1066’ game where you are one of Harald Sigurðarson, Harold Godwinson, or WIlliam the Bastard, a Nine Years' War in Ireland, and… how many future modders have you managed to beget so far?
(continuing from another thread)
On top of that you could program them to be -of course- at war with you and, with a non-civ3 AI, specifically dedicated to liberating their oppressed countrymen.
Or, if you have a properly-working nomad faction concept, declare part of them to be nomads and go settle somewhere else. Think of it almost as their transforming into settlers, joining nearby barbarian camps, and then coming back.
There's been neo-Assyrians, neo-Babylonians, various resurgent Indias, Japan, China, etc. as historic examples.
You just need it to be tied to culture. As long as the city contains an element of ‘foreign’ culture it can flip to that civ. If the civ is no longer independent then it can be ‘neo-X rebels’ or even ‘neo-X civ’ if they hold out for long enough.
On top of that you could program them to be -of course- at war with you and, with a non-civ3 AI, specifically dedicated to liberating their oppressed countrymen.
Or, if you have a properly-working nomad faction concept, declare part of them to be nomads and go settle somewhere else. Think of it almost as their transforming into settlers, joining nearby barbarian camps, and then coming back.
There's been neo-Assyrians, neo-Babylonians, various resurgent Indias, Japan, China, etc. as historic examples.
I was also thinking that today's Dinosaur Comics actually does make a great point about videogames that can last forever but are effectively discontinued by depending on proprietary servers, which is something the devs should be looking at.
I like that! Also, it goes towards my missing, and wishing for an improvement upon, the Civ 2 "Civil Wars."
general-jcl
King
. Too many taxes, not enough luxuries, not enough culture could also cause revolts in the cities which would then be controlled by the barbarians. These "barbarian cities" could then be bought by other civilizations. A way to take control of a territory without making war.
general-jcl
King
On another topic, I was wondering if it was possible to better simulate the movement of units. For example, units on wheels are much faster on roads than a tank on tracks. On the other hand, the tank will be more efficient in cross country than the vehicle on wheels. We could imagine a property of the terrain that favors or penalizes such or such types of units (units on foot, on horseback, on wheels, on tracks are the 4 types I see)
WOW! Your memory is far better than mine - All I recall of the original Civ is one game where I nuked all of South America into a swamp (I probably shouldn't tell this to my therapist ...
)I remember a lot of my civ1 games.
The most memorable moment was probably a 1000-year war, which started (as was usual) because allied AI would encircle your cities with its units, and so you couldn't have anything exit.
In the style of Alexander, I was naming most of my cities "Kyriakeia" (ala Alexandria)
The most memorable moment was probably a 1000-year war, which started (as was usual) because allied AI would encircle your cities with its units, and so you couldn't have anything exit.
In the style of Alexander, I was naming most of my cities "Kyriakeia" (ala Alexandria)
Agreed! Having to perform "tricks" like using the Cruise Missile Flag for Transports is ... well, just a trick.
I'd - ideally - suggest Unit & Terrain Properties (including Roads) to accommodate:
- Light Infantry
- Heavy Infantry
- Mountain Troops
- Light Horse
- Cavalry
- Wheeled AFVs
- Light, Tracked AFVs
- Heavy Tracked AFVs
general-jcl
King
Movement penalties can also be reduced for certain units that are particularly suited to the terrain they are moving through. For example, mountain infantry may have reduced penalties in hills or mountains.
Engineer troops (bridgemen) are not (or only slightly) slowed down by rivers and swamps.
Engineer troops (bridgemen) are not (or only slightly) slowed down by rivers and swamps.
I agree and especially having to do with "Bridgemen" as they could offer a plausible and Graphic way to allow Units to cross Rivers in Game.
All this reminds me of how broken and limited the diplomacy in Civ3 is.
There's no unequal treaties such as protectorates, vassalage, suzerainty, tributary states or the like. E.g. ‘you cannot attack others without my permission’.
There's no possibility to agree on resources or luxuries as part of the tribute to be paid in peace talks.
There's no possibility of non-aggression pacts or non-belligerence pacts. For the latter, one could be ‘I'll supply you with weapons/money/oil as long as you remain at war with X’, effectively making it a proxy war. The moment the country makes peace, the shipments stop.
There's no co-development of techs or building of wonders… this last wouldn't be practicable anyway when in Civ3 only one civ can own a wonder, but what if you incorporated the ‘natural wonders’ concept from later games?
Or, also what if the ‘resource X within city radius’ could be shared if you got a trade pact with the neighbouring civ? Nearby cities have historically become economic areas and also joined up (see Buda and Pest, or the three cities on lake Texcoco) so economic integration could be modelled.
Or to people who live in South America…WOW! Your memory is far better than mine - All I recall of the original Civ is one game where I nuked all of South America into a swamp (I probably shouldn't tell this to my therapist ...
Ah, yes, but Civ3 won't allow you to (re-)name a city as another city which you already control.I remember a lot of my civ1 games.
The most memorable moment was probably a 1000-year war, which started (as was usual) because allied AI would encircle your cities with its units, and so you couldn't have anything exit.
In the style of Alexander, I was naming most of my cities "Kyriakeia" (ala Alexandria)
IIRC I posted something about parking sea untis to use as pontoon bridges similarly to using Telepads a few weeks ago.
That also would work as a way for land units to cross rivers. I simply do not want typical Land Units seen in the Game as "Walking on Water".
If I understand you correctly, The main problem with that is the Units that load into the sea units would not be able to unload and be used until the next turn. Granted, if the units only had 1 move, that would also not matter.
This all has to do with wanting Rivers to be navigable and still having a way for usual Foot/Land Units to cross them.
Basically the thing is that in regular Civ3 the time-scale is at best 1 turn = 1 year.
So, say that you have a one tile of water between two tiles of land. The land unit moves onto the ship, which then ‘ferries’ it across at a cost of e.g. 1 MP. I.e. the movement cost of loading a unit onto a ship outside a city –where docking facilities could be understood to make this a non-issue at Civ's timescale– would be paid by the ship actually having to lower smaller craft, use cranes and so on.
Perhaps this could work with a special ‘ferry’ tag. Earlier ships in the game are effectively dual-purpose, but you wouldn't load troops onto a destroyer unless you were doing a desperate evacuation like the British from Dunkirk.
So, say that you have a one tile of water between two tiles of land. The land unit moves onto the ship, which then ‘ferries’ it across at a cost of e.g. 1 MP. I.e. the movement cost of loading a unit onto a ship outside a city –where docking facilities could be understood to make this a non-issue at Civ's timescale– would be paid by the ship actually having to lower smaller craft, use cranes and so on.
Perhaps this could work with a special ‘ferry’ tag. Earlier ships in the game are effectively dual-purpose, but you wouldn't load troops onto a destroyer unless you were doing a desperate evacuation like the British from Dunkirk.
The New Game should have the ability to play any MOD that has been made with the CIV III/Conquests Game. That being said, it is indeed desirable to have the ability to change the time-scale/terrain-size and have units move according to a faster time-scale/terrain-size.
For example, what is now EFZI2 Elite is a much faster time -scale/ terrain-size compared to the Original Civ III/Conquests Game. The City Blocks in EFZI2 Elite are no where near the distance of tiles in CivIII/Conquests. Same for the Hours in a Move.
The Point is to have the ability to not only play what has been created with the Original CivIII/Conquests Game but to also have the ability to make changes to the Time-Scale/Terrain_Sizes with the ability to accommodate Unit Graphics such as Foot Units crossing a River in a plausible, timely manner.
The ability to bring more "realism" to the Game, especially considering changes to the Time-Scale/Terrain-Sizes, would be Good for making different Games.
The posted desires to have navigable rivers for boats, and I agree, posed the graphics problem of foot units standing or walking on water... My post about having "Bridge Builder Units" was simply to suggest a way to have the navigable rivers as well as allow foot units to cross them with plausible Graphics. I will add that if or when used, it would offer a more realistic approach to game strategies of foot units crossing the navigable rivers... and have graphics that are realistic as well.
For example, what is now EFZI2 Elite is a much faster time -scale/ terrain-size compared to the Original Civ III/Conquests Game. The City Blocks in EFZI2 Elite are no where near the distance of tiles in CivIII/Conquests. Same for the Hours in a Move.
The Point is to have the ability to not only play what has been created with the Original CivIII/Conquests Game but to also have the ability to make changes to the Time-Scale/Terrain_Sizes with the ability to accommodate Unit Graphics such as Foot Units crossing a River in a plausible, timely manner.
The ability to bring more "realism" to the Game, especially considering changes to the Time-Scale/Terrain-Sizes, would be Good for making different Games.
The posted desires to have navigable rivers for boats, and I agree, posed the graphics problem of foot units standing or walking on water... My post about having "Bridge Builder Units" was simply to suggest a way to have the navigable rivers as well as allow foot units to cross them with plausible Graphics. I will add that if or when used, it would offer a more realistic approach to game strategies of foot units crossing the navigable rivers... and have graphics that are realistic as well.
Turn duration can also be set in Weeks or Months - Or am I missing something here?
I assure you - given whatever state of mind I was in at the time - it could have been anywhere
WOW! Your memory is far better than mine - All I recall of the original Civ is one game where I nuked all of South America into a swamp (I probably shouldn't tell this to my therapist ...
I spent an awful lot of time with Civ1 at a very impressionable age. My games always ended with becoming a world-spanning democracy and simply buying every other civilisation, because in the original a democracy had *no corruption at all* and was therefore wildly overpowered in the late game. Though you still had to capture opponents' capitals by conventional means, which meant going into anarchy for a few turns because democracies were unable to declare war. All in all, a reflection of a much more innocent time, really - what Iain Banks called "that golden age which nobody noticed was happening at the time; I mean the long decade between the fall of the Wall and the fall of the Towers".
Similar threads
