Mad Bomber
Commander
my post on 7-17-02 was a compilation of Ideas previously in the thread & my own Ideas. The Sea Lanes idea was one of the best that I did not touch on very much check out my prev. posts & the next to last page for a good list.
-
Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .
Civ Add-on/Expansion Pack Ideas
- Thread starter qslack
- Start date
Jon Shaw
Prince
This forum is 27 pages long, so I havent read all the posts, just this page and the last one. Based on what I've read and my own ideas:
1. I agree that railways shouldn't provide unlimited movement for several reasons, including the fact that it means you do not have to worry about keeping an army spread out to defend your territory- you can keep it in one lump and instantly move it to wherever you might be attacked. This isnt realistic- modern armies are very mobile but are nonetheless kept at many spread out bases rather than one central repository. Railways are of course very important in history and should represent a major adavnce over roads- perhaps only using 1/10th of a movement point?
2. Early ships (i.e. wooden ones) should be able to "heal" if adjacent to a land tile- I believe sailing ships were often repaired with local timber if they were e.g. storm damaged while far from home. Modern steel ships can only really be repaired in docks though, so the game rules are OK there, in my opinion.
3. I think someone already said it- armies should be upgradeable. I thought it was a bug that they couldn't be, but it transpires it is intentional. I can't see any logic that justifies a unit external to an army being upgradeable while another unit of the same tpye inside an army is fixed forever. I hate making armies with old units in because I know they will one day be useless and non-upgradeable, even though they armies are extremely expensive to build and/or rare to be given.
4. Cavalry are 6.3.3 and tanks 16.8.2. I can see why maybe the cavalry unit does not upgrade to a tank (it is indeed not an upgrade but a complete alteration), but it is still annoying to get stuck with cavalry every game, as they are made thoroughly obsolete by tanks and whereas every other unit than the swordsman (a problem to be addressed in the expansion pack or something) can be converted into a useful unit. Also, tanks seem to be based on second world war tanks- the german special unit being the panzer. As such, it makes no sense to have cavalry with a movement rate of 3 (useful for crossing the territory around enemy cities, which by this stage of the game is often quite large) and then tanks coming along with a movement rate of only 2. Tanks are much faster than cavalry, if only because they can maintain speed for extended periods (horses getting tired). I'm not sure if WWII tanks at top speed were faster than a galloping horse, but certainly faster than a horse travelling all day (i.e. top end speed may be less, but average speed is higher).
I hope I dont sound wingey; I think civ, civ2 and civ3 are all great games, each improving on the last. These are just a few things that seem a little off the mark, in my opinion. My reason for saying these things is that if anyone from Firaxis does read this page, maybe they will agree with me, and perhaps use my ideas/think of better fixes.
1. I agree that railways shouldn't provide unlimited movement for several reasons, including the fact that it means you do not have to worry about keeping an army spread out to defend your territory- you can keep it in one lump and instantly move it to wherever you might be attacked. This isnt realistic- modern armies are very mobile but are nonetheless kept at many spread out bases rather than one central repository. Railways are of course very important in history and should represent a major adavnce over roads- perhaps only using 1/10th of a movement point?
2. Early ships (i.e. wooden ones) should be able to "heal" if adjacent to a land tile- I believe sailing ships were often repaired with local timber if they were e.g. storm damaged while far from home. Modern steel ships can only really be repaired in docks though, so the game rules are OK there, in my opinion.
3. I think someone already said it- armies should be upgradeable. I thought it was a bug that they couldn't be, but it transpires it is intentional. I can't see any logic that justifies a unit external to an army being upgradeable while another unit of the same tpye inside an army is fixed forever. I hate making armies with old units in because I know they will one day be useless and non-upgradeable, even though they armies are extremely expensive to build and/or rare to be given.
4. Cavalry are 6.3.3 and tanks 16.8.2. I can see why maybe the cavalry unit does not upgrade to a tank (it is indeed not an upgrade but a complete alteration), but it is still annoying to get stuck with cavalry every game, as they are made thoroughly obsolete by tanks and whereas every other unit than the swordsman (a problem to be addressed in the expansion pack or something) can be converted into a useful unit. Also, tanks seem to be based on second world war tanks- the german special unit being the panzer. As such, it makes no sense to have cavalry with a movement rate of 3 (useful for crossing the territory around enemy cities, which by this stage of the game is often quite large) and then tanks coming along with a movement rate of only 2. Tanks are much faster than cavalry, if only because they can maintain speed for extended periods (horses getting tired). I'm not sure if WWII tanks at top speed were faster than a galloping horse, but certainly faster than a horse travelling all day (i.e. top end speed may be less, but average speed is higher).
I hope I dont sound wingey; I think civ, civ2 and civ3 are all great games, each improving on the last. These are just a few things that seem a little off the mark, in my opinion. My reason for saying these things is that if anyone from Firaxis does read this page, maybe they will agree with me, and perhaps use my ideas/think of better fixes.
Mad Bomber
Commander
Jon:
First I disagree with you on RR's the RR's have "infinite" movement because the normal movement rate is scewed beyond belief. The timeline for turns is completely scewed. take a step back & think about this for one second; an infanrty soldier can march about 20 miles in one day, How many miles can they go in one year even at 10 miles, every other day? 10miles * (365/2) days=1825 miles per year. ok how about tanks, a good wwII tank could go about 25 miles per hour and needed to be refuled after about 150 miles give or take 10. This mean that they would need refuling after 6 hours of movement. Lets say that after they refuled the commander decided to lagger for the night. How many miles could a tank division go, moving one of every two days? 150 * (365/2)=27,375 miles in a year. Now some turns can be as long as 20 years. Does this make sense? A tank division could travel around the world approx 15 times in twenty years. In the game a tank can barely make it to the next city w/o the use of a RR. Which movement rate makes more sense? RR's are simply a way to fix the main problem of movement in the game in that the turns simply take too long. If RR have a movement cost the turns would have to be DAYS, or even HOURS not X number of YEARS.
For the record I keep one good defensive unit in all of my cities & this should be good enough to stop any invasion (unless its real early in the game & then RR's wont even be in play yet) Give RR's a movement cost and see how painfully long it will be to get your Artillery from Los Angeles to Washington. A move that would take any unit in The US at most one week. Leave RR's ALONE people Firaxis has other things to devote its attention to.
Calvalry should be upgradable to tanks but they should pay a higher cost to upgrade (after all you are keeping the trained men just giving them new equipment)
First I disagree with you on RR's the RR's have "infinite" movement because the normal movement rate is scewed beyond belief. The timeline for turns is completely scewed. take a step back & think about this for one second; an infanrty soldier can march about 20 miles in one day, How many miles can they go in one year even at 10 miles, every other day? 10miles * (365/2) days=1825 miles per year. ok how about tanks, a good wwII tank could go about 25 miles per hour and needed to be refuled after about 150 miles give or take 10. This mean that they would need refuling after 6 hours of movement. Lets say that after they refuled the commander decided to lagger for the night. How many miles could a tank division go, moving one of every two days? 150 * (365/2)=27,375 miles in a year. Now some turns can be as long as 20 years. Does this make sense? A tank division could travel around the world approx 15 times in twenty years. In the game a tank can barely make it to the next city w/o the use of a RR. Which movement rate makes more sense? RR's are simply a way to fix the main problem of movement in the game in that the turns simply take too long. If RR have a movement cost the turns would have to be DAYS, or even HOURS not X number of YEARS.
For the record I keep one good defensive unit in all of my cities & this should be good enough to stop any invasion (unless its real early in the game & then RR's wont even be in play yet) Give RR's a movement cost and see how painfully long it will be to get your Artillery from Los Angeles to Washington. A move that would take any unit in The US at most one week. Leave RR's ALONE people Firaxis has other things to devote its attention to.
Calvalry should be upgradable to tanks but they should pay a higher cost to upgrade (after all you are keeping the trained men just giving them new equipment)
MadScot
Brandy's back!
Have to agree with Jon and disagree with bomber on RRs.
Calculations involving hourly rates are meaningless in a game which does not have a consistent time scale. Or should the number of tiles per turn be revised every time the time-scale changes. Then since the minimum number of tiles per turn is one, warriors would have to move 50 per turn in the initial (50 year long) turn. A ridiculous example, but it shows how inappropriate a "real world" analogy can be. Civ3 is not a wargame/simulation and never will be. The primary concern should be game balance (between the elements of the game) and fun.
I believe that the power of RR movement in the later game is destabilising, to the extent of facilitating blitzkreig attacks of ridiculous proportions. (Poland to Moscow took a half year, then the Germans could get no further. In Civ 3 they'd be in Vladivostok and STILL have all their movement points left
)
Setting RR movement to a low number of movement points per tile (1/10?) or setting a max number of tiles moved for any unit per turn (20-30?) would seem to be less unbalanced. One could argue for a total capacity limit too (many board wargames do precisely this for RR movement) but that may be too cumbersome for a relatively simple movement model.
Calculations involving hourly rates are meaningless in a game which does not have a consistent time scale. Or should the number of tiles per turn be revised every time the time-scale changes. Then since the minimum number of tiles per turn is one, warriors would have to move 50 per turn in the initial (50 year long) turn. A ridiculous example, but it shows how inappropriate a "real world" analogy can be. Civ3 is not a wargame/simulation and never will be. The primary concern should be game balance (between the elements of the game) and fun.
I believe that the power of RR movement in the later game is destabilising, to the extent of facilitating blitzkreig attacks of ridiculous proportions. (Poland to Moscow took a half year, then the Germans could get no further. In Civ 3 they'd be in Vladivostok and STILL have all their movement points left
)Setting RR movement to a low number of movement points per tile (1/10?) or setting a max number of tiles moved for any unit per turn (20-30?) would seem to be less unbalanced. One could argue for a total capacity limit too (many board wargames do precisely this for RR movement) but that may be too cumbersome for a relatively simple movement model.
Whether the railroad movement rate should be infinite or not is not clear cut. Both ways have good arguments for them including reality checks as well as game enjoyment and strategical thinking. Also, it seems from the postings that both sides have many supporters.
Which raises the question that why on Earth should it be resolved one way or the other?
You could get the best of both worlds by allowing the railroad movement rate to be adjusted in the editor, with one choice being, of course, infinite (i.e. move cost is zero).
Then everyone could set it the way he wanted it to be. Or even change it from game to game as the whim strikes.
With scenarios setting the railroad movement rate would be even more benefical. For example, in a Civil War scenario with 1 turn equaling 1 day an infinite RR movement just does not work, but railroads still ought to be there as they played a big role in the war.
(Yes, I know, the year counter is not adjustable, but it darned well ought to be...)
Which raises the question that why on Earth should it be resolved one way or the other?
You could get the best of both worlds by allowing the railroad movement rate to be adjusted in the editor, with one choice being, of course, infinite (i.e. move cost is zero).
Then everyone could set it the way he wanted it to be. Or even change it from game to game as the whim strikes.
With scenarios setting the railroad movement rate would be even more benefical. For example, in a Civil War scenario with 1 turn equaling 1 day an infinite RR movement just does not work, but railroads still ought to be there as they played a big role in the war.
(Yes, I know, the year counter is not adjustable, but it darned well ought to be...)
Mad Bomber
Commander
Mad Scott:
Yes the Germans took half a year to get from poland to Moscow, but think about it. Why did it take them half a year to get there? the answer is that the Russian army prevented them from moving any faster. RR movement isn't perfect but it's as realistic as it can be with the crazy rules on time in CIV 3. WW2 would be over in 3 turns, could never happen in CIV 3. RR's are simply a way of making up for the redicously slow normal movement factor. I realize that this is just a game, but they are using a time measurement. I would like to see one thing changed though, RR's should not be able to be used outside of your territorial borders w/o an ROP agreement. Currently you can use RR's in "dead mans lands" I would prevent that (movement would be as if moving on roads) but inside your territory it should stay the way it is.
Also in CIV 2, the turn # and time elapsed for turns was adjustable, so I would like to say.....
I WANT MY CHEAT MODE BACK!!!!
Yes the Germans took half a year to get from poland to Moscow, but think about it. Why did it take them half a year to get there? the answer is that the Russian army prevented them from moving any faster. RR movement isn't perfect but it's as realistic as it can be with the crazy rules on time in CIV 3. WW2 would be over in 3 turns, could never happen in CIV 3. RR's are simply a way of making up for the redicously slow normal movement factor. I realize that this is just a game, but they are using a time measurement. I would like to see one thing changed though, RR's should not be able to be used outside of your territorial borders w/o an ROP agreement. Currently you can use RR's in "dead mans lands" I would prevent that (movement would be as if moving on roads) but inside your territory it should stay the way it is.
Also in CIV 2, the turn # and time elapsed for turns was adjustable, so I would like to say.....
I WANT MY CHEAT MODE BACK!!!!
dsirirueng
Chieftain
From the very first post:
"Add more effects to the Apollo and Manhattan projects so they are useful even in non-space race or non-diplomatic victory games"
I like this, perhaps the Apollo wonder makes the Tang luxury resource appear on the map?
"Add more effects to the Apollo and Manhattan projects so they are useful even in non-space race or non-diplomatic victory games"
I like this, perhaps the Apollo wonder makes the Tang luxury resource appear on the map?
dsirirueng
Chieftain
How about making jungle return your city 5 shields? Anyone who's been in a jungle knows it's not all creepers and soft banana trees ... there are some pretty useful woods just like with forests. (Not to mention rare beasts the Chinese civ might be prone to purchase from you before the Viagra advance is discovered ... 
As it is, jungles take tons of time to clear (much more than forests, which isn't all that realistic) ... for absolutely no return, other than to create arable or minable land. In fact, jungles uncleared should have some food and/or shield value, just as forests do ...
I don't propose they simply be made into forests -- that would be pretty stupid. But they shouldn't be the useless annoyances they are now, either.
I also vote for the ability to lumberjack, but agree that you can't "rush" a forest to growth with stacks of workers. An additional thing with jungles that might make up for giving them some extra value ... if a former jungle tile has one jungle tile bordering it and no citizen working it, after 20 turns it "reverts" to jungle (similar to fungus growth in SMAC, and pretty close to what really happens, notwithstanding the disjoint between passage of time in CIV3 and reality). If the tile has two jungle tiles bordering it, 15 turns ... etc. etc.
Also, negative environmental effect of clearing jungles/forests ... depends. Perhaps the map generator notes the percentage of land covered in jungle/forest at the beginning of the game, and rates this as 200% (or something) needed for optimal ecological balance (for O2 production, etc). If civs proceed to cut/clear jungle/forests down to below 100% optimal balance, negative effects start to be felt. Should we then be able to enter into ecological pacts with other civs, where we each devote a set number of workers to re-seeded forests/re-planting jungle? Could be interesting, especially for "peaceful builder" types ...
Last thing -- has anybody mentioned friendly fire? Small chance that bombardments will kill your own troops if they are in tile adjacent to bombarded tile?
Also, apologies if this stuff has been mentioned before, or dealt with in various patches. I play on a Mac with an out-of-the-box version purchased very recently, so I'm not sure which game changes from the original PC version were included in that. I don't seem to be able to lumberjack, if that's any clue. I would like to, however ...
As it is, jungles take tons of time to clear (much more than forests, which isn't all that realistic) ... for absolutely no return, other than to create arable or minable land. In fact, jungles uncleared should have some food and/or shield value, just as forests do ...I don't propose they simply be made into forests -- that would be pretty stupid. But they shouldn't be the useless annoyances they are now, either.
I also vote for the ability to lumberjack, but agree that you can't "rush" a forest to growth with stacks of workers. An additional thing with jungles that might make up for giving them some extra value ... if a former jungle tile has one jungle tile bordering it and no citizen working it, after 20 turns it "reverts" to jungle (similar to fungus growth in SMAC, and pretty close to what really happens, notwithstanding the disjoint between passage of time in CIV3 and reality). If the tile has two jungle tiles bordering it, 15 turns ... etc. etc.
Also, negative environmental effect of clearing jungles/forests ... depends. Perhaps the map generator notes the percentage of land covered in jungle/forest at the beginning of the game, and rates this as 200% (or something) needed for optimal ecological balance (for O2 production, etc). If civs proceed to cut/clear jungle/forests down to below 100% optimal balance, negative effects start to be felt. Should we then be able to enter into ecological pacts with other civs, where we each devote a set number of workers to re-seeded forests/re-planting jungle? Could be interesting, especially for "peaceful builder" types ...
Last thing -- has anybody mentioned friendly fire? Small chance that bombardments will kill your own troops if they are in tile adjacent to bombarded tile?
Also, apologies if this stuff has been mentioned before, or dealt with in various patches. I play on a Mac with an out-of-the-box version purchased very recently, so I'm not sure which game changes from the original PC version were included in that. I don't seem to be able to lumberjack, if that's any clue. I would like to, however ...
dsirirueng
Chieftain
Just reading a bit about the debate over upgrading cavalry to tanks ... sparked a thought (BTW, I don't like the idea of that upgrade) ... anyway ...
Shouldn't a civ get to do something with an extra strategic resource it possesses, other than trading them to rival civs? How this relates to cavalry, is that John Shaw mentioned that a 3-move unit (cavalry) gets replaced on the tech ladder with a 2-move unit (tanks), which doesn't seem fair. He points out that a horse doesn't gallop away all day long ... to which I would point out that, yes it does -- if you've got spares! All cavalry down the ages employed spare horses ... so is there some way the game could allow "spares" if you have more than one horse tile under your control (not being traded)? Maybe your cavalry gets an added point of movement on roads or something, I dunno ...
But can anyone think of other ways those extra strategic resource tiles could be used? Extra iron: can make destroyers/battleships with 1 extra point of defense (thicker hulls); Extra oil: add one gold generated by each of your cities (prices lower for "getting around") ... Or would this be pushing the game in a bad direction? A problem I could see with such a change is that the AI would be even MORE reluctant to trade you that resource you desperately need ... but then, it might deny it to the other civs as well, so ...
Shouldn't a civ get to do something with an extra strategic resource it possesses, other than trading them to rival civs? How this relates to cavalry, is that John Shaw mentioned that a 3-move unit (cavalry) gets replaced on the tech ladder with a 2-move unit (tanks), which doesn't seem fair. He points out that a horse doesn't gallop away all day long ... to which I would point out that, yes it does -- if you've got spares! All cavalry down the ages employed spare horses ... so is there some way the game could allow "spares" if you have more than one horse tile under your control (not being traded)? Maybe your cavalry gets an added point of movement on roads or something, I dunno ...
But can anyone think of other ways those extra strategic resource tiles could be used? Extra iron: can make destroyers/battleships with 1 extra point of defense (thicker hulls); Extra oil: add one gold generated by each of your cities (prices lower for "getting around") ... Or would this be pushing the game in a bad direction? A problem I could see with such a change is that the AI would be even MORE reluctant to trade you that resource you desperately need ... but then, it might deny it to the other civs as well, so ...
dsirirueng
Chieftain
Yet another idea -- does anybody else like to keep at least one UU around, even if it's upgradable, just to look at it once in a while? How about if you got a small culture bonus for doing this? Think about it, what are the Beefeaters at Buckingham Palace, if not precisely this?
I don't know if anyone's already said this, and it may even already be possible to do this, but one thing I would really like is to be able to ADD stuff in the editor, like civs, gov's, units, etc. instead of only being able to change or replace things. I also think the Manhatten Project should be a small wonder, and I think there should be a peaceful way of getting leaders.
Throughout history we've seen examples of governments funding mercenaries of one sort or another.
I think this could be translated to CIV III by allowing you to build "barbarian" units which you could then use to attack your opponents. There could be a small chance that your opponents would detect who their real enemy was (reduced by the "barbarian" 's veteran and elite status. Spies could also discover that you were doing this.
I think this could add an interesting new dimension to the game.
(Apologies if this has been raised before - but there are now too many pages of posts to read)
Richard
I think this could be translated to CIV III by allowing you to build "barbarian" units which you could then use to attack your opponents. There could be a small chance that your opponents would detect who their real enemy was (reduced by the "barbarian" 's veteran and elite status. Spies could also discover that you were doing this.
I think this could add an interesting new dimension to the game.
(Apologies if this has been raised before - but there are now too many pages of posts to read)
Richard
Mad Bomber
Commander
Those 'barbarians' wouldn't be merc's they would be 'terrorists'
Merc would be if you traded a unit to another civ for gold. In CIV 2 you could give another unit away but you couldn't sell them (use them as merc's) Both the terrorists & merc's should be included in the game, I hope these options are available in PTW or CIV 4!
Merc would be if you traded a unit to another civ for gold. In CIV 2 you could give another unit away but you couldn't sell them (use them as merc's) Both the terrorists & merc's should be included in the game, I hope these options are available in PTW or CIV 4!
Greg Loader
Warlord
Mad Bomber,
Please consider adding this to your list:
***COMPETITION MODE***
For example, No Saves. No Autosaves. Only one save at a time - in it's own directory. (perhaps encrypted)
Thanks,
Greg
Please consider adding this to your list:
***COMPETITION MODE***
For example, No Saves. No Autosaves. Only one save at a time - in it's own directory. (perhaps encrypted)
Thanks,
Greg
Mad Bomber
Commander
Done, but the list is getting quite long! Also firaxis would have given some thought about this for PTW?
Or alternativly, all human players have to agree w/ saving game & loading game. (of course this could have some cheating factors if the humans gang up on the AI's
)
Or alternativly, all human players have to agree w/ saving game & loading game. (of course this could have some cheating factors if the humans gang up on the AI's
)more innovative 'background' animations,
now only the workers makes the civ alive, but seas, fishes, resources icons and etc should make small anims now and then, just see the pc game the settlers, then you know what i am talking about.
This would make the game more 'alive'
maybe convert some pcx graphics to simple gif anims
now only the workers makes the civ alive, but seas, fishes, resources icons and etc should make small anims now and then, just see the pc game the settlers, then you know what i am talking about.
This would make the game more 'alive'
maybe convert some pcx graphics to simple gif anims
1 more screensize
currently there are 2 view sizes ( press z in the game)
a 3rd with should be in between those sizes
I think the normal_view is to 'close' it feels like 640 x 400 on windows, you dont have the map overview, and the zoomed_out_view, is hard to use other than for quick peaking the situation
currently there are 2 view sizes ( press z in the game)
a 3rd with should be in between those sizes
I think the normal_view is to 'close' it feels like 640 x 400 on windows, you dont have the map overview, and the zoomed_out_view, is hard to use other than for quick peaking the situation
Republic_Outlaw
Mech Warrior
I think they need to add a new epoch (age) like a space age or somethin to resemple the futur. (Empire earth has 14 so ya would think ya need at least i more)
RedBaron635
Chieftain
DAMN IT THE GAME GOSE BY TO FAST!!!!! u need atles 2 more ages maby 3!!! all in order after midle age
1. renaissance[u whold get hand canons, haliberys ect.]
2.colenly age[musket men, calvery, ahip of line ect.]
3. early industryl [ u go from civil war rifels to tanks nad planes to fast]
4. extended midela age[difrent sowrds men, new forms of gallys like fire ships ect.]
5 extended idustryak age[ more ww1 units like early form of tank, biplane, zeplin,infantry]
1. renaissance[u whold get hand canons, haliberys ect.]
2.colenly age[musket men, calvery, ahip of line ect.]
3. early industryl [ u go from civil war rifels to tanks nad planes to fast]
4. extended midela age[difrent sowrds men, new forms of gallys like fire ships ect.]
5 extended idustryak age[ more ww1 units like early form of tank, biplane, zeplin,infantry]
Republic_Outlaw
Mech Warrior
I think they need 100 you need more like a dark age, middle age, rennisance age, industrial age, modern age, digital, and nano age. That seems like a good selection, and then add 500+ units to it itl be the #1 game in the world...or just the country
you need more like a dark age, middle age, rennisance age, industrial age, modern age, digital, and nano age. That seems like a good selection, and then add 500+ units to it itl be the #1 game in the world...or just the country
