Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
When setting when an improvement gets obsolete, allow city size to be an option (so it doesn't have to do with bombard defense for walls).
-
Our friends from AlphaCentauri2.info are in need of technical assistance. If you have experience with the LAMP stack and some hours to spare, please help them out and post here.
Civ III: Conquests Patch Fix Request
- Thread starter Tavis
- Start date
SirPleb
Shaken, not stirred.
A few more requests 
1. Block "inter-turn" exploits
I.e. whenever the player is asked a question between turns, limit the player's access to the game to the area of the question.
Examples of inter-turn exploits:
a) When a city finishes its current construction and we're asked what it should build next, it is possible to cycle through all other cities and change their citizen assignments and production. This makes a few exploits possible, such as working the same bonus tile in multiple cities in the same turn. To fix this the player should be restricted to the single city's screen when asked what to build next.
b) When a new tech is learned it is possible to use "the big picture", then use F1 to access the city list, then switch production in cities to finish builds which only became possible at this time through the new tech. Another variant of this is to use F4 from the big picture to access other Civs and to make inter-turn trades based on the newly learned tech - scientific Civs can use this to ensure they don't get the same new era tech as scientific AIs. The player should be restricted to the F6 tech display when asked what to research next inter-turn.
c) When a new government tech is learned it is possible to use "the big picture", then use F1, then start a revolution from there. This makes it possible to "roll the dice" twice in the turn to try for a short anarchy period. Same fix as for (b).
2. Limit the potential gain from capturing the Great Library
If one captures the Great Library before one has learned Education, the Great Library will on the next turn give all techs known by two or more Civs, regardless of how advanced those techs are. This enables a technique which seems exploitive to me - one can delay a controlled capture of the Great Library for a long time, even well into the Industrial Age.
I think a good fix would be for the Great Library to never give any tech which has Education as a prerequisite. (Actually implemented via the wonder "gain any advances known by 2 Civs" and "rendered obsolete by" fields of course.)
3. Recuce the variability of the period of anarchy
My preference would be for the period of anarchy when changing governments to not have a random element. It might depend on factors such as Civ size, current government, difficulty level, etc. But I'd like it to be predictable. The current range between the shortest possible revolt and the longest has more impact on the game than I think a random element should have.
I also think the period of anarchy should be shortened a bit (it seems to have been increased in Conquests.) I think that the possibility of a long period of anarchy reduces players' willingness to change governments, and thus discourages use of the new governments available in Conquests.
1. Block "inter-turn" exploits
I.e. whenever the player is asked a question between turns, limit the player's access to the game to the area of the question.
Examples of inter-turn exploits:
a) When a city finishes its current construction and we're asked what it should build next, it is possible to cycle through all other cities and change their citizen assignments and production. This makes a few exploits possible, such as working the same bonus tile in multiple cities in the same turn. To fix this the player should be restricted to the single city's screen when asked what to build next.
b) When a new tech is learned it is possible to use "the big picture", then use F1 to access the city list, then switch production in cities to finish builds which only became possible at this time through the new tech. Another variant of this is to use F4 from the big picture to access other Civs and to make inter-turn trades based on the newly learned tech - scientific Civs can use this to ensure they don't get the same new era tech as scientific AIs. The player should be restricted to the F6 tech display when asked what to research next inter-turn.
c) When a new government tech is learned it is possible to use "the big picture", then use F1, then start a revolution from there. This makes it possible to "roll the dice" twice in the turn to try for a short anarchy period. Same fix as for (b).
2. Limit the potential gain from capturing the Great Library
If one captures the Great Library before one has learned Education, the Great Library will on the next turn give all techs known by two or more Civs, regardless of how advanced those techs are. This enables a technique which seems exploitive to me - one can delay a controlled capture of the Great Library for a long time, even well into the Industrial Age.
I think a good fix would be for the Great Library to never give any tech which has Education as a prerequisite. (Actually implemented via the wonder "gain any advances known by 2 Civs" and "rendered obsolete by" fields of course.)
3. Recuce the variability of the period of anarchy
My preference would be for the period of anarchy when changing governments to not have a random element. It might depend on factors such as Civ size, current government, difficulty level, etc. But I'd like it to be predictable. The current range between the shortest possible revolt and the longest has more impact on the game than I think a random element should have.
I also think the period of anarchy should be shortened a bit (it seems to have been increased in Conquests.) I think that the possibility of a long period of anarchy reduces players' willingness to change governments, and thus discourages use of the new governments available in Conquests.
unscratchedfoot
War is a good thing.
1) We need to be able to donate units to other civs through diplomacy like in Civ2. That would make things interesting and we can help out our friends.
2) It would be nice if we could send units into allied cities to heal, hide, and help defend, like in the Alpha Centari game. Being able to share a space with allied units (joint stacking) would also be nice. It reality it's common for allied military units to join up and help defend together.
2) It would be nice if we could send units into allied cities to heal, hide, and help defend, like in the Alpha Centari game. Being able to share a space with allied units (joint stacking) would also be nice. It reality it's common for allied military units to join up and help defend together.
Fanny Brice
Prince
Coastal Fortresses --
Do they work at all? I've never seen one take a shot at enemy ships. Maybe they should get a "counter battery" shot when the enemy ship actually fires on the town. As it is now, I think the enemy ship has to stop on the tile in range or pass the city in a certain movement pattern in order to get the shot.
CF also seem to be immediately destroyed by enemy fire. Maybe they should have hit points of their own. Or maybe they should only be destroyed when hit with a certain amount of firepower (like a Cruiser or Battleship.)
Also -- since Marines are more effective, CF should provide a defensive bonus to units when attacked by Marines.
Do they work at all? I've never seen one take a shot at enemy ships. Maybe they should get a "counter battery" shot when the enemy ship actually fires on the town. As it is now, I think the enemy ship has to stop on the tile in range or pass the city in a certain movement pattern in order to get the shot.
CF also seem to be immediately destroyed by enemy fire. Maybe they should have hit points of their own. Or maybe they should only be destroyed when hit with a certain amount of firepower (like a Cruiser or Battleship.)
Also -- since Marines are more effective, CF should provide a defensive bonus to units when attacked by Marines.
John Falkner
Knight of the Round Table
I WANT POP UPS IN MULTIPLAYER (turn based)!!!
Justus II
General Staff
This may be asking too much for just a patch, but I always thought losing your capital should exact a much higher penalty than a free palace jump. (Even a deliberate palace jump, while a strategic option, seems somewhat exploitative). My idea would be that whenever the capital falls, the civ automatically enters a period of anarchy. At the end of it, they could still choose a different government, if available, and they would still get a new free palace in a new city, but at least they paid a price for it. It seems more realisitic to me, as well as increasing the importance of protecting your capital. It also gives more reason to go after the enemy capital.
as asked million times, copy/paste and resize features in the editor
This message has two parts. First is justification and second are actual suggestions....
Justification:
I am playing my first real Industrial Age war in C3C. I'm fighting two deity opponents across an ocean and it's not even a close battle. I figure in 20+ turns of hard fighting, I have lost 4 units, while they've lost 100+ each.
What has allowed me such incredible odds? Bombers. Bombers. Bombers. The AI builds very few fighters, no flak guns (at all in my game), and is completely overwhelmed by bombers. It's not a tech issue, as they both had flight well before me. And they both still have oil connected.
In the early turns, while securing my beachhead, the AIs actually got to attack my city occasionally, but a couple armies of infantry stopped that in its tracks. I have no problem with that.
Now, however, I bomb away their trickle of units (~10-15 each) in complete 100% safety, while still having sufficient forces left over to capture a city or two per turn. I use a single cavalry in an army to capture cities, as the 4 move is useful in by-passing cultural borders. All defenders are dead, of course, by bombers.
The problem is that bombers are now WAY over-powered, to the point where there's little sense building anything else. Why build tanks? They'll never have to fight an actual unit anyway. Fighters might be useful if the AI built hordes of bombers, too, but it doesn't, so they're a waste. Infantry are unnecessary now, because the AI can't get to my cities before being bombed to death. Settlers and workers and my one cav army are all I really use/need at this point, besides the overpowered bombers.
And there's really no pause, because the new larger range lets me essentially eliminate an entire civilization from one little city. I don't have to rebase my bombers, because their reach is so long now.
This is bad, because it reduces game depth and makes all decisions less interesting. The bomber is now an uber-unit.
Suggestions:
My suggestions for re-balancing bombers (my goal is gameplay, NOT necessarily realism):
- Remove lethal land bombard (no unit should be able to destroy all a city's defenders without risking itself)
- Keep the longer range (makes them worth building, in some instances -- adding options and depth, not removing it)
- Keep lethal sea bombard (more options at sea is good, IMO)
- Let flak cannons be built earlier (I would say replaceable parts, because building artillery is similar to building flak, but that tech is already overloaded. Steel might be a good place for flak to first be available.) Once the materials for flight are recognized, defense against it becomes a priority, even if you can't fly yourself.
These should all be easy to implement and would re-introduce some interest into the late Industrial Age.
Arathorn
Justification:
I am playing my first real Industrial Age war in C3C. I'm fighting two deity opponents across an ocean and it's not even a close battle. I figure in 20+ turns of hard fighting, I have lost 4 units, while they've lost 100+ each.
What has allowed me such incredible odds? Bombers. Bombers. Bombers. The AI builds very few fighters, no flak guns (at all in my game), and is completely overwhelmed by bombers. It's not a tech issue, as they both had flight well before me. And they both still have oil connected.
In the early turns, while securing my beachhead, the AIs actually got to attack my city occasionally, but a couple armies of infantry stopped that in its tracks. I have no problem with that.
Now, however, I bomb away their trickle of units (~10-15 each) in complete 100% safety, while still having sufficient forces left over to capture a city or two per turn. I use a single cavalry in an army to capture cities, as the 4 move is useful in by-passing cultural borders. All defenders are dead, of course, by bombers.
The problem is that bombers are now WAY over-powered, to the point where there's little sense building anything else. Why build tanks? They'll never have to fight an actual unit anyway. Fighters might be useful if the AI built hordes of bombers, too, but it doesn't, so they're a waste. Infantry are unnecessary now, because the AI can't get to my cities before being bombed to death. Settlers and workers and my one cav army are all I really use/need at this point, besides the overpowered bombers.
And there's really no pause, because the new larger range lets me essentially eliminate an entire civilization from one little city. I don't have to rebase my bombers, because their reach is so long now.
This is bad, because it reduces game depth and makes all decisions less interesting. The bomber is now an uber-unit.
Suggestions:
My suggestions for re-balancing bombers (my goal is gameplay, NOT necessarily realism):
- Remove lethal land bombard (no unit should be able to destroy all a city's defenders without risking itself)
- Keep the longer range (makes them worth building, in some instances -- adding options and depth, not removing it)
- Keep lethal sea bombard (more options at sea is good, IMO)
- Let flak cannons be built earlier (I would say replaceable parts, because building artillery is similar to building flak, but that tech is already overloaded. Steel might be a good place for flak to first be available.) Once the materials for flight are recognized, defense against it becomes a priority, even if you can't fly yourself.
These should all be easy to implement and would re-introduce some interest into the late Industrial Age.
Arathorn
ajerzguy
Chieftain
Unlike PTW when a civ is eliminated the score of that civ is no longer available. It is deleted and therefore a burden in multiplayer games especially team games.
It would be nice to have a Civ's score frozen at the time of elimination rather than have it be reduced as the game progresses or worse yet removed altogehter.
I'm hoping this was an oversight and not a planned feature.
Thanks and Keep on Civin
It would be nice to have a Civ's score frozen at the time of elimination rather than have it be reduced as the game progresses or worse yet removed altogehter.
I'm hoping this was an oversight and not a planned feature.
Thanks and Keep on Civin
aeldrik
from CIV1 to infinity
Oh yes, one other thing:
AT LEAST 2048 CITIES possible on the Maps!!!!!!!!!! 512 is
ridiculous on a 300x300 map!!!!!!!!!!
AT LEAST 2048 CITIES possible on the Maps!!!!!!!!!! 512 is
ridiculous on a 300x300 map!!!!!!!!!!
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
I think these are pretty good ideas. Putting Flaks at steel would give more use to the tech. It doesn't seem ultra realistic, but I don't think fighters and Bombers are realistically from the same tech. If this change isn't made, I might mod it myself.
Cathy
Chieftain
Here are some of my ideas for a patch:
Check twice (or more...
)to see that the 'status quo' option is the default in all confirmation popups (hurry improvement etc).
Add scrolling arrows to the minimap, so you can get a good overview of any part of the map.
In the SP setup screen you shouldn't be forced to decide on land/sea ratio, just because you want pangea. Instead make it like the MP setup, where you pick each setting separately.
Add a setting for resources (lux/strat) to decide if you want them to be scarce, plentiful or somewhere in between.
Switch between showing potential import/export in the trade advisor.
Add an option in the foreign advisor to show all MPP/MA concerning one AI. (To see if your little enemy has got any big friends to make you think twice...)
Show total/turn in the cultural advisor.
Add some kind of civ color coding to the diplomacy window. That way you can look at the minimap to see who you are dealing with, even in a scenario/conquest with civ names you are not familiar with.
Make it possible to investigate enemy cities by selecting them on the map.
Useful to find out if your settler has any hope at all of getting to those silks before the AI city next to them expands.
In SP, make it possible to switch the colors of the different AIs around.
Also, make it possible to rearrange the histograph, or move those that are out of the game to the far right for better overview.
The high score list should include at least one of the following:
Ingame ending year, real world date or some text supplied by the user (that could be anything you want to keep track of)
Make it possible to choose whether or not to include your result in the high score list.
Have automated workers cooperate.
(I have seen 19 workers sent cleaning via shift-p one turn go after a single polluted square the next turn. They couldn't reach it, because there were enemy units on the only railway connection to that newly conquered city. Instead, all of them went off to a non-roaded square.)
Make it possible to trigger automated actions any time during your turn. One command should be enough to make all automated workers, ships on goto or artillery on autobombard do their things.
Add a command to wake up all automated workers, either instantly or as soon as they finish what they are doing. (You might not want to interrupt a worker that has been
clearing jungle for the last 23 turns...) This can be useful for example when you want to keep your workers away from the enemy, or when you want to have railway connections between your cities asap.
At some point in the late industrial/early modern ages you should be able to build railroads with no resources, much like you don't need iron as a strategic resource for anything after ironclads, even if IRL, iron is very important even today.
In the editor, have a palette with the different terrain types and overlays.
Some of these ideas may be too big for a patch. In that case, just relabel them 'Ideas for Civ IV'.
Check twice (or more...
)to see that the 'status quo' option is the default in all confirmation popups (hurry improvement etc). Add scrolling arrows to the minimap, so you can get a good overview of any part of the map.
In the SP setup screen you shouldn't be forced to decide on land/sea ratio, just because you want pangea. Instead make it like the MP setup, where you pick each setting separately.
Add a setting for resources (lux/strat) to decide if you want them to be scarce, plentiful or somewhere in between.
Switch between showing potential import/export in the trade advisor.
Add an option in the foreign advisor to show all MPP/MA concerning one AI. (To see if your little enemy has got any big friends to make you think twice...)
Show total/turn in the cultural advisor.
Add some kind of civ color coding to the diplomacy window. That way you can look at the minimap to see who you are dealing with, even in a scenario/conquest with civ names you are not familiar with.
Make it possible to investigate enemy cities by selecting them on the map.
Useful to find out if your settler has any hope at all of getting to those silks before the AI city next to them expands.
In SP, make it possible to switch the colors of the different AIs around.
Also, make it possible to rearrange the histograph, or move those that are out of the game to the far right for better overview.
The high score list should include at least one of the following:
Ingame ending year, real world date or some text supplied by the user (that could be anything you want to keep track of)
Make it possible to choose whether or not to include your result in the high score list.
Have automated workers cooperate.
(I have seen 19 workers sent cleaning via shift-p one turn go after a single polluted square the next turn. They couldn't reach it, because there were enemy units on the only railway connection to that newly conquered city. Instead, all of them went off to a non-roaded square.)
Make it possible to trigger automated actions any time during your turn. One command should be enough to make all automated workers, ships on goto or artillery on autobombard do their things.
Add a command to wake up all automated workers, either instantly or as soon as they finish what they are doing. (You might not want to interrupt a worker that has been
clearing jungle for the last 23 turns...) This can be useful for example when you want to keep your workers away from the enemy, or when you want to have railway connections between your cities asap.
At some point in the late industrial/early modern ages you should be able to build railroads with no resources, much like you don't need iron as a strategic resource for anything after ironclads, even if IRL, iron is very important even today.
In the editor, have a palette with the different terrain types and overlays.
Some of these ideas may be too big for a patch. In that case, just relabel them 'Ideas for Civ IV'.
Charis
Realms Beyond
That's a good point Arathorn. I've not got to a late enough era to use C3C bombers much yet, but it sounds like the lethality of the bombing is dominant given that the AI don't build enough fighters or Flak.
I would disagree strongly with moving Flak earlier though. Having a "defense" developed against something that doesn't exist yet makes no sense. Nor would I like to see myself being the first to Flight only to have my bomber shot down on its maiden flight by an ignorant nation.
Can the other issues be addressed instead?
- Pre C3C I seemed to see a lot of fighters appear when they got Flight, at least at first.
- Making more fighters and Flak should definitely be part of the AI's pattern.
- If the AI does NOT have mobile SAM or flak on hand, they really shouldn't be leaving a ton of troops out in the open.
- Lethal land bombardment is likely just too good. It seems that air power firing at a fresh and large group of infantry would do some real hurting, but the more you kill, the harder it becomes to kill successive troops (unlike ground-on-ground combat, where your killing increases the odds and you can overwhelm hurt troops). For units being bombarded, how about a combat formula that is:
For AA: Defense_effective = Defense * maxHP / currentHP
So a vet unit would start with its normal defense value, get a 1/3 boost after one pt is taken off, double its defense when down to 2hp, and be four-fold tougher to take out its last hp.
Result: a vet unit would defend its last hp with quadruple defense. One could still do it, but this system allows a 'decent' air force to put a nice hurting on a set of ground troops, but you would need overwhelming air superiority to actually kill many units.
Also, I don't know if one flak unit fires just once per round on defense, or if it only fires once. Certainly firing vs every air attack would make it that much more painful for aircraft to go for that last hp or two (in combination with the increased Def for hurt units)
One other thought -- does the AI make use of knowing what units the human has? With a spy in place, we as humans get to see what our opponents have and plan accordingly. It seems that if the AI aimed to try to maintain an air force where it's #fighters was roughly equal to the #bombers (or B+F) of their largest foe's air-force, they would do a lot better. That would prevent a simplistic fix of "build tons of fighters" to cause the AI the lose cities for a lack of ground troops when we are not building or using many bombers against them.
Charis
I would disagree strongly with moving Flak earlier though. Having a "defense" developed against something that doesn't exist yet makes no sense. Nor would I like to see myself being the first to Flight only to have my bomber shot down on its maiden flight by an ignorant nation.
Can the other issues be addressed instead?
- Pre C3C I seemed to see a lot of fighters appear when they got Flight, at least at first.
- Making more fighters and Flak should definitely be part of the AI's pattern.
- If the AI does NOT have mobile SAM or flak on hand, they really shouldn't be leaving a ton of troops out in the open.
- Lethal land bombardment is likely just too good. It seems that air power firing at a fresh and large group of infantry would do some real hurting, but the more you kill, the harder it becomes to kill successive troops (unlike ground-on-ground combat, where your killing increases the odds and you can overwhelm hurt troops). For units being bombarded, how about a combat formula that is:
For AA: Defense_effective = Defense * maxHP / currentHP
So a vet unit would start with its normal defense value, get a 1/3 boost after one pt is taken off, double its defense when down to 2hp, and be four-fold tougher to take out its last hp.
Result: a vet unit would defend its last hp with quadruple defense. One could still do it, but this system allows a 'decent' air force to put a nice hurting on a set of ground troops, but you would need overwhelming air superiority to actually kill many units.
Also, I don't know if one flak unit fires just once per round on defense, or if it only fires once. Certainly firing vs every air attack would make it that much more painful for aircraft to go for that last hp or two (in combination with the increased Def for hurt units)
One other thought -- does the AI make use of knowing what units the human has? With a spy in place, we as humans get to see what our opponents have and plan accordingly. It seems that if the AI aimed to try to maintain an air force where it's #fighters was roughly equal to the #bombers (or B+F) of their largest foe's air-force, they would do a lot better. That would prevent a simplistic fix of "build tons of fighters" to cause the AI the lose cities for a lack of ground troops when we are not building or using many bombers against them.
Charis
... as SirPleb posted,Originally posted by SirPleb
A few more requests
1. Block "inter-turn" exploits
[...]
Examples of inter-turn exploits:
a, b, c...
and
d) Ability to changing lux/science/treasury ratio, hurrying/changing production, selling buildings, drafting, doing revolution, mobilizing, changing researched tech, disbanding, activating and upgrading units, micromanaging cities - all these actions and some more are possible when some other civ contacted us in between turns.
denyd
Emperor
While I tend to agree that some inter-turn exploits should be blocked, we should have some intra-turn items left available.
Example: Tech selection, when I've completed Scientific Method and am trying to decide what's next it's nice to see how long before my TOE pre-build has left and if there's time to slip in rep parts or espionage before it completes or if I should go for AT now.
Also, we should have all inter-turn abilities that the AI has. Example: A city is taken from me by a red-lined cavalry and it's not possible for a rifleman to reach the city, yet when I move to attack the city there's a veteran rifleman & the wounded cavalry in the city. Since I didn't have a barracks in the city (because I had Sun Tzu's), that means that after taking the city the AI rushed a temple & a rifleman before my turn came around.
Example: Tech selection, when I've completed Scientific Method and am trying to decide what's next it's nice to see how long before my TOE pre-build has left and if there's time to slip in rep parts or espionage before it completes or if I should go for AT now.
Also, we should have all inter-turn abilities that the AI has. Example: A city is taken from me by a red-lined cavalry and it's not possible for a rifleman to reach the city, yet when I move to attack the city there's a veteran rifleman & the wounded cavalry in the city. Since I didn't have a barracks in the city (because I had Sun Tzu's), that means that after taking the city the AI rushed a temple & a rifleman before my turn came around.
Yuurei
Chieftain
It would be great if there were an easy way to include most of the Conquests unique things into a scenario, such as the Imperialsim government, or Conquests units such as the Elizabethan Sea Dog or the upgradable Legionary, or techs, resources, and improvements such as rubber for Ball Games's Ball court or even the Jousting Arena.
It would be great to have some sort of mega epic where different cultures follow different tech trees up to a certain point that are completely inaccessible to other cultures, this could be done by compressing the entire progression of MesoAmerican or Sengoku tech tree into one single age but with the prerequisite of being of the qualifying culture group.
I'm sure some one has figured out a way to do this, but I'm not a programmer, so I'm hoping for an easier way to have it done.
Also, WWI is notably absent from Civ3, as well as greater military use of helicopters. This would be great to see in the next incarnation.
Yuurei.
.
.
.
It would be great to have some sort of mega epic where different cultures follow different tech trees up to a certain point that are completely inaccessible to other cultures, this could be done by compressing the entire progression of MesoAmerican or Sengoku tech tree into one single age but with the prerequisite of being of the qualifying culture group.
I'm sure some one has figured out a way to do this, but I'm not a programmer, so I'm hoping for an easier way to have it done.
Also, WWI is notably absent from Civ3, as well as greater military use of helicopters. This would be great to see in the next incarnation.
Yuurei.
.
.
.
Redking
Prince
To expand on my other post...
1. A flag for Unit Attrition - as a unit distances itself from cities/colonies/roads/etc, it loses hp, much as they do when subject to disease in jungle or floodplain terrain. This would open up strategies for building roads and colonies as supply lines to the front, and would eliminate the absurdity of a unit wandering for millenia across the epic map.
2. Sea Colonies - the ability to build colonies on coast/sea/ocean tiles, so as to exploit resources. This might require a flag stipulating that (all) colonies are NOT dependant upon roads being built to them, but simply ship off their colonized resource to the nearest city (or nearest city with a market or harbor). Alternately, implementing "sea lanes/roads" that must connect a sea colony to a city for the resource to be used. This might be even better, as it would allow for the "pillaging" of sea lanes by naval vessels. A sea colony, in the guise of a whaling/fishing fleet, would also be subject to attack by opponents, and make privateers that much more dangerous and realistic.
Some other ideas...
3. Sacking improvements - a flag that makes pillaging of improvements directly profitable. Every time you pillage somebodies cultivated countryside (irrigated tile) or road you have a choice to sack it (get some coin - as when a city is taken) rather than, or in addition to, completely destroying the improvement. This might make skirmishing, raiding, and semi-nomadic civs funner and more realistic.
4. Eliminate Cultural Groups (which are limited) and add more flavours (which seem better able to replicate that "grouping" function).
5. Allow a flavour to be government specific instead of Civ specific, allowing a civ to flow to other cultural directions dependent upon what social organization (government) is in place.
1. A flag for Unit Attrition - as a unit distances itself from cities/colonies/roads/etc, it loses hp, much as they do when subject to disease in jungle or floodplain terrain. This would open up strategies for building roads and colonies as supply lines to the front, and would eliminate the absurdity of a unit wandering for millenia across the epic map.
2. Sea Colonies - the ability to build colonies on coast/sea/ocean tiles, so as to exploit resources. This might require a flag stipulating that (all) colonies are NOT dependant upon roads being built to them, but simply ship off their colonized resource to the nearest city (or nearest city with a market or harbor). Alternately, implementing "sea lanes/roads" that must connect a sea colony to a city for the resource to be used. This might be even better, as it would allow for the "pillaging" of sea lanes by naval vessels. A sea colony, in the guise of a whaling/fishing fleet, would also be subject to attack by opponents, and make privateers that much more dangerous and realistic.
Some other ideas...
3. Sacking improvements - a flag that makes pillaging of improvements directly profitable. Every time you pillage somebodies cultivated countryside (irrigated tile) or road you have a choice to sack it (get some coin - as when a city is taken) rather than, or in addition to, completely destroying the improvement. This might make skirmishing, raiding, and semi-nomadic civs funner and more realistic.
4. Eliminate Cultural Groups (which are limited) and add more flavours (which seem better able to replicate that "grouping" function).
5. Allow a flavour to be government specific instead of Civ specific, allowing a civ to flow to other cultural directions dependent upon what social organization (government) is in place.
The Ancient and Medieval technology trees are very well designed. These ages offer a short branch that provides an advantage to the warmongerer (Monarchy and Cavalry), but the bulk of the ages' benefits come in the longer, "builder's" branches.
The Industrial Age does not provide such a choice. Builders and Warmongerers follow (or at least try to follow) the same predictable path: Steam Power, Scientific Method, Theory of Evolution, Hoover Dam, Tanks.
The Era becomes more fun and exciting if the prerequisite of Electronics is removed from Motorized Transportation.
If that were the case, the player would have to make a choice: do I go for Tanks as soon as possible, or do I build up my infrastructure with the Hoover Dam so I can produce tanks in greater numbers later? Do I spend my two free techs from the ToE on the expensive tech branch that leads to the Hoover Dam, or do I select the upper branch so I can be the first to Motorized Transportation?
You would get a similar choice as with the Middle Ages, except that the strategy would not be as extreme because cavalry can be upgraded from Horsemen, but you have to build tanks from scratch.
As it is now, I rarely use Tanks against an opponent who has Infantry, because Modern Armor is at most 5 techs away, and I need some time to build my tanks anyway. If Tanks don't need Electronics, it would give another choice: do I attack with Tanks, or do I wait for Modern Armor?
In a game such as Civ3, having alternative choices is good. In the Industrial Age, there is not much choice in terms of the research path. I hope BA and Firaxis will consider removing the Electronics prerequisite from Motorized transportation for the final patch.
The Industrial Age does not provide such a choice. Builders and Warmongerers follow (or at least try to follow) the same predictable path: Steam Power, Scientific Method, Theory of Evolution, Hoover Dam, Tanks.
The Era becomes more fun and exciting if the prerequisite of Electronics is removed from Motorized Transportation.
If that were the case, the player would have to make a choice: do I go for Tanks as soon as possible, or do I build up my infrastructure with the Hoover Dam so I can produce tanks in greater numbers later? Do I spend my two free techs from the ToE on the expensive tech branch that leads to the Hoover Dam, or do I select the upper branch so I can be the first to Motorized Transportation?
You would get a similar choice as with the Middle Ages, except that the strategy would not be as extreme because cavalry can be upgraded from Horsemen, but you have to build tanks from scratch.
As it is now, I rarely use Tanks against an opponent who has Infantry, because Modern Armor is at most 5 techs away, and I need some time to build my tanks anyway. If Tanks don't need Electronics, it would give another choice: do I attack with Tanks, or do I wait for Modern Armor?
In a game such as Civ3, having alternative choices is good. In the Industrial Age, there is not much choice in terms of the research path. I hope BA and Firaxis will consider removing the Electronics prerequisite from Motorized transportation for the final patch.
Give elite naval units the same GL-producing odds as their land brethren. A Naval Great Leader could either be a flag (literally and figuratively) attached to the elite unit giving every naval unit within two squares an x% combat bonus (and a vastly increased number of shields from a disband) or it could be exactly the same as a Military Great Leader, in that it will a seaborne unit that will either hurry production in the same way (coastal cities only) or be built into a Fleet in which you can put 3-4 naval units in.
