Civ3 with call to power
- Thread starter fwfessly
- Start date
Martin the Dane
Chieftain
Guess I'll add my few pennies worth of comments.
First I never really liked either civ3 or ctp2. But I almost completed a game once in ctp2, while I never came close in civ3. civ2 and ctp1 I simply loved.
What I like about ctp/ctp2 is:
Public works: I simply hate to have to move all those stupid workers around. I think however (as several others have also pointed out) that there is a place for workers. What I want is "army engineers" units that will let me use my pw outside my immediate area of control, or at the end of my road network.
Slavery: I also like the concept of capturing slaves. Not i real life but in the game. It is a fact of history (and of life in some parts of the world today).
Production: When production switches from one item to another, no production points should be carried over by default, the old item should remain partly completed. The player should then have the option of using some of the accumulated production points for something else at a cost. Ex. 100 pp from a building is converted to 50 pp for another building, or 20 pp for a unit.
Unit upkeep cost: Unit support should be civ wide, not home city based. The upkeep cost should depend on the government and number of cities, and the readiness level.
Readiness level: There should be some way of lowering the readiness level of troupes and thus their upkeep. The result should be lower attack ability and lower hitpoints.
First I never really liked either civ3 or ctp2. But I almost completed a game once in ctp2, while I never came close in civ3. civ2 and ctp1 I simply loved.
What I like about ctp/ctp2 is:
Public works: I simply hate to have to move all those stupid workers around. I think however (as several others have also pointed out) that there is a place for workers. What I want is "army engineers" units that will let me use my pw outside my immediate area of control, or at the end of my road network.
Only specifik units have the CanPirate attribute in ctp/ctp2, so there is no automatic piracy. I think however that when a route is pirated there should be a chance that the "trade unit" is lost as well as the cargo. The number of times a given route is attacked should increase the chance that the "trade unit" is lost.Aussie_Lurker said:
Slavery: I also like the concept of capturing slaves. Not i real life but in the game. It is a fact of history (and of life in some parts of the world today).
Production: When production switches from one item to another, no production points should be carried over by default, the old item should remain partly completed. The player should then have the option of using some of the accumulated production points for something else at a cost. Ex. 100 pp from a building is converted to 50 pp for another building, or 20 pp for a unit.
Unit upkeep cost: Unit support should be civ wide, not home city based. The upkeep cost should depend on the government and number of cities, and the readiness level.
Readiness level: There should be some way of lowering the readiness level of troupes and thus their upkeep. The result should be lower attack ability and lower hitpoints.
Mauer
Pompous Noble
The main thing that I miss is when a city started to riot too much that they would declare independance. Not culture flipping. A new civilization.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
You see, I DO love the Public Works System, but I also like elements of the Civ3 Worker system! This is why I proposed a compromise between the two systems.
Basically, your PW budget determines how many seperate terraforming projects you can undertake at any one time. The number of workers in the city acts as a seperate cap on the number of terraforming projects you can undertake AND how quickly you can complete specific project. Workers are NOT moved around, however, but are instead 'attached' to the city that built them. They can be 'traded' to other cities, though, via your trade route or sent to a central 'worker pool'-where they can perform jobs outside of an individual city's boundries.
Each city would have a 'Worker Pool' screen, where you determine how much food and money you are allocating to them (or not, in the case of slaves), and how 'Hard' you want to make them work (from 0.5x normal, up to 4x normal). The less support you give them and/or how hard you work them will determine the chance of your worker pool either dying or revolting against you. Lastly, any unfinished terraforming job whose square gets overrun by enemy forces will give you a % chance of losing the # of workers you have assigned to that job. For example, if you have assigned 4 workers to building a mine in the hills, and that hill gets overrun by the enemy, then you have a chance of losing 1-4 of your city's worker pool to that enemy!
This way, you have more control over HOW you treat your workers/slaves, but you don't have all of the micromanagement associated with a 'worker army'.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Basically, your PW budget determines how many seperate terraforming projects you can undertake at any one time. The number of workers in the city acts as a seperate cap on the number of terraforming projects you can undertake AND how quickly you can complete specific project. Workers are NOT moved around, however, but are instead 'attached' to the city that built them. They can be 'traded' to other cities, though, via your trade route or sent to a central 'worker pool'-where they can perform jobs outside of an individual city's boundries.
Each city would have a 'Worker Pool' screen, where you determine how much food and money you are allocating to them (or not, in the case of slaves), and how 'Hard' you want to make them work (from 0.5x normal, up to 4x normal). The less support you give them and/or how hard you work them will determine the chance of your worker pool either dying or revolting against you. Lastly, any unfinished terraforming job whose square gets overrun by enemy forces will give you a % chance of losing the # of workers you have assigned to that job. For example, if you have assigned 4 workers to building a mine in the hills, and that hill gets overrun by the enemy, then you have a chance of losing 1-4 of your city's worker pool to that enemy!
This way, you have more control over HOW you treat your workers/slaves, but you don't have all of the micromanagement associated with a 'worker army'.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Duke_of_BOOM!
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 26
Workers should be very rare units, used only in colossal infrastructure projects, they should genrate free improvements but also cost alot to maintain. Some good examples of town-city size worker infrastucture projects from history;
Trans Siberian Railway,
Trans Contenental Railway,
Gold/Silver Rushes,
Panama Canal,
Sueze Canal, (Etc. Etc.)
What would be even better is if worker units could be also sacrificed for shields on Wonders. It is silly to only have one city working on what where historically empire wide projects.
Trans Siberian Railway,
Trans Contenental Railway,
Gold/Silver Rushes,
Panama Canal,
Sueze Canal, (Etc. Etc.)
What would be even better is if worker units could be also sacrificed for shields on Wonders. It is silly to only have one city working on what where historically empire wide projects.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Well, thats where my system works best.
For instance, lets say a city is building 'The Pyramids'. You could move workers and/or slaves from other cities into that city, and then 'sacrifice' them for shields. This would work much like the 'pop rush' system, and would make you VERY unpopular-especially amongst your surviving workers/slaves. This would therefore make you more prone to a revolt and/or Civil War!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
For instance, lets say a city is building 'The Pyramids'. You could move workers and/or slaves from other cities into that city, and then 'sacrifice' them for shields. This would work much like the 'pop rush' system, and would make you VERY unpopular-especially amongst your surviving workers/slaves. This would therefore make you more prone to a revolt and/or Civil War!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Martin the Dane
Chieftain
Aussie_Lurker, why do you want to complicate things by adding workers to do local infrastructure projects. The whole point of the pw system is to remove/lower the micromanagement of infrastructure. What I want is no workers for local infrastructure. Worker units should be as DoB said expensive to maintain, but build improvements without drawing on the pw pool.
Wen it comes to wonders I think the player should be able to add a wonder-building-tax. To me it have always seemd absurd that a single city would build a wonder. In real life most large projects such as wonders have been undertaken by the state not the city or town where it is located. Pop-rushing is a stupid way of doing it, give os some nice way of douing things. Caravans worked nicely in civ2. It's ok to have the ability to sacrifice your workers (working them to death) on some projects, but don't let it be the only way of speeding up things.
Btw. is it cities4 or civ4 they are planing? There have never been much civilization over the civ games, ctp got closer on a few aspects but was still mostly cities working more or less independently. Move army upkeep and national infrastructure away from the cities and let the civ take care of it.
Another thing I like in ctp is the tax-rate, working-hours, and food-rations sliders. This way you have more control over your economy.
Wen it comes to wonders I think the player should be able to add a wonder-building-tax. To me it have always seemd absurd that a single city would build a wonder. In real life most large projects such as wonders have been undertaken by the state not the city or town where it is located. Pop-rushing is a stupid way of doing it, give os some nice way of douing things. Caravans worked nicely in civ2. It's ok to have the ability to sacrifice your workers (working them to death) on some projects, but don't let it be the only way of speeding up things.
Btw. is it cities4 or civ4 they are planing? There have never been much civilization over the civ games, ctp got closer on a few aspects but was still mostly cities working more or less independently. Move army upkeep and national infrastructure away from the cities and let the civ take care of it.
Another thing I like in ctp is the tax-rate, working-hours, and food-rations sliders. This way you have more control over your economy.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
I'm not trying to overcomplicate things. Basically when you choose an infrastructure project, you will be asked how many workers you want to assign to the project which, in turn, will determine how quickly the work gets done. The reason I'm suggesting this compromise is so that we can still properly reflect slavery within the game, whilst eliminating all of the uneccessary worker movement and micromanagement!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Mgoering
Chieftain
HO YEAH !!!
That was my second idea, but I wanted to see if it was already out. One of the disapointement that I had in Civ3 and its expensions, was the battles. The idea of a general battle gave CTP a very valuable concept and more realisme. Take an example.
You attack a city, defended with 6 Rifflemen, with 3 Tanks. It should take 1 turn to take that city, because you can attack twice with a tank and you attack 1 rifleman at time.
This gives army a bad concept : no unity. All 6 riflemen should defend against all 3 tanks. I really believe that this rule should be taken in Civ4.
Thanks.
That was my second idea, but I wanted to see if it was already out. One of the disapointement that I had in Civ3 and its expensions, was the battles. The idea of a general battle gave CTP a very valuable concept and more realisme. Take an example.
You attack a city, defended with 6 Rifflemen, with 3 Tanks. It should take 1 turn to take that city, because you can attack twice with a tank and you attack 1 rifleman at time.
This gives army a bad concept : no unity. All 6 riflemen should defend against all 3 tanks. I really believe that this rule should be taken in Civ4.
Thanks.
skycommando
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2003
- Messages
- 12
i agree that public works should be returned. it was a fantastic idea that allowed you plan what you wanted and where you wanted it without having to micromanage 20 workers.
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
I agree upon that CTP introduced some very good ideas to Civ-like games.
The combat system was much more logical than the current Civ3 system.
They way they handled the concept of slavery and abolition was just great! I really loved it (although there still would be room for improvement, as to where the slaves are going)
The public work system (in combination with some terra-forming) was great as well.
The concept of developing monopolies on certain ressources was another aspect, I loved (although here I for my person would see the most potential for improvement).
What I didn't like was the concept of the bureaucrats and lawyers... it was just tedious and the AI never got it.
But CTP holds quite some features worth to be incorporated into Civ4.
The combat system was much more logical than the current Civ3 system.
They way they handled the concept of slavery and abolition was just great! I really loved it (although there still would be room for improvement, as to where the slaves are going)
The public work system (in combination with some terra-forming) was great as well.
The concept of developing monopolies on certain ressources was another aspect, I loved (although here I for my person would see the most potential for improvement).
What I didn't like was the concept of the bureaucrats and lawyers... it was just tedious and the AI never got it.
But CTP holds quite some features worth to be incorporated into Civ4.
vesuvius_prime
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2004
- Messages
- 38
Ballazic said:
I couldn't have said it better myself. Hehehehehheh
Pariah
Outside Influence
If even a quarter of the suggestions made in the Civ4 Ideas sub-forum are incorporated into the finished game, it will be so detailed and engaging that deleting a game will seem criminal - like burning Carvaggios for fuel. Whether the various concepts are balanced in a way which appeals to everyone is another matter.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
You took the words right out of my mouth, Pariah-and vesuvius_prime and Ballazic !!
I recognise that many, if not as much as 60-70%, of the ideas that I have thrown up at these forums may not get taken up, in any form. If even 30% DO, though, then this has the makings of being the best game OF ALL TIME-or at least the greatest game since CivIII:Conquests
!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
!!I recognise that many, if not as much as 60-70%, of the ideas that I have thrown up at these forums may not get taken up, in any form. If even 30% DO, though, then this has the makings of being the best game OF ALL TIME-or at least the greatest game since CivIII:Conquests
!Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Pariah
Outside Influence
Anyone heard any news on a possible release date for Civ4? Maybe I should place an order. This is one game I hope to take up from the start, and thus have a chance to author one of the first few (dozen) modpacks...
Garbarsardar.jr
subtitled
I think that the idea that will really improve the balance of the game is rcoutme's
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=1877326#post1877326
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=1877326#post1877326
Pariah
Outside Influence
Yes, Rcoutme has been amazingly eloquent, thorough and thoughtful. But, again, there could be unforseen bugs and pitfalls with programming such a system. It would need a lot more testing before the game could be released.
Mgoering
Chieftain
The idea of production is great. I once had that in mind and told my brother in law. We came to the conclusion that it is more realistic.
Cause in real life, when build something (example a stadium), but decide to start something else during building, you start from 0 with this new building. When you decide to continue to build your stadium, it is still there. So, a switch in building should make you start from 0 with the new one and not loosing the built part of the first one.
But then, we can imagine, like my view of science, that you can allocate your production points to various buildings or units (if there are more than one). That will give the possibility to build a Temple and an Aqueduct at the same time and not be derranged by the "You should be building an Aqueduct in XXX to make it grow." screen.
Cause in real life, when build something (example a stadium), but decide to start something else during building, you start from 0 with this new building. When you decide to continue to build your stadium, it is still there. So, a switch in building should make you start from 0 with the new one and not loosing the built part of the first one.
But then, we can imagine, like my view of science, that you can allocate your production points to various buildings or units (if there are more than one). That will give the possibility to build a Temple and an Aqueduct at the same time and not be derranged by the "You should be building an Aqueduct in XXX to make it grow." screen.
Khift
Prince
How about having workers not being units (Civ3) or as a separate system (CCTP) but instead, using the actual population to build improvements?
That is, you look into the city screen, and instead of having one of those population citizens working a square for production or wealth or food, you set him to improve another square with a mine or irrigation or roads. Worker units would still exist, though, to be used in far-flung provinces to build roads and other improvements.
This would also require that food be more important and plentiful, so those large cities could still build improvements, and would add a little more realism to cities - extra food does not always translate into a larger population, it often translates into a larger administrative class or middle class.
Perhaps this is leading to another idea and another thread...
That is, you look into the city screen, and instead of having one of those population citizens working a square for production or wealth or food, you set him to improve another square with a mine or irrigation or roads. Worker units would still exist, though, to be used in far-flung provinces to build roads and other improvements.
This would also require that food be more important and plentiful, so those large cities could still build improvements, and would add a little more realism to cities - extra food does not always translate into a larger population, it often translates into a larger administrative class or middle class.
Perhaps this is leading to another idea and another thread...
Similar threads
