Exploration change

[mazra]

Hi All,

The one thing that bugs me the most about CIV 3 is that by the time you get Explorers, everything is already explored. The start of the game is the race to see which CIV can build the biggest empire the quickest. It makes the Oklahoma Land Grab look like a Sunday afternoon stroll in the park.

Here is a thought on fixing it. When a unit, including naval units, reveals any unexplored territory it is frozen in it's location for an extra turn, with the exception of Scouts and Explorer units; and in addition, Scouts must stop in it's square if any unexplored territory is revealed until the next turn. Explorers will not have the penalty, since that is what they were designed for to begin with. This extra time will simulate the CIV's time it takes to map and fully explore the area. Each square in the game represents a large area, and it takes time to fully explore those areas.

This will slow down the land grab.

What do you think?

Have a Blessed Day,

Mazra

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think the 'Operational Range' idea, if adopted, will help to alleviate the land grab problem. Even scouts and explorers will have an operational range, it will just be much higher than most ground units! Having their performance degrade, AND have a risk of losing HP, if they go too far from home base will help to keep most non-exploratory units close to home base-no more warriors going from France to China or Africa !
Your idea is a good one too, though, and would work effectively with or without the OR system I'm suggesting!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[GeZe]

or you could have a explore button on them and when you click it they go out and explore. you only get the map of the area when they return to one of your cities.

and another thing, you shouldn't be able to see areas outside of your unit range (no seeing areas that you have explored but that are covered with fog of war) before reaserching map making. this just makes more sense and slows down the land grab and map exploration.

 

[judgement]

I don't like the "explore button" idea- I like being able to control where my units go. Also, I think that slowing units down for a turn when they enter unexplored territory would add frustration, but not accomplish the intended goal, i.e., the entire map would probably still be explored by the time you got explorers. Most of the time I accumulate maps by trade rather than by personally exploring, anyway.

There's really two separate issues here: (1) the land grab at the beginning of the game, and (2) the "unrealism" of having the entire map known by 1000 BC (and the corresponding uselessness of the Explorer unit).

I think the first can only be addressed by decreasing the inherent advantages in large empires, especially for more "primitive" forms of government. Make it such that staying smaller but building better cities with more infrastructure and improvements early on is a viable alternative to pumping out as many settlers as possible.

I have two suggestions for addressing the second issure: (1) make the AI value maps more highly, so it costs you more to obtain them, and (2) give ancient ships some chance to sink if they even enter the wrong type of water (instead of just if the end their turn there). On many maps, the ability of galleys to safely cross several sea tiles (as long as they can make it to a coast tile by the end of the turn) makes it very easy to explore the entire world in the ancient age. Since explorers occur around the same time as ships that can safely cross seas and oceans, they (the explorers) would have a bigger role if you actually needed to wait until you got such ships before crossing seas and oceans. What I'm saying is, if galleys had a harder time crossing seas and oceans (and caravels a harder time with oceans) then when you eventually got galleons, frigates, and explorers, there might still be some unexplored continents out there, and the explorers would have something to do.

 

[warpstorm]

Conquests solved the issue if not knowing the entire map by not allowing early trading of maps. This forced you to do your own exploration. (Although about the time explorers became available, map-trading did also)

I do like the idea of ships sinking immediately. That would make it much riskier to try to cross the seas early.

I think Aussies operational range idea has some merit and would solve all sorts of gamey exploits.

 

[Mgoering]

Firstly, Explore button exists in Conquest. Although I don't like to use it (and subsequently don't), it is nice to keep (there are those who like it).

Secondly, the range of units is ok for me. When you are on a flat land, you see that it is flat for the next 10 miles or more and if there is a mountain after those 10 miles, you also see it though.

Third, about the naval units. Those indeed shouldn't be able to cross the oceans early on. Wait a minute ! It is the case in any version of the game !!! The big thing is, that if you have two big continents that are seperated anywhere by 4 ocean squares, you can cros there and get to draw the shape of it. But also can buy maps from the civs present, as you can contact them. So, in order to avoid this, continents shouldn't be seperated by less that 8 or 10 squares. You would have to wait till discovering Magnetism to travel the oceans. Then, up to you to decide if you discover Navigation before.

If it isn't possible to create that wideness between two cotinents, what would be interesting is to be able to build Explorers when you discover Map Making and the ability to build naval units. There those units will be usefull.

 

[Garbarsardar.jr]

I think the "operation range" by Aussie(where is the link?) should be expanded in all naval vessels before frigates, to reflect realistic dangers.For every succesfull exploration there were 10 failed ones...

 

[mazra]

Hi Everyone,

Thanks for your input.

The "Operational Range" idea has some merit, but there is a flaw. It would prevent sending military units with settlers across seas for colonization.

I agree that trading maps should either be more expensive or not allowed until later in the game.

Though it may be frustrating to begin with, slowing down movement into unexplored territories would help reduce the land grab, especially on the large continents.

Another thought, maybe to restrict the number of cities that a CIV can develop, until certain technologies are achieved.

Have a Blessed Day,

Mazra

 

[Jaca]

I have always been a fan of the introduction of an Operational Range (OR). I can only confirm here that it could solve all sorts of game exploits.

I'm also in for the idea of having a decent sinking chance for crossing sea and ocean squares if you haven't discovered the required techs (Astro and Magn./ Navig.) yet.

I would like to add - in the sidelines - the idea of having an extra terrain cover, "rough" sea or ocean (depicted by a wave or a couple of waves), offsetting the chance of sinking EVEN when you discovered the required techs to cross the seas or oceans safely. It might add a little strategic flavor in exploring and battle, but again, that's completely in the sidelines here.

Jaca

 

[Chieftess]

There is another use for explorers. Did you know that your scouts and explorers can pillage? Yep, they can! With 6 movement, they can go deep into AI territory (especially after the AI sends troops your way), and pillage vital resources and trade routes. Sort of like Special Ops.

 

[Garbarsardar.jr]

It would prevent sending military units with settlers across seas for colonization

No, but it would restrict the unchecked expansion. You could have a diminishing risk with the discovery of relevant techs...

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Also, Mazra, under the model I propose, ships would act as 'Supply Points' of a sort-in that units on board them would not suffer the degredation caused by being outside their OR.
However, ships would themselves have an OR, based on era, which would effect both the ship AND the units on board them!
I think this would still allow for overseas colonisations, but still force a player to consider the risk they are taking by sending units (naval or ground) to the far corners of the earth!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

One trick that I have used in civ3 to prevent cross-oceanic journeys (or at least make them VERY rare) is to give both sea and ocean squares a greater movement cost-2 and 3 respectively, if I remember. Galleys pay the full cost of movement, wheras the next ship up ignores the cost of sea movement and, finally, later ships ignore move costs for ALL terrain. Modern ships I have given the 'treat all terrain as roads' flag, and I have boosted the movement rates of all naval units across the board, and removed the sinking chance for early vessels (as this prevents the AI from attempting cross-ocean voyages, which I feel isn't right).
What this means, though, is that until the advent of navigation, passage of naval units across oceans is almost non-existent, but naval units are VERY good for both patrolling and fighting in coastal and sea regions. In the later game, naval units can actually keep pace with their ground-based counterparts, even after the invention of RR's!
Anyway, just some thoughts!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rcoutme]

@ Aussie Lurker: Great minds think alike. I do the exact same thing with my ships in my mods. This needs to be a standard practice for Civ4. It should even be considered for the final patch of Civ3 (although I seriously doubt that it will be). The only difference I would note is that the "All terrain as roads" portion will seriously screw up the tactical aspects of navies unless you use a large enough map. If my transports, carriers and cruisers can go all the way from (on a std earth map) NY City to Australia in one turn, there is no provision in Civ 3 (other than making a massive navy and stationing it so that all of Australia is ringed with lots of naval vessels per square) to stop me from invading in one turn by surprise. This is a little too unbalancing.

Thus, I tend to make sea and ocean cost more and do increase the speed of modern vessels, but I no longer give "All terrain as Roads". I simply make sea and ocean cost more and then let later vessels ignore the terrain cost.

 

[CiverDan]

This method is used in Galciv to attempt to slow colonization and exploration. I dont think it really works for Civilization though. I agree the increasing movement costs will cut down on suicide curraghs and galleys by human players. The idea of "sending 10 flimsy boats into no-mans land" doesnt have that much realism and is advantageous to the human player as well.

Regarding explorers, I would remove the pillaging ability from them. Real explorers were just looking for wealth and/or new lands and people. They weren't military and didnt go around trying to commit acts of war . Yes, a few did manage to get killed in the process, but that wasn't am act of war against nations.

One last thing, remove the "pillage roads" ability from ancient area units at least. unless u managed to block it with boulders or did it up somehow, dirt roads are a bit tough to pillage.

 

[Suki]

I don't like the "explore button" idea- I like being able to control where my units go.

what if you made it an area of effect ability, conceptually the unit releases subunits who explore for a few turns then bring back the info, in game this would be you tell the explorer to explore and two turns later you can see everything within 4 squares, or something like that.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Rcoutme.

I confess that I am still very much at the 'balancing' stage of the modding process, where I'm still trying to work out what works and what doesn't. My big beef is with trying to make modern naval vessels compete on equal terms with land units in the age of rail! A possible compromise would be to only allow the smaller naval vessels the 'all terrain as roads', but not let battleships and carries have this flag. Admitedly, you could still get your transports half way across the world but, without battleship and air-support, such an invasion would be almost SUICIDE!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[mazra]

Hi Everyone,

Thanks again for the great comments!

CIV II is my favorite game. The only problem is that I can beat the game's AI at "Diety" level everytime, and I am sure that the vast majority of the people responding on this board can do that too. The CIV II AI needed improvement. But, it was still alot of fun. "FUN" and addictive games without alot of frustrations are the best. Now CIV III is a beautiful game. The AI is vastly improved over CIV II, but....and there is always a but..... CIV III is just not as much "FUN" to play. It is still a great game, but the land grab AI, and other frustrating things, saps much of the fun in the game. There needs to be a balance between the two, and the answer may be in the AI. In CIV II there was almost always undeveloped islands or areas of the map by the end of the game. This is NEVER the case in CIV III. Maybe the answer is as simple as changing the CIV III AI at Chieftain level to be comparable to the AI in CIV II at Diety or Emperor level, and then it goes up from there.

I am not trying to impress myself or others, I will play the game at whatever difficulty level brings me the greatest enjoyment....period!

Have a Blessed Day,

Mazra