F^4 - As a GOTM Player, what Civ Feature would you remove?

[CruddyLeper]

Agree totally with you Smirk on the land issue. It's kind of silly to limit each city to a 2 hex radius from 4000BC to current date.

I think Firaxis did a streamlining job on Civ3, making it as simple as possible. Only thing I would remove is limitations on map size.

 

[Ronald]

All features which bring too much luck into the game:

1) Great leaders (I liked the caravans in civ2 much more to rush wonders because they at least needed some planning)

2) Galleys surviving on ocean squares

3) free palace jump (probably a never intended exploit)

4) donating cities to the AI

 

[JonathanValjean]

I would like to see the AI programmed to understand how to use artillery. At that phase of the game, the AI is pitifully disadvantaged. So, I guess I don't really want to see anything removed, just something improved...

 

[drewshark]

I guess I agree with valjean in the fact that the AI, while improving could be much better. I'd like wars to not be as predictable as far as 3 dumb archers coming after my fortified musketmen with 2 knights ready to clean them up. Besides that, I think all games will have exploits that as long as they are agreed upon to be ok, are ok with me.

 

[Qitai]

I would change the wasted shield/food on production/growth feature. It should cascade to the next production or pop rather than going to waste. This is what makes city micromanagement a necessity in order to do well. Excess food/shield should cascade to next production/pop! If they worry about using this cascade to get an immediate great wonder, they just need to add in an additional logic which says cascade excess cannot be in excess of current production shield requirement.

Also, the fix on size 6/7 growth bug wasn't good. It goes from being a bug that can be exploit to an absolute losing deal if you go from size 7 to size 6, which I am avoiding as much as possible.

 

[runifoc]

Originally posted by scubagtr
2nd choice - Corruption - also very annoying. Los Angeles seems to be doing just fine, way over there away from DC.

I think the corruption in DC is a little higher than in LA.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by Ronald
2) Galleys surviving on ocean squares

Oh, I agree with Ronald. I forgot about this when I posted earlier. My #1 change would be galleys always sink in sea or ocean: no more suicide galleys. Just because it's silly that the human can do this and the computer players can't. Also creates quite an incentive to cheat (although most of us can resist that).

 

[Bamspeedy]

I don't know about removing, but perhaps having some extra things that are possible to change in the editor if so desired.

1. You can only get leaders after you acquire a certain tech. In the default game, there would be no tech requirement, but if for a competition game or something, you could set it so you can't get any leaders until you learn Fuedalism (just as an example), or some other tech in the middle ages.
Imagine an always war game where you already know you can't get a leader for the Great Libary
2. On/off switch for whether or not suicide galleys are possible.
3. Set goody hut results to always produce the same thing, no matter when you pop them (exactly which tech you get if awarded one, would of course vary depending on what techs you have, though).

 

[DaveMcW]

Originally posted by Ronald
1) Great leaders (I liked the caravans in civ2 much more to rush wonders because they at least needed some planning)

3) free palace jump (probably a never intended exploit)

I agree, but only if BOTH are removed. Free palace jump is a planning-based alternative to the lucky early leader.

 

[samildanach]

I would like to see infantry removed. Industrial age combat often results in large stack of cavalry, huge stack of artillery,pounding cities down to below size seven and redlining the infantry guarding them -cavalry then waltzes in. Then again and again and again.
Failing that I would like to see more industrial age UUs. From reading what people have said in other threads about their favourite age of the game-they seem to like the ancient and then the middle ages the best. I think that they like these because of the UUs that come into play and the military mismatches they can achieve without having to resort to the artillery stack. Warfare is also more interesting as you have to plan for meeting particular AI UUs in combat.

 

[CdB]

Originally posted by DaviddesJ
Just because it's silly that the human can do this and the computer players can't.

I am not sure about that I am quite sure I have seen an AI American Galley crossing the ocean and surviving.

 

[CdB]

I agree with jeff and Smirk on ships. This issue is even more appaling when arise Steam Power. you can travel accross continents in seconds but still ships are sailing ...sailing for ages. It just rebuff me of using them.

 

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by CdB


I am not sure about that I am quite sure I have seen an AI American Galley crossing the ocean and surviving.

After the AI gets Navigation or Magnetism all ships, including galleys, can safely traverse ocean tiles. But they will never use suicide galleys.

 

[DaveShack]

These ideas will probably sound a little weird, but here goes. They could be seen as either additions or subtractions depending on your point of view.

Barbs should capture workers and settlers and send them back to a camp before killing them, instead of killing them immediately. This would allow a player (or an AI) to recapture them.

It should be possible to capture a GL. This would add some interesting counterattack scenarios, especially when playing a non-militaristic civ against militaristic AI. It would make losing a GL even more painful, adding to the importance of protecting them.

Ships which are in port when a city is captured should be captured, not destroyed. Same goes for airplanes.

Auto razing a city should result in a worker being generated. The 1 pop needs to go somewhere.

It should be possible to join two workers into a settler. Alternatively have the 1st one build a colony and the 2nd one turn the colony into a town. Another alternative would be to "upgrade" a worker to a settler in a city by using up the worker, gold to equal the settler's shields, and one pop.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Originally posted by d8575

It should be possible to join two workers into a settler. Alternatively have the 1st one build a colony and the 2nd one turn the colony into a town. Another alternative would be to "upgrade" a worker to a settler in a city by using up the worker, gold to equal the settler's shields, and one pop.

Then why would anyone build a 30 shield settler, when they can effectively get a 20 shield settler by building 2 workers?

I kind of like the other ideas, though. (Ships and planes would probably have to be destroyed though, if you didn't have the tech requirements to know how to use them-similar to how scouts can either be destroyed or captured depending if you are expansionists (can build your own scouts) or not.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by CruddyLeper
Agree totally with you Smirk on the land issue. It's kind of silly to limit each city to a 2 hex radius from 4000BC to current date.

If you're looking for some sort of historical versimilitude, it's kind of silly to expect cities in the industrial (or modern) era to generate enough food to feed themselves.

But that's not really what Civ is about.

 

[bigchief]

I think you ought to be able to build a forbidden palace for EVERY 8 citys. My complete distaste for corruption and waste keeps me from expanding when I need to.

And war weariness should be calculated on how you are doing in the war. If you are winning big the population should be cheering you on, and if you are in a stalemate or losing they should turn on you.

 

[Naboo]

The one thing I'd get rid of is the annoying way the Foreign Advisor works during trade negotiations. You're not negotiating with the AI, you're playing 20 questions with the FA.

Hmm.. offer 120 gold.. "Oh, I doubt they'd accept...". Okay, 140 gold "We're getting close..." 150? "getting close" 160? "getting close" A HUNDRED AND FLIPPIN' SEVENTY?? "getting close..." Ackk! 180?, oh that's acceptable. Now we gotta do a binary search between 180 and 170 to get the best deal

This isn't negotiating! We haven't even made an offer to the AI yet! We're "negotiating" with the FA, but not really. The FA KNOWS the threshold, but he plays hard-to-guess. I get the feeling that he's really in the service of the AI. I despise him :vampire:

The true negotiation is between you and Civ3 - how much real time are you willing to waste with a boring and repetitive task in order to maximize your profit? There is no skill involved at all, just a mindless zeroing in on a value that the FA knows all along. And how does he know??.

And, how ridiculous is it that the FA knows things like whether the AI has a positive cash flow? Joan, how about you give me 1 gold per turn for Iron? FA: "Oh, they'd NEVER do that"!! [punch]

 

[RufRydyr]

where to begin??

Get rid of waste/corruption!

Allow more than 1 leader at a time.

Let all units use airports.



I could go on and on....

 

[gozpel]

Get rid of the stupid penalty you get when someone else pillage a traderoute. Why should everyone hate you for something you didn't do in the first place. Or at least set a turnlimit of the "hate"!