How to make your game more historicly acurate

[El Justo]

Is it just me, or is this starting to get

no, it is you. 7ronin's suggestion as well as mine was completely on-topic. it was asked what types of UUs would be good to add in. pay attention...

just b/c you may not like what is posted doesn't mean that it's OT.

 

[adog]

I thought up of two things, but they couldn't be done in the editor, but I'm going to say them anyway.

1. By making tiles closer to the north and south poles bigger. Earth is a sphere, not a cylinder.
2. By making it so Nuclear Plants can meltdown when a city isn't in disorder, but have a much lower chance of doing so.

Regarding #2, nuclear plants can meltdown when a city isn't in disorder. Not sure where you heard otherwise.

 

[choxorn]

@adog: they can??? Is this something from one of the patches?
@Justo: My point was that this thread is starting to get off-topic. Mainly, FascistRepublic's suggestions.

 

[Turner]

How so? He's asking about improvements on the game. I haven't seen anything to suggest that it's going off topic.

 

[adog]

@adog: they can??? Is this something from one of the patches?
@Justo: My point was that this thread is starting to get off-topic. Mainly, FascistRepublic's suggestions.

Not sure, I have complete and I've had it happen several times.

 

[choxorn]

Okay, maybe not off-topic, but boring, yes. And I implied that it was only starting to get off topic, not that it was.

 

[El Justo]

bah! enough already!

what do you all think of each civ having a UU infantry-type unit? for example, a Persian Rifleman, a British Rifleman, french Rifleman, etc, etc.

is this too excessive for your tastes? or does is strike you as not only being more historically accurate but better for game play?

sound off!!

 

[Plotinus]

Well, why would it be more (a) historically accurate and (b) better for gameplay than giving each civ another kind of UU unit? I mean, why 30+ different kinds of Infantry rather than 30+ kinds of Medieval Infantry, for example?

 

[El Justo]

Well, why would it be more (a) historically accurate and (b) better for gameplay than giving each civ another kind of UU unit? I mean, why 30+ different kinds of Infantry rather than 30+ kinds of Medieval Infantry, for example?

what's the difference?

i was simply using the Riflemen as an example. it could be applicable to any type of foot unit.

is it your 'bag'? or is it too excessive?

 

[Marsden]

I think you might be drifting from Civ to a strategic war game. Not that it sounds bad, just not what Civ is.

I doubt anyone remembers this but about 20 years ago I used to love a game called Colonial Conquest. It had 2 scenarios, one starting 1880 and one starting 1914. There was 6 playable empires: USA, France, UK, Russia,Germany, and Japan. The reason I'm mentioning all of this is there were only 2 units, troops and ships, but each empire paid a different price for each and they were not all equal in strength. Russia had the worst troops, but they were cheapest. The English had the best troops and ships, but their troops were the most expensive, but their ships were relatively cheap. Others were somewhere between. What your proposing reminded me about this.

It was purely a war game. Civ is a lot more than a war game.

 

[choxorn]

Maybe 2 UU's per civ wouldn't hurt. I personally think a good second UU for the Vikings would be a longboat, which would replace a Galley (or maybe a Caravel). And America's UU totally sucks, so they could use a better one.

 

[FascistRepublic]

Ok two suggestios:

1. Should Civs get two UU's? like this

Muinetman, for america, 2/4/2 musketman, same cost, no ablitys.

2.Should Choxorn leave if i'm boring him?

 

[T.A JONES]

You know whats crazy I saw this thread and was going to add that I believed they should add natural desasters that kill or destroy. a few days later Im playing COnquests and a volcano swallowed up my scout. I even heard they can cover up towns like Pompai! No thats realesti. Its not taking things to far, nicly balanced. I like that.

I wish they had a feature that captured those darn tresspassers after a few warnings. They should be confiscated our taken prisiner and held for a small fee pending negotion from embassy offiacials. No cash? to Bad they become part of state property,
it strenghtens the borders more without actually blocking entry like Civ4 does

 

[Turner]

2.Should Choxorn leave if i'm boring him?

Moderator Action: I'll answer that one once and for all. No one else needs to answer it. He has as much right to be here as you do.

Back to the thread, I think I could live with two UUs for each civ. OTOH, I'm okay with the one that it is now. If it was done right, then it would be pretty cool. Unfortunately, I don't know what Done Right is. But that's why we suggest and debate it.

As for each civ having an unique Infantry unit, that's too much. But Rise And Rule has a different outlook on it. Each culture group can have it's own flavor unit. So everyone in the Asian Culture Group gets an Asian Infantry (or whatever it's called), and the others get their own. But the units aren't unique. They can't start a GA, and they all have the same stats.

 

[Plotinus]

I think you might be drifting from Civ to a strategic war game. Not that it sounds bad, just not what Civ is.

I agree with this. There's no need to flavour the units that much, especially given that Civ III's combat system is fairly primitive anyway. It just wouldn't make much difference, and there wouldn't be much point, because Civ isn't a wargame, or at least it shouldn't be.

Two UUs per civ, though, is quite a nice idea and works pretty well. I think there are several mods that do this already.

 

[choxorn]

This isn't really boring, but there doesn't seem to be much more we could do (in the editor) to make the game more historically accurate without changing the game too much. But I will leave if this gets boring and/or off-topic, and it's starting to.

 

[Plotinus]

I don't see what's either off topic or incipiently off topic about it. Aren't we talking about ideas that might make the game more "historicly acurate"?

 

[choxorn]

Guys, can we please stop talking about being off-topic and/or boring? It's what's starting to make the thread OT and boring. If this discussion continues, we can't talk about being historically acurate.

 

[El Justo]

I think you might be drifting from Civ to a strategic war game. Not that it sounds bad, just not what Civ is.

I doubt anyone remembers this but about 20 years ago I used to love a game called Colonial Conquest. It had 2 scenarios, one starting 1880 and one starting 1914. There was 6 playable empires: USA, France, UK, Russia,Germany, and Japan. The reason I'm mentioning all of this is there were only 2 units, troops and ships, but each empire paid a different price for each and they were not all equal in strength. Russia had the worst troops, but they were cheapest. The English had the best troops and ships, but their troops were the most expensive, but their ships were relatively cheap. Others were somewhere between. What your proposing reminded me about this.

It was purely a war game. Civ is a lot more than a war game.

umm...no.

adding in infantry-type units for each civ does not constitute a switch over to a war mongering game. i don't buy this argument.

i do agree, however, that civ3 isn't a pure war game. although the point i'm trying to make is that adding in these extra infantry units simply adds historical values into the equation. why on earth should a Rifleman unit built by the Dutch have the same A/D values as one that was built by Germany? it just isn't historically correct imo.

sure, it adds some layers of depth into the mod/scenario. however, if i want a dumbed down civ expericnce, i'll fire up civ4.

someone else posted that the civ3 game mechanics aren't set up to handle this type of arrangment. again, this is completely false. there are a wide array of features that can be differentiated such as Attack values, Defense values, HP bonuses, movement points, shield costs, and terrain movement bonuses to name a few.

trust me on this...i've spent more time in front of xl spreadsheets w/ unit stats and the editor opened up than i'd like to admit. and honestly, the bottom line w/ this is how the AI handles it all and how it affects game-play.

i think what isn't fully understood w/ this method is that fact just b/c there's extra units added in that it's automatically assumed that a scenario/mod w/ these settings would be geared exclusively towards warfare. this just isn't true. this is only scratching the surface...i mean, what of govt types, city improvements and wonders, other combat units, specific UUs that can triger a golden age, etc, etc?

don't get me wrong - i'm not trying to pimp this method or even say that it is better than the stripped down/bare bones format of the default civ3/ptw/conquests unit lines. after all, this method works for a lot of people (not me though). what i'm getting at is that it is indeed possible to add in extra layers to the civ3 model and i will bet the ranch that it'll work and that the AI will handle it and use it properly.

to each their own i say...but don't try telling me that it won't work or that it'll slant the game towards war mongering b/c it simply isn't true.

 

[FascistRepublic]

Heress the list I have so far:

Minuteman, for america, 2/4/2 musketman, same cost, no ablitys.
U-Boat, for Germany, 24/12/5 8/2/2 battleship, 40 more sheilds, colateral damage.
Redcoat, for England, 5/5/1 Rilfelman, 10 less sheilds, no abilitys.
Tomahawker, for Iriqoius, 2/3/1 Pikeman, 10 more sheilds, no iron required.
Gothic Kinght, for Celts, 4/4/1 Midevil infatry, 20 more sheilds, no ablitys.
Longboat, For Vikings, 2/1/3 galley, 20 more shields, can carry 4 units instead of 2.
Ninja, for Japan, 4/2/2 Midevil Infantry, 20 more shields, no iron required/all terrian as grassland.
Explorer's Barge, 1/3/5 Galleon, same cost, no abilitys.

To be updated.