If I could make one change to CIV3..
- Thread starter Shad77
- Start date
TheOverseer714
Overseer
Easy enough to to. Corruption can be changed in the editor.
Northen Wolf
Young Hunter
Tanks beating all but archers and warriors 
ThinkTank
RL Addict
Eliminate production overrun.
Calis
on time
seconded. That would save a lot of MMing...
Boss Tweed
Warlord
if adding another patch counts, I'd do that. I'd like all those little bugs (e.g.-scientific leader) fixed
Crowqueen
Token forum woman
Thirded. They fixed it in Civ IV though.
A lot of the stuff I find irritating in Civ III was fixed in Civ IV, so as someone who plays that as well Civ III is not as bad knowing that they fixed issues like the AI throwing wobblies when you kick them out of your territory yet not allowing a single encroachment into theirs. The border system in Civ IV is much better.
I get annoyed when a ship strays into sea or ocean and sinks - but again, it was fixed in Civ IV where there are only two tiers of water tile (coast or sea) and a galley or trireme cannot enter the wrong sort of water at all.
I can't think of anything that irks me in Civ III that wasn't fixed in IV but I'm sure it will come to me.
.
TheOverseer714
Overseer
Delaware Ohio? No kidding? We are practically neighbors....
Eliminating production overrun sounds like it would make things more sensible and perhaps easier... however...
I have feeling even Moonsinger, Kuningas, and SirPleb would have to then go back to playing Emperor or Demi-God... if not lower. I mean, how much inefficient overrun does the AI have on all of its buildings and units, while the human player (can) plays far more efficiently?
I have feeling even Moonsinger, Kuningas, and SirPleb would have to then go back to playing Emperor or Demi-God... if not lower. I mean, how much inefficient overrun does the AI have on all of its buildings and units, while the human player (can) plays far more efficiently?
Sweetchuck
King
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2006
- Messages
- 649
Put the AI on the same level that the player is on, so the AI doesn't know:
a) Where the resources are until it researches them.
b) What your least defended city is.
c) Where your workers/units are beyond the fog.
d) Where your settler is going if you auto-move it.
e) What you are researching and how many turns you have left to get it.
a) Where the resources are until it researches them.
b) What your least defended city is.
c) Where your workers/units are beyond the fog.
d) Where your settler is going if you auto-move it.
e) What you are researching and how many turns you have left to get it.
If the AI still plays the same, the game might be more difficult, but as winnable. If the AI continues to ignore armies, for example, it doesn't matter how many units they have outside their cities. I can see the AI running into unit support issues even earlier than it already does. The game has been beaten with an AI cost factor of lower than the .4 factor for Sid level, and that increases AI builds more than eliminating overrun would.
Chamnix said:
I agree choking on unit support *might* happen faster. I really don't feel so sure that lowering the cost factor to .1 as Bamspeedy did, would increase AI builds even more. If we have no overrun, then any extra food stays in the box when a city grows. Bamspeedy also played on a map with a lot of ugly territory... a cool, arid, 3 billion 80% archipelago map. No overrun on Sid on a 60% wet, warm, 5 billion map sounds like the AIs will kill each others units fairly quickly to alleviate their unit support problems to me. Unless you know of examples where the best AIs have had unit support problems on such maps? With no overrun, they'll grow faster, so faster research for them, and probably go to war faster also... so a monster AI would appear earlier. That would seem to imply the AI getting bombers faster... at which point your armies have trouble unless you have air defense (bombers didn't appear in Bamspeedy's Beyond Sid game). Arties would still work just as well, I suppose. And the AI would still play just as stupidly, so I think such doable... but I still expect for a map with decent territory, and the AIs having the ability to contact and take each others territory, no overrun would make things harder than a game of Bamspeedy's type. The 100k problem also becomes more pronounced since temples and libraries would appear faster and thus have more years at double culture.
Zed-F had an interesting comment on Bamspeedy's game
Zed-F said:
Probably the simplest way to make the upper levels more difficult would come as to put Bombers at Military Tradition or the Military Academy at Flight while taking out Fighters, Flaks, and SAMs. One could still win with arties... especially artillery proper and combat settlers... but that would change game dynamics quite a bit, I'll guess.
Which will grow faster - a city that needs 2 food to grow, or a city that needs 8 food to grow, but any food in excess of 8 will be kept in the bin?templar_x
usually walks his talks
improve the AIs attacking habits:
- have them attack armies if they have the overall power to do so (of their troops available).
- have them move strategically at least within one turn (fast movers first, slow movers second)
- active bombardment within the concept of combined arms
although i, too, feel that the production overflow system is annoying, this is sth i can take influence on - via micromanaging. but the AI military behaviour is uninfluentiable to me and would be my choice to improve where it sucks.
- have them attack armies if they have the overall power to do so (of their troops available).
- have them move strategically at least within one turn (fast movers first, slow movers second)
- active bombardment within the concept of combined arms
although i, too, feel that the production overflow system is annoying, this is sth i can take influence on - via micromanaging. but the AI military behaviour is uninfluentiable to me and would be my choice to improve where it sucks.
i'd make culture flips critical to gaming strategy, by ...
1) eliminate razing and abandoning
2) make culture flip chances independent of size, so starving cities does no good
3) deceased civs can still get favorable culture flips
4) make culture flips common enough that it is impossible to hold on to large numbers of foreign cities without a favorable culture ratio. granted that sweeps through enemy territory may still be made to destroy all those culture buildings.
then, culture might actually become an important aspect of the game.
1) eliminate razing and abandoning
2) make culture flip chances independent of size, so starving cities does no good
3) deceased civs can still get favorable culture flips
4) make culture flips common enough that it is impossible to hold on to large numbers of foreign cities without a favorable culture ratio. granted that sweeps through enemy territory may still be made to destroy all those culture buildings.
then, culture might actually become an important aspect of the game.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,316
Civ3 Vanilla actually doesn't have abandoning. But the AI doesn't use it anyway.
I feel culture is important enough. You don't want it to be the most powerful force in the game. Try conquering a culturally adept neighbor as a backwater, uncouth civilization. You get a lot of culture flip problems. At some point it becomes worth it to build up your own culture just to stop the incessant revolts.
Having played Rhye's and Fall of Civilization for Civ4, I'm not sure I like the concept of deceased civilizations being able to come back at all. It really didn't seem to add to the fun of the game when I played with it in RFC. It added a bit of extra balancing to do, but it wasn't necessarily what I'd consider fun.
I also object to point #4. Do you really have to have the superior culture to be victorious? Sure, it helps (and Civ3 recognizes this), but it's certainly not mandatory. Look at the fall of the Roman Empire. Did the barbarians have some sort of cultural superiority? Maybe a less decadent, corrupt society, but I wouldn't say more cultured. Did culture help the Japanese control China in the 1930's? Definitely not! But the barbarians overcame Rome and came to rule its former empire, and the Japanese were able to stay in China quite awhile despite the cultural canyon.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd like to see the AI sensibly use armies. As it is now, they're just a huge advantage for the human. Would the AI use them well (in Vanilla and PTW they use them poorly, in Conquests not at all), they'd actually be an interesting part of the game and it wouldn't feel cheap using them.
Chamnix said:
True. Cities grow faster with a .1 production rate compared to a .4 production rate even with overrun for the .4 production rate, but the AI doesn't use the luxury slider, so production might still favor the overrun situation, since once cities hit size 12, the overrun situation makes things worse... so that might come as the determining facor. Also, if we compare a .3 situation to a .4 situation... i.e. 8 food with overrun allowed vs. 6 food without overrun allows, then a city with 5 extra food grows from size 1 to size 2 in 2 turns, to size 3 on the 4th turn, to size 4 on the 5th turn, to size 5 on the 7th turn, to size 6 on the 9th turn, and to size 7 on the 10th turn... while the city with 6 food needed without overrun and 5 extra food takes 12 turns to get to size 7.
Quintillus said:
I doubt it. The top three Sid histographpic games played capture and keep. No doubt, their tribes qualifies as "backwater" and "uncouth".
Similar threads
