Open Letter to Firaxis

[mrt144]

In that case, I second the ability to allow air units to sink ships. Also bulking up air vs. navy aspect.

Also, bring in more units that don't require a resource - or make iron not be such a monopoly on military production for units. As it stands, Iron is all you need until oil, then you need both, or oil+aluminum. Not having iron, means you don't get to build most units in the game. Crossbows should be without iron IMO.

If you want iron, go grab it.

 

[Jet]

If you want iron, go grab it.

Period!

 

[King Flevance]

ROFL.

As to "go grab it", you are missing the entire point. The point is iron is required for most units in the ENTIRE game. It is the most important military resource due to the fact that it allows acces to the majority of the units in the game. This is NOT balanced. Supposedly you aren't required to go to war in the game but you are if you don't have iron because you won't get any new unit for 2 eras! This is not balanced, and saying "go get it" doesn't add balance. It is just a railroaded way to get it.

If you do not have iron, you won't have the city raiding units (swords/maces) or their counter the crossbows. I don't have a list ready for all the units it doesn't allow but I do know it is most. It makes no sense to have crossbows require iron, as they are an important counter unit. Without Iron, your strongest unit you will have until gunpowder is a 6 str. WHich will be the horse archer that is easily countered by a simple spear from the ancient age. Or 5 str axes, which will be slaughter by anyone but iron due to maces, crossbows, or really even pikes, or knights.

In addition, I don't really have many games at all where I don't get iron. Even when that rare scenario happens, I have no problem taking an AI city. But my point is, it shouldn't be the way it is now. Iron is a huge boost to someone without it, it should be toned down. The game stresses that oil is important... and it is, but you can still wage effective warfare without it to gain it. I actually value aluminum over oil.

 

[gettingfat]

If you want iron, go grab it.

I'm pretty sure my friendly neighbour will ship it to me on his steel transports.

 

[MRM]

ROFL.

As to "go grab it", you are missing the entire point. The point is iron is required for most units in the ENTIRE game. It is the most important military resource due to the fact that it allows acces to the majority of the units in the game. This is NOT balanced. Supposedly you aren't required to go to war in the game but you are if you don't have iron because you won't get any new unit for 2 eras! This is not balanced, and saying "go get it" doesn't add balance. It is just a railroaded way to get it.

Try stacks of catapults with longbow archers. This way you can conquere cities from weaker ( unpreapared ) opponents.

 

[eldar]

You only need copper for Macemen, not Iron.

 

[King Flevance]

Try stacks of catapults with longbow archers. This way you can conquere cities from weaker ( unpreapared ) opponents.

Yeah, I understand what your saying and is really your only way to fight back. But bolded that part that shows that this is unbalanced. Even using this system though you must prey on the weakest of the bunch because of 1 resource. If you are boxed in by one of the stronger civs, you are stuck. Especially if the closest iron deposit is on the other side of their empire. Or at least 3 cities deep.

You only need copper for Macemen, not Iron.

This must have came in from a patch post-warlords. I have Vanilla 1.61 currently. And they also require Iron.

 

[mrt144]

Yeah, I understand what your saying and is really your only way to fight back. But bolded that part that shows that this is unbalanced. Even using this system though you must prey on the weakest of the bunch because of 1 resource. If you are boxed in by one of the stronger civs, you are stuck. Especially if the closest iron deposit is on the other side of their empire. Or at least 3 cities deep.


This must have came in from a patch post-warlords. I have Vanilla 1.61 currently. And they also require Iron.

not all games are to be won. I think that unbalancing and then retrying to balance is ridiculous. Its so much work for what? units that dont require resources?

 

[King Flevance]

Well, for one, if they made maces require copper only, then Firaxis started spotting this unbalance as well and acted on it.

Second, it is poor planning to have a resource gift that much power in a strategy game. Because it turns the strategy into 'get that resource'. Which then it is no longer strategy, it is formula. MANY RTS's run into this problem.

Its so much work for what? units that dont require resources?

No, proper balance.

 

[scooter]

We love this stuff, keep it coming. The lead designer on BTS (Alex) was an avid Civ fan long before he came to us at Firaxis, so don't think for a second that this input doesn't matter.

Wow, that's always really nice to hear that they are listening to input.

 

[Newbunkle]

Well, if they're listening, then...

1. Roads look ugly - great big dirty brown streaks across the map. They should be changed to blend in a little more/be less offensive to the eyes.

2. In small battles the effects of promotions can be interesting, but when you have huge forces on both sides, it feels like doing maths homework.

3. Please include an option in BtS that allows us to choose which version of the title screen/theme music we'd like to see on start-up.

4. A fancy new map editor would be sweet, with lots of different design tools and special effects.

lol

 

[scooter]

I'll add my name to the end of the "better map editor please" petition, although if they haven't been working on this already it'd probably be too late, but it's worth a shot.

 

[Horizons]

I don't mind if only unique units are 'ethnically diverse'. I don't have a colour fetish like almost all other university-educated (brainwashed) people do.

 

[Dutch Canuck]

... Also, bring in more units that don't require a resource - or make iron not be such a monopoly on military production for units. As it stands, Iron is all you need until oil, then you need both, or oil+aluminum. Not having iron, means you don't get to build most units in the game. Crossbows should be without iron IMO.

I agree that resource dependency may be a tad strict in some situations; but it seems to me to be question of degree and one's playing preferences. How about if there was a way to "click" a game set-up option where the importance of resources varies in some manner? Although that could be causing more technical problems for multiplayer...

I do agree that in the particular case of Crossbowmen, they shouldn't require iron.

Cheers to the dev guys, like dshirk, watching this thread!

 

[scooter]

Here's a few more things that came to mind (as I was playing Civ the other night)

1. War weariness... it's out of control, it just escalates way too fast. It seems to be triggered by capturing a city (a good thing) rather than your units dying (being realistic too, many Americans get more and more tired of the situation in the middle east because of the casualty numbers, not the successes). Also, I don't understand why there is war weariness in an Always War game... That just doesn't make sense to me, I know it's less than a normal game, but it shouldn't even be in an Always War game (if you don't want to knock it out completely, at least make it possible to get rid of, an option to turn it off in AW games would be great!)

2. Counter-offer on "aid us in war" demand. In other words, they say "will you come help us in X war", and you say, "I'll do it if you give me horseback riding." The AI doesn't help you in war very often unless you give them techs/gold, it should be the same for you. I know this might be somewhat tricky to implement since how do you handle diplomacy modifiers, but maybe something like +2 or 3 if you go agree for free, or just +1 if you go to war for a price. This two things are probably at the top of my list of little irritations in the game, although this game does have a surprisingly small amount of annoying features I might add, overall great work on the game and I'm excited about what will happen with BTS!

 

[gettingfat]

In case Firaxis really pays attention, a couple more points re. barbarian:

I understand some players enjoy barbarian activities. They even love raging barbarians. However, I think many players are also like me -- love some degree of barbarian activities that result in an increase in game variation/randomness and therefore create more fun for the players in early game. I don't believe they are included to restrict the early game strategy.

However, at higher difficulty levels (emperor and above, sometimes monarch in larger maps), barbarian/animals can become more than a nuisance. The main issue is, the AIs have all those huge bonuses vs the barbarians/animals (I just saw how an AI scout won a battle vs the barbarian archer, with only a loss of 0.3 strength last night), and they were given an archer to start with, and they expand much faster as well. On the other hand, human players generally start with a pathetic warrior. So often my warrior was killed in the first 20 rounds by those bears and panthers, which popped up so early in higher levels.

To make it worse, the goodie huts generate negative outcomes so often if you don't use scouts. Without a scout, popping a goodie is like taking a poison pill -- you may quite likely pop hostile barbs or if you leave it, the AIs will pop another tech. We know, AIs are given scouts, so as if they don't have enough early bonuses, they usually have a couple more techs and a hundred more pieces of gold than the human players because of that. That's just crazy.

So it basically comes down to one solution -- research hunting and archery early (hoping for copper or horses popped up in the map next to your first city IMHO is highly unreliable), then bronze work almost ASAP for whipping/chopping. I know, I know, people will tell me I need to adjust. My point is, if a game forces player to go a certain route at a higher level, it is not a well designed game.

Add a few more levels of barbarian activities, instead of only 3 levels (no, standard, or raging). Give more choices for players who like some barbarian activity but not too much.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Okay, I'll bite. Here's a wee listy from me (in no order of importance) for expansions to the core game:

8) A means to build long bridges, across 1-2 coastal water tiles, like the bridge network through the Florida Keys, so boats aren't always neccessary to move land units across such small water impendements. Maybe built with a workboat and an Industrial Age technology?

I think that's a first-class idea.
I'd also like an atheist civic; there have been many countries lately where religion was offcially banned or at the most tolerated, and its spread (and the introduction of new religions) completely forbidden. For example, Albania outlawed all religioous worship completely; and during the last decades that the Soviet Union existed, the authorities there spent a lot of time fighting Baptism, which for some reason was regarded as a real threat. (By the way, the new régime under Putin has similar attitudes to all religions except Orthodox Christianity, which is favoured as being "patriotic".)

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Here's a few more things that came to mind (as I was playing Civ the other night)

1. War weariness... it's out of control, it just escalates way too fast. It seems to be triggered by capturing a city (a good thing) rather than your units dying (being realistic too, many Americans get more and more tired of the situation in the middle east because of the casualty numbers, not the successes).

What successes?

 

[Öjevind Lång]

and tanks..... I hate tanks.

I like tanks and aircraft, but I wouldn't be sorry to see the heliopters go.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

The ability to build railways without coal at some stage - when you have discovered Electricity, for example. Also, the ability build plants synthesizing petrol and rubber.