Some ideas for changes (from the Warmongers thread)

[MeteorPunch]

please add to the list or make comments.

UNITS
A. Re-add armies. Here is my idea from another thread (edited though):

1. Tell the AI to use them.
2. Make them more similar to Vanilla/PtW armies, not the overpowered C3C ones. People who say that armies in general are overpowered are wrong - they can be killed easily with artillary.

Also I like the idea of have a Soldier specialist. When the Great Person points hits 100%, a Military Great Person is formed. He then could be used to either:

1. Build a military special building (+3 Experience points, for example).
2. Discover a military tech.
3. Form an army. (limit the number of armies based on cities like in Civ 3, say 1 army per 6-8 cites).
4. Start a golden age with another Great Person.

B. Add Paratroopers.
C. Add Trebuchets.
D. Make Cannons available earlier.
E. Increase Galleon/Transport/Carrier capacity.
F. Bring back bombardment for Artillary-type units. Either Civ 3-style (vanilla or C3C), or Civ 4-style collateral (maybe 1/3 of the damage that current suicide method causes).
G. Give naval units bombardment.
H. Allow fighter jets to intercept gunships
I. Allow gunships to move across coast (if they end turn on a coast, they crash).

DIPLOMACY
A. Ease the red text restrictions to only absolute denials, such as a wonder the AI is working on.
B. Allow the AI to want to make trades that will be beneficial to their civ.
C. Add more options for UN secretary general.
D. Add ability to not adopt UN resolutions (like America does ). This causes a -1 -> -3 modifier for nations that adopt (and they only adopt if it's in their best interest).
E. Add option to autodeny individual AI civs from making their demands for a constant -1 -> -3 modifier. Or rework the demand system.
F. Diversify AI playstyles and attitudes more.

MILITARY
A. Bring back abandon city. It is often hard to tell what buildings are in a city by the graphics, even then, some get destroyed. Abandon city should be in to get rid of cities that bring down your infrastructure.
B. Add -20% WW modifier to each beginning civic. This will assure no WW options.
C. Lower the cultural defensive bonus.
D. Implement the ideas given in Sirian's post about AI allocating their units better.

OTHER STUFF
A. oops. I typed wrong here: EDITED: Lower the distance/number of cities corruption to about 75% of what it is now. was: Lower the distance/number of cities corruption by about 75%.
B. Slow the tech pace more.
C. Allow the AI to focus on victories. I was in a game with Hapsheput where there is no way she could have won by military or technology, but was leading with her 3 culture cities. I think she could have won this way, or at least had a chance at something.
D. Add cultural 100k equivalent victory (entire empire cultural value). 500k?
E. Add cultural 20k equivalent victory. 200k?
F. Make space victories more difficult to achieve.

 

[ToddMarshall]

Units:

A1 - I disagree with this, but you're entitled to your opinion.
A2 - I like this idea on points 1 (+2 is plenty), 2, and 4
B - I'm ambivalent
C - I agree. OR D - make cannons available earlier. Don't need both. The effectivness of the pult is long on its last legs before you get cannons unless you totally beeline it.
E - I agree with carrier, not the others. I'd like some kind of military transport availabe at optics also.
F - Dissagree. I'd like changes to arti, just not sure what yet.
G - Agree for Galleons and later only
H - Makes sense. Not a big issue to me.
I - Ambivalent

Diplomacy

A - Agree, if it can be reasonably done. I like the idea of a Yellow, you'll have to wow the hell out of us options. (maybe tripple cost) There still needs to be red items (military techs/resources unless on insanely good terms, wonder techs allways, worst enemy allways). The AI should consider a bit more than currently does.
B - Pretty much covered in A
C - Need more specifics here. Like what??
D - I like this idea if it isn't a nightmare to code. Penalty should be STIFF. Maybe - 3 with all civs and 1-2 ppl in cities.
E - I agree. I'd like it if we could have 4-5 or so redouts (maybe scaling it to map size). Adding too many redouts would ruin the system. Again, not sure how hard this is to implement. I'd guess not terribly, but I'm no programer.
F - Agree. Sirian has pretty much covered that this is his goal as well.

Military

A - No prolem with allowing this. I've not seen (but I haven't really looked, so maybe there is) a compelling argument againt this
B - Disagree. I wouldn't mind if Tribalisim had 25%. More than that makes it too easy imho. (Note that this isn't automatically better than Herreditay Rule since HR has MP.)
C - I thought about this and was on the fence till Sirian convinced me this was bad.
D - Yup.

Other

A - This is a TERRIBLE idea imho
B - Agree in the last couple eras. Early pace isn't a problem to me.
C - Wholeheartedly agree! This may not be easy to achieve, but to me, would be the single biggest improvment from your entire list.
D - Eh? Ambivalent I guess. Actually, no, I don't like this one.
E - I THINK I like this one for the OCC setting. Probably wouldn't be hard to code either.
F - Sounds good on paper, but since it is currently the only way the AI can win 95%+ of the time, I'd have to dissagree till the AI winning other ways is possible

- Maniac

 

[MeteorPunch]

Todd, thanks for responding.

I edited Other Stuff A. to what it should be - I mistyped the first time.

 

[handy900]

I like military leader concept, and would even be content with a limitation to 1 army per 8 cities, or even to only one army all game long - as long as you could move units into and out of the army as you advance in techs. That would be interesting. Some limitation would need to be there so you don't replace units every turn. Armies were a lot of fun, and removing fun from a game (or options that are fun) is a bummer. For the purists who hate armies - there seem to be alot of them - just do not use them Maybe an option to either rush a military wonder, get a free tech, or build a single army would work.
We need caravels to have transport capacity. I really liked the coast/sea/ocean concept. I wonder why they did away with that.Suicide galleys (and caravels) were fun, but they took those away also.


Since building cities hurts the economy - we shoud be abe to build airfields. Take more worker turns - whatever - but airfields are a must for continental warfare.

 

[lost_civantares]

We need caravels to have transport capacity. I really liked the coast/sea/ocean concept. I wonder why they did away with that.

Personally I think that the way that they have it now actually makes more sense. Really until the compass no one (unless really brave or just plain blown out to sea) sailed out of sight of land unless they really knew what they were doing, which the current model accurately represents. You didn't have people weaving their way in the middle of the ocean, able to navigate because the sea happened to be less deep than in other places.

 

[warpstorm]

You can get cannons while the AI is still upgrading to Longbowmen if you beeline for it. It'll be way too easy if they are available even earlier or trebuchets were introduced.

 

[Instant_Cereal]

I think the OP is going just a little too far. Though I wouldn't mind seeing a slight improvement in wars. One of the things I've always wanted to see in the Civ games was the Colonization system for soldiers and weapons. You have weapon stockpiles and you have to build weapons. This would add strategic level to the game and also enable the game to mimic history. Say, for example, you're the Romans and you're at war with the Persians. You have an ally also battling them, but they're less advanced and equipped for war; so you can sell them weapons to help wage your war against the Persion. Kind of like the Vietman War and the Russian-Afghanistan War.

The only way this would be able to be done, however, is if cities are allowed to have 2 contruction queues where both can be adjusted between a maximum of 100% (ie, one operates at 25% while the other can operate at 75%). Or, have a forge or workshop where citizens in the city work to produce weapons (too many citizens producing weapons could stun growth).

I'll come back when I have more ideas.

 

[handy900]

It is very hard to locate the enemy since they only have those tiny little flags with them. Gunships are nearly invisible. C3 has the color disk option, which would help alot in locating the enemy.

 

[dh_epic]

I'm not sure the point of this thread. Warmongering is still the best strategy in the game, and the surest way to set yourself up for every victory type.

Be that as it may, I think we can count on some new units in the expansion. Even a "Great Military Leader" popping up.

As for diplomacy, I'm not sure why you want the AI to be nerfed so they're willing to sell off their technological advantage again. For the sake of challenge, I'd much rather the AI tried to push me out of their technology circle, and use their advantage to launch an attack on me.

A lot of questionable suggestions that seem to lead to a lot of gameplay imbalance, if you ask me...

 

[MeteorPunch]

As for diplomacy, I'm not sure why you want the AI to be nerfed so they're willing to sell off their technological advantage again.

Advantage? There are so many times I have the tech lead no one will sell me crappy, outdated tech I could research in a couple turns.

For the sake of challenge, I'd much rather the AI tried to push me out of their technology circle, and use their advantage to launch an attack on me.

I'd like that too, but the AI can't take cities unless you totally neglect defenses.

A lot of questionable suggestions that seem to lead to a lot of gameplay imbalance, if you ask me...

If something gets tweaked in an update, counter-balancings will have to be made, naturally.

Imo the game is not balanced now. In fact, I don't know if it can be "balanced." There should not be a best strategy, but rather give all players a chance to enjoy. The building aspect was beefed up, while warring is neutered. I rather have gameplay that is more fun then someone's opinion of what a balanced game is.

If anyone wants a balanced game play Virtua Fighter 4: Evolution for about 6 months and learn the intricacies of it. It is a fighting game that maintains a balance by keeping every fighter very powerful, but in very differing ways. No one can say one character is better - the skill of the player is always the determining factor. The only downside to this method is that there is a small percentage of character matchups which are unfavorable.

In the same vein, Civ could make all victories achievable by players who consciously shoot for them. Right now there is one dominant victory condition - space. I'm sure most of these people out there now beating the game on high levels are doing it by this.

 

[dh_epic]

I think that they should focus on the victory conditions then.

Because right now, the best way to approach the space race is this:

- Conquest to expand
- Kill your biggest competition (if necessary)
- Coast to the space race

Warmongering is STILL the most powerful strategy, even if domination is now a much harder victory condition.