Things that are poor in Civ III + a few ideas

[Risbinroch]

The poor things:

1 - Where is the scenarios, I remember WWII in Civ II, it was great, would love to have something like this now too.
2 - starting positions...
3 - the world maps that came with the game...
4 - Feels all the icons etc for advisors, people, leaders look a bit to comical, would love it if they were more realistic looking
5 - A bit stupid when the Zuluz are world dominators in 2000... The game should be more like real life
6 - Few additions to units, city improvements etc. Think it should be a lot more different units per civ, more units overall (custimization of units when you build them), more city improvements. As I see it, it's not very much more than in CivII

Some Ideas:

1 - Some countries does not start from the beginning of the game, but rather be developed in the game through civil wars etc.
Like America. When a civ establishes new cities on new continents, there should be a "large" chance of rioting/civil war/peaceful secession and establishing of new civs like Australia, USA, Mexico, Brazil etc.
2 - As mentioned earlyer: should be possible to custimize units you build to a certain extinct. Like infantry could be different for different nations with different strengths and weaknesses.
3 - More wars in the game, (I have only played at Warlord level though, so I don't know how it is in the harder levels) the AI decleare war too seldom on eachothers.
4 - a new editor where you could create real scenarios, add many civilizations and perhaps decide wich nation they "come" from if they are nations as mentioned in 1 above. Like USA comes from England, Mexico from Span, Brazil from Portugal etc.
5 - Easy to add technology, wonders, small wonders, governments, civilizations etc.
6 - Even larger maps
7 - Even more civilizations playing at once

 

[Risbinroch]

another idea:

8 - Oil should be in the sea too.
9 - Possibility to harvest sea squares with fish and whale far away from your own city.

 

[DaEezT]

5 - A bit stupid when the Zuluz are world dominators in 2000... The game should be more like real life

???
Then the game would never end since no nation conquered the world so far or controls so much of the worlds surface for a victory by domination and so on....
It's a game ffs, what fun is it when you start in 4000 BC and you know exactly that nation X will never get any powerful because they dissapear at XXX...

 

[Alphidius]

The poor things:

1 - Where is the scenarios, I remember WWII in Civ II, it was great, would love to have something like this now too.
2 - starting positions...
3 - the world maps that came with the game...
4 - Feels all the icons etc for advisors, people, leaders look a bit to comical, would love it if they were more realistic looking
5 - A bit stupid when the Zuluz are world dominators in 2000... The game should be more like real life
6 - Few additions to units, city improvements etc. Think it should be a lot more different units per civ, more units overall (custimization of units when you build them), more city improvements. As I see it, it's not very much more than in CivII

I second with points 2,1,3 with order of importance.
A MUST for point 2 in the coming patch. Come now, don't let us down

[QUOTES]
Some Ideas:

1 - Some countries does not start from the beginning of the game, but rather be developed in the game through civil wars etc.
Like America. When a civ establishes new cities on new continents, there should be a "large" chance of rioting/civil war/peaceful secession and establishing of new civs like Australia, USA, Mexico, Brazil etc.
2 - As mentioned earlyer: should be possible to custimize units you build to a certain extinct. Like infantry could be different for different nations with different strengths and weaknesses.
3 - More wars in the game, (I have only played at Warlord level though, so I don't know how it is in the harder levels) the AI decleare war too seldom on eachothers.
4 - a new editor where you could create real scenarios, add many civilizations and perhaps decide wich nation they "come" from if they are nations as mentioned in 1 above. Like USA comes from England, Mexico from Span, Brazil from Portugal etc.
5 - Easy to add technology, wonders, small wonders, governments, civilizations etc.
6 - Even larger maps
7 - Even more civilizations playing at once
[/QUOTE]

I second point 5 . I know that the patch will probably fix this but just wanna state that there's point giving us an editor without the ability to add new things in. A limit to adding those new units maybe...
And point 6 too, only if the corruption level decreases drastically, don't wanna play on a titan map with all those cities being sorta useless would we

 

[Risbinroch]

What I ment was that I believe certain civs should be very much more likely to succeed than others. Would also be much more fun playing with the Zuluz if they were very hard to get a big civilization out of them...

Another idea:

What if Rome in a certain year changed it name to Italy? Persia to Iran? etc.

 

[Hamlet]

I thought the whole point of the game was so that things like Zulu domination could happen? It's what makes it fun!

Also, I should think scenarios will be released for Civ 3 sometime in the near future.

 

[Zulu Fodder]

Originally posted by Risbinroch

1 - Where is the scenarios, I remember WWII in Civ II, it was great, would love to have something like this now too.

Agreed. Though I'd think that Civ 3 provides you with a chance to have a much more exciting war than WWII.

2 - starting positions...

Agreed

3 - the world maps that came with the game...

What about them?

4 - Feels all the icons etc for advisors, people, leaders look a bit to comical, would love it if they were more realistic looking

I don't get this. Laughing and smiling is a good thing. Not a bad thing. It is a game after all. It's just a differ of opinion though, since it would be a turn off for me if everything was all serious.

5 - A bit stupid when the Zuluz are world dominators in 2000... The game should be more like real life

Thereby completely throwing out the "What if?" factor that this game thrives on. Want real history? Go read a high school World History text book. If it was more like "real life" the Zulus would be nothing more than completely useless filler AI punching bags.

6 - Few additions to units, city improvements etc. Think it should be a lot more different units per civ, more units overall (custimization of units when you build them), more city improvements. As I see it, it's not very much more than in CivII

Any more units per civ would dillute the importance of any of the other units. I agree partially that some of the small wonders just aren't fantastic enough to build.

1 - Some countries does not start from the beginning of the game, but rather be developed in the game through civil wars etc.
Like America. When a civ establishes new cities on new continents, there should be a "large" chance of rioting/civil war/peaceful secession and establishing of new civs like Australia, USA, Mexico, Brazil etc.

I think you are taking what they picked as the leader for each Civ much too literally. Also, Austrailia, USA, Mexico, and Brazil are not civilizations. They are countries.

2 - As mentioned earlyer: should be possible to custimize units you build to a certain extinct. Like infantry could be different for different nations with different strengths and weaknesses.

This would imbalance the game by quite a bit.

3 - More wars in the game, (I have only played at Warlord level though, so I don't know how it is in the harder levels) the AI decleare war too seldom on eachothers.

Start your own then .

4 - a new editor where you could create real scenarios, add many civilizations and perhaps decide wich nation they "come" from if they are nations as mentioned in 1 above. Like USA comes from England, Mexico from Span, Brazil from Portugal etc.

Again, USA, Mexico, and Brazil are not civilizations. They are countries. What do you mean by create "real" scenarios?

5 - Easy to add technology, wonders, small wonders, governments, civilizations etc.

Inexpensive technology that would last for XX number of turns would be a great improvement. Civilizations though?...I don't get it.

6 - Even larger maps

This would make air wars more popular and cultural victories less popular. Pick the lesser of two evils.

7 - Even more civilizations playing at once

The map is already clustered with the max number of Civs as it is.

 

[Mack the Knife]

someone probably will but what the heck, i know i'm not 'cept when it comes to this game . anywho, i did not play either civ I or II so could some sympathetic soul explain to me what "starting postions" is and why everyone is disappointed in them and what doesn't everyone like about the world map? i've read about these in other threads and have yet to figure out what the hubbub is all about. thanks!

 

[WarandPeace]

Originally posted by Mack the Knife
, i did not play either civ I or II so could some sympathetic soul explain to me what "starting postions" is and why everyone is disappointed in them and what doesn't everyone like about the world map?

If you looked closely at your own question you'd wouldn't be asking it

It doesn't matter if you've never played the previous Civs. There are many who didn't.
The point with "starting positions" is realistic-ness. Some of us would like to recreated history, which ironically, is the freakin slogan used by Firaxis to advertise for this game.

Anyway, like I was saying, to recreate history, in order to do that one must have a bit of historical knowledge, and having the Zulus running around in Asia, while the French are mowing down the jungles of South America basically kills the idea of History, Realistic-ness, and any fun that might come with the two.

 

[Mack the Knife]

well, i looked closely and i'm still glad i asked it. and i take it the world map being disproportinal, at least to someone, is its problem. ok, thanks

 

[WarandPeace]

disproportinal?

Guess you've never played Civ3 either...

 

[Another Desk]

No need to be rude WarandPeace... If you're not interested in someone's question, just don't answer it. (I just don't get this whining over "stupid newbies", and people who haven't played the game enough to satisfy your standards...)

Mack the Knife: One of the reasons people aren't satisfied with the world map is that the civilizations start in random places. This means that the Zulu can start in Europe while England gets to start in Asia. This is also the problem with starting positions: there is no way, at the moment, to tell the CivIII where a civilization should start on the map.

This makes it a lot less fun to conquer the world on the world map, while it definetly reduces the opportunities to create good scenarios with the editor.

 

[WarandPeace]

Originally posted by Another Desk
No need to be rude WarandPeace... If you're not interested in someone's question, just don't answer it. (I just don't get this whining over "stupid newbies", and people who haven't played the game enough to satisfy your standards...)

Wow, hold up. Where the heck did you get me for being rude?!
If I'm not interested in a question -- and there are plenty of those around I assure you, then I'd ignore them, and have done so always. The only reason I took notice and answer Knife's question was because Starting Location was an issue I cared about.

But obviously he was confused by my response and took it in a
different, illogical way. So I assumed he had never actually played Civ3 to know the basic structure of the game and was perhaps checking the forums to see if the game is worth the while to play.

So thank you very much for your unneeded advice, and for calling me rude.

Btw, who gave you the idea of "stupid newbies" and the gaming standards of other people? Is it because you yourself took some heat from some Hotshot for asking newbie questions? Well, if so, get off my back! I don't need this paranoid newbie pride crap.

 

[Atros]

Originally posted by Hamlet
I thought the whole point of the game was so that things like Zulu domination could happen? It's what makes it fun!

Also, I should think scenarios will be released for Civ 3 sometime in the near future.

Well, but its like some of the civilizations like the Iroquis and zulus are kinda lame, AOE II had a better selection of civilisations.

And they should personalize the tactics used to the AI ruler of the civilisation, like in Alpha Centauri, so maybe Ghandi will be a more diplomatic guy instead of the ruthless power hungry warmonger he is in my game.

 

[Mack the Knife]

warandpeace, let's just say i appreciate the time you took to respond but i'll add the overtones of your responses left something to be desired. 'nuff said and thanks to you both for clearing that up for me.

 

[Kiki]

-Starting locations needs to be there.

-You can download a custom world map

-Needs to be more types of units per civilization, but the same A.D.M. values but look/sound different. Only one 'special unit' per civ but at the same time, an american muskeeteer will look diff than french musketeer and persian musketeer and zulu musketeer etc but the same combat values to make it fair.

-As above think if Civ Editor all civs can all have their own exclusive units only, think of the great scenarios you can build!

-Easier to make more civs, techs, governments, units etc is a definite must. *BUT* you gotta make it so it can be added not 'replace' something in Civ already.

-For BIG maps, make it so there is a 'Unit Movement Multiplier' in the game so in a single turn, a unit which usually would move 1 square would move 5, and all units multiply by 5x as well as artillery bombardment range/airbombing too. To make HUGE maps playable.

-I agree I wish the comical cartoonish 3D stuff were gone, the advisors, the buildings, units and stuff. I liked Civ II's realistic ones. Why can't real life stuff smile too? They can and yes they can be funny, like the Elvis guy. I liked the modern foreign advisor girl in Civ II. Realistic doesn't mean boring and dull.

-3D units and buildings etc don't impress me, I'd think it'd be better if it were still 2D and when a unit attacks, a sound file is played instead of the way it is now. I liked in Civ II when you attack, you can hear the horses come by and shooting people screaming and swords and stuff.

-As above, I find the 'City Look' screen useless, I wish they DIDN'T spend time on that, it is a waste of time. It should be left out like in SMAC.

 

[Xibex]

It looks like this thread is starting to drift off topic a bit but since it is on something I'm interested in (improving CivIII) here are my two cents. (with my apologies for repeating any ideas others have already posted)

I) Rework Railroads:
The current utility of railroads in CivIII is a big step backwards IMHO. I thought the whole point of having the farmland improvement in CivII was to get rid of the problem of having the entire map spattered with the rail web. Not only is it extremely unrealistic, but it looks ugly as hell. I suspect it was set up this way for the AI to have an easier time competing against a human player, but several times should be changed in the next patch (hopefully).
1) Have railroads ONLY increase production or only be used for rapid transport (as in SMAC).
2) Institute some kind of movement limit on rail (such as 20 spaces/turn) for all land units. This hasn't been a part of any previous Sid game, but it would get rid of that idiotic ability of being able to shift your entire army from one side of the continent to the other (and back again) in a single turn.
3) Bring back farmland or some other equivalent! It's sickening to stare at the same gray mass constantly. It looks like a kind of plague upon the landscape.

II)Naval Movement and Combat
1) Reduce the capacity of transports from 8 to 6 units because 8 is just too many. I'd rather have to use a lot of transports to pull off a successful amphibious invasion (a la D-Day) then only 3-4 to take a small continent
2) Drastically increase the movement rate of modern naval ships (but keep the transports themselves slow). Having a modern battleship or carrier take 30 turns to traverse from one continent to another isn't reasonable or fun. I think that their movement speed should be at least 2x, 3x faster then they are currently. The exception here is transport craft. They are "sitting ducks" and should remain so under any new movement system. They shouldn't be able to safely cross an ocean during war without suitable escort.

III)Diplomatic System
Contrary to what seems to be popular opinion, I like the current set-up very much. Sure, the computer tries to screw you over during negotiations but that is infinitely better then having it roll over on your command. Besides, there have been more times then not where I've gotten the better deal or screwed the AI over completely. My only gripe is that the Mutual Protection Pact needs to be tweaked so that members of MPP's don't get drawn into wars of agression. This isn't realistic or fair really because I too often abuse it to pound on AI empires larger then my own.

There are other things that should be improved upon, but others have already gone into greater detail regarding the Air Unit bug, the Ancient vs Modern Unit problem, the just plain stupid diplomatic victory setup, the need for MULTI-PLAYER!!!, etc...

Make no mistake, I do love this game and it is still superior to CivII (the diplomatic setup alone makes this true). But, things do need to be fixed and preferably before the multi-player expansion pack hits the stores. Like it's going to be available any other way...

________________________________________________
The only thing more ignorant then someone who knows nothing is someone who knows a little about something and believes that makes him an expert on everything.