Urgent fixes that need to be in the next patch

[Kilroy]

Wow, I see a lot of suggestions here that I hope never get implemented, ever. I also hope Firaxis just concentrates on releasing a scenario editor.

 

[pompeynunn]

An amphibious infantry unit has existed in war. Think of the British Commandos in WW2 - a submarine would drop them off the coast, then they would make their way to land under their own steam.

Such a unit could be implemented in Civ - allow submarines to carry one commando unit, allow the commando unit to move across coast squares at reduced movement rates, but make the unit vulnerable to attack (by giving a negative defense bonus). I'm not sure what use such a unit would have though!

 

[cracker]

Duke Peter,

here is a link to a message thread that I started to try an focus discussion on getting armies fixed as well as trying to get some of the good features (city limits, limit unit build to improvement prereq, etc.)

Trying to get army functions fixed and fully available

On the same concept, here is a list of other semi-focused topic discussions that I tried to promote in an effort to get these reasonable fixes released into the next patch or two:

Fix the Simultaneous Worldwide barbarian uprising problem

fix helicopters and testing in v1.21

compared to Bozo your military is average

stand-of engagement rules (bombardment) need to be fixed

Expose multiple cost factors to control AI cost advantages

On a general note, I apologize for being sensitive to Zouave's (and Coracle's and others) insistence on aggressively changing the direction of message threads and atatcking Firaxis, I agree things need to be fixed, but feel we need to acknowledge the good work Firaxis is doing while continuing to try and focus on key direction issues such as opening Hardcoded Variable limits to more flexible use.

My only objection was to the process of randomly scattershooting the new thing that you hate about Civ3 and Firaxis instead of focusing on the main crux of the root message started by the thread started. Sometimes, it appears that we have a group that doesn't even read the root messages while just rushing to post their newest rant and rave topic that really does hijack the intent of the root topic.

I would have said nothing if this wasn't such a pattern, but it seems to occur with the Zouave type posts that say "Oh yeah and I hate this too ...." which totally sidetrack the focus of the initial message.

I stile respect and enjoy Zouave's message but just hate when his posts sidetrack the discussion topic to the point that I wish he would start a separate thread or not post at all.

Perhaps we could have a separate thread called "Zouave's Daily Rant" thread and then he could post a message there every day with some hyperlinks to other threads where he uncovered new things he wanted to rant about.

(Note how far off topic this has dragged me, The focus of this discussion was intended to be hardcoded transport and amphibious movement unit abilities.)

 

[cracker]

Pompeynunn,

Your post is right on track with the reasons I posted the root message to try and get these hard coded flags fixed in the next patch.

Currently we can set a flag to let Submarines "transport foot soldiers only" and then define the commando as a foot soldier and it will be able to ride on the submarine.

The problem is that this option excludes the ability for the Submarine to carry anything else, such as missles.

There may be cases where you only want the sub to carry foot soldiers and that's OK, but the problem is the very one sided way the program code is currently implemented which excludes even the option of having a unit that can transport foot soldiers and missiles as well as all the other valid combinations that might be defined under advanced gaming conditions.

I am focused on these hardcoded roadblocks because this seems to be a pattern of behavior that really creates more obstacles than necessary.

 

[Random Passerby]

Cracker, if the focus of the discussion was intended to be hardcoded transport and amphibious movement unit abilities, then why does the topic not say a single word about anything even related to transport and movement abilities? "Urgent fixes that need to be in the next patch" really implies a general fix-request thread, so really, I don't see any reason to nitpick others for using it as such, and especially not at the expense of ignoring much of the "on-topic" discussion.

 

[Unspeakable Horror]

"Urgent fixes that need to be in the next patch" he means the 6 points posted in the first post, whats wrong with that? *sigh*

Anyway you must remember that this is Civ3 a game that we can use to create wathever scenario we want (fantasy, Sci fi, etc) so any changes that are introduced give us more options to implement new things (even is the original objective wasn´t that) instead of finding workarounds to do it. (At least IMHO)

 

[TheDS]

What's wrong is that his topic is more general than he intended.

And besides that, once we've said all that is relavent about whatever the topic is, it generally goes away, and then some one else starts up a new thread about the same topic instead of using the previous post, cuz that would involve an extra mouse click and a few seconds (or minutes, if you've got MY ISP) for the next page of topics to load.

But here, your topic stays present until some one comes up with something new to say about it. Would you rather have your topic disappear, or stick around?

Now...... what was the original topic again?...

 

[Sir Durfey]

I share Cracker's need for a real amphibious unit (I hope I spelled it correctly). One my dreams is to launch a special forces attack from a submarine or use a modified Bradley APC to cross rivers for flanking manouevres. To be honest, it may add a militaristic depth which some players may find unnecessary, but I am sure it would add lots of fun. Maybe the marines shouldn't stay wet for an indefinite time, 2 turns later ( 2 years? ) they should drown? Excellent work Commander Cracker. Can the AI handle this? Maybe we should make our own game?

Live Long and Prosper.


If had one wish-fix, I would use it for better Naval Combat and better AI Naval Strategies.