I assume that game developers read forums like this and respond accordingly.
That's what was initially said about the development of Civ3. Look what happened. I would add that they respond to
some of players' imput. It should also be noted that all software in now going in that direction (i.e. overwhelming requirements). Why? Because developers want to give those with high-end systems a great show and to hell with the rest? No. The software industry works very closely with the hardware industry and lets face it, money's what counts. The idea that (some) designers want to do their best to come out with a new gaming experience is only half-true. They will give you that but only within the parameters set by the industry (i.e. what sells and what keeps the industry moving economically).
So, Civ3 is what it is because to do otherwise would be to go against the trends set by the industry. If Civ4 comes out, the same thing will happen. Absurdly high requirment are not a mistake. I know of people who spend thousands anually on hardware for games!
What the industry REALLY wants to stay away from is player-created games (i.e. generic engines that can be editied to meet the needs of the player --the equivilant of getting the raw, bare bones of Civ2 and using an 'editor' to create your own stuff). Releasing Civ2's source code would almost be the eqivilant. The only thing in our favor is the fact that it's an old game and unprofitable.
To keep with thread's main theme: one thing that isn't mentioned much in Scenario-design forums is the fact that the AI ignores the effects of certain unit flags.
For example, AI units see units with the 'Submarine advantages/disadvantages' flag whether or not they have the 'Unit can spot submarines' flag. This means that your submarines are virtually useless against the AI. The same thing applies to the 'Invisible' flag in ToT. The AI also ignores the 'Can see units two spaces away' flag (at least where sea units are concerned). These are not superficial glitches.
Address stuff like this and you've got a near-perfect game. It seems to me that the only limitations in Civ2 are the limitations placed (intentionally or unintentionally) by its designers.
A couple of additions that I would like to see that shouldn't be to big a nut to crack are EDIT actions in macro.
Example:
EDITCITY
city=
rename=
size=
owner=
EDITUNIT
unittype=
rename=
owner=
[movement=]
[fuel=]
[attack=]
[defence=]
[hitpoints=]
[firepower=]
[cost=]
[hold=]
[flags=]
Game saves changed information in Rules.bak (?). Changing city owner removes all units from city. changing unit owner causes all units of that type to change ownership.
Having scripts that can place stuff would be a major boost in terms of scenarios.
For example:
BUILDTILEIMPROVEMENT
BUILDCITY
The latter action automatically creates a city at the specified coordinates.
The other thing that for some reason was never added to the macro language was diplomacy triggers. This has applications to both scenarios and the vanilla game.
Example:
PEACEMADE
AGGRESSIONMADE
ALLIANCEMADE
Additional diplomacy actions along the lines of MAKEAGGRESSION would make for scenarios that were more diplomatically complex.
Example:
MAKEPEACE
MAKEALLIANCE
I could go on like this foreverbut you probably get the idea. Notice that the above examples keep with the format of the already-existing macro. Technically, whatever can be done using the cheat menu can have an associated event action (a REVOLUTION trigger would have hundreds of applications).
P.S. Slowthinker, I briefly checked out C-evo. I see what you mean about the AI, but it's still better than having hard-coded AI advantages.
Clearly this sort of thing is possible but very time-consuming. A a large group effort as mentioned by ElephantU would probably be more fruitful. People want a better Civ2, not a different game and there are still a lot of Civ2 players out there who wouldn't mind having their favorite game play better.
).
)