What should be changed in CIV3 ?

[Portuguese]

I prefer to play till monarch level.
From that point, cheats become too big to be acceptable!

Gosh, so many ideas!!!
Even I am amazed. Never thought about some of them!?!
Good to know this thread continue to be like it would...
Just an example to future ones

 

[Zouave]

BTW, having an AI with just enough brains to use artillery offensively would be nice indeed.

FYI, artillery was the primary offensive unit in the Napoleonic Wars, and others.

 

[Sirp]

Zouave: I don't really think artillery not being used offensively is an AI problem; it's a game rules problem. *I* don't use artillery offensively (much) because, frankly, artillery sucks offensively. It's too slow once you get knights, and before that, catapults are just not very effective against cities. The AI is (ironically), rather smart in not using artillery offensively; they should change the rules of the game to make using artillery offensively a good idea.

 

[Higher Game]

Artillery is, however, effective against infantry. You do not want to be attacking the infantry without the artillery backup.

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by Sirp
Zouave: I don't really think artillery not being used offensively is an AI problem; it's a game rules problem. *I* don't use artillery offensively (much) because, frankly, artillery sucks offensively. It's too slow once you get knights, and before that, catapults are just not very effective against cities. The AI is (ironically), rather smart in not using artillery offensively; they should change the rules of the game to make using artillery offensively a good idea.

I read a post from a forumer on Apolyton claiming that in the Editor, in scenario making, he placed artillery outside of cities with his main force units. When the game began the Ai's artillery headed right back to the cities leaving the other units to attack alone.

Go figure.

 

[Sirp]

I never attack infantry, until the advent of tanks, and bombers. It's futile. I learn from history, and don't get bogged down in world war I.

If I really had to attack infantry, then that is one of the rare times I would use artillery offensively.

Zouave, that's mildy amusing, but hardly surprising. The one thing that the computer *should* be able to do with artillery, is what players do. Put them on a rail network, any time a SoD comes along, move about 20 artillery units over to bombard the crap out of it before attacking it.

 

[Exile_Ian]

One small change I'd like to see is a reduction in the impact on your reputation when you break an agreement.

I like the principle, but its impact is too severe and too long-lasting. For instance, if I go to war against someone whilst under a Right of Passage agreement, its fair that my reputation should suffer. But it takes too long for it to be forgotton. Hundreds of years later (even when the opponent Civ has been long dead) you can meet a new civ for the first time - and already your bad reputation preceeds you.

I'd like to see a softening of this (for instance in return for making and keeping other agreements) and it should slope off much more quickly.

I'm not aware of this being an editable feature - does anyone know whether these settings can be changed now?

 

[Portuguese]

Believe me:

If AI used artillery offensivelly, it would be in such a stupid way tahat many would start not to do it, since AI achieve so bad results with that strategy.
I think it's best AIs don't use artillery that way. I don't know is why do they build them in the 1st place...
But in MP, otherswill use artillery... Be prepared: it won't be nice to see your cities being bombarded

 

[Baleog]

"You must be new"

Takes one to know one.
(irony, considering post counts)

But seriously, civ 3 discussions isn't my normal port of call.

 

[ukrneal]

I voted for more techs and unique techs, but I what I'd really like to see:

1. No limit on # of cities. I know, you can change it in editor, but then you can't participate in GOTM's and other games. I really loved that about civII.

2. Cheat page. I think I learned more from cheating in civII than from anything else. It was a great learning tool that I only used a few times. It was fun when you had a bad game and they ticked you off and you cheated to destroy them.

3. Less of a restricted progression of techs. I am looking forward to trying the DyP mod to see if it helps with that.

 

[Sirp]

no limit on # of cities? How many cites do you get? I can't imagine being able to manage a game with that many cities.

A less restricted progression of techs would be very nice though.

 

[Portuguese]

Originally posted by Baleog
"You must be new"

Takes one to know one.
(irony, considering post counts)

But seriously, civ 3 discussions isn't my normal port of call.

Was that for me? Why?
I don't like to use artillery, but I use it...
And I won't like to see my cities bombarded, as I'll see in MP, that's for sure...

 

[Portuguese]

Originally posted by Sirp
no limit on # of cities? How many cites do you get? I can't imagine being able to manage a game with that many cities.

A less restricted progression of techs would be very nice though.

In my old CIV1 and CIV2 times, I found 200+ cities!

It was so cool too see so many cities, so many RRs and so many pop and settlers, all at my command.

Just 20 cities seems so little for me (Even 32...)