What Would You Change And Why

[rysmiel]

I like the idea of "defections." I don't know if I'd make it independent of culture, though.

I see Overseer714's point about culture not being overly strong in the early game when people are landgrabbing but I think that's a feature rather than a bug; it adjusts the balance of factors so that there is a strategic point to generating lots of culture early, there would be the option of expanding to the borders fast and filling in later, and taking the risk that AI settler pairs might or night not get through to your unclaimed land.

What I probably would do is limit it to land units. I think of it this way: Land units can reasonably be thought of as coming into contact with local villagers and they might decide to settle down, get married & have kids. Ships, on the other hand, won't have the same kind of contact. Their crews will only meet locals if they enter a port & in Civ 3, ships can't enter foreign towns. I guess you could argue that if they end their turn on a sea tile, they're effectively docked, but you could just as easily argue that they're not.

That makes sense.

I also wonder if the settler should change to workers, or simply defect.

It would, I think, be most interesting if it were up to the player to whom they are defecting; granted an AI capable of making a reasonably sensible decision on that.

OTOH, I don't know if there's any way, in terms of programming, to tie the units in the settler pair together. Obviously, if the settler converts but not the spearman, there's a problem, as they're on the same tile.

I had been envisioning that they would either both convert or neither; options for dealing well with only one converting aren't coming to my mind right now.

 

[Zefyrinus]

Hills, mountains and volcanos could be made off limits for canals. Forests and jungles could first have to be converted to plains or grassland. Additionally, building canals could be made very time consuming by having their basic build factor high. And further, there could be a per turn maintenence cost per canal per tile transversed. Say 1 gpt. These ideas would probably mean the AI programming would have to be smartened up some.

I'm also thinking canals would be better running along the edges of tiles like rivers and able to connect to and use existing rivers as part of their path. In that case, instead of say 1gpt per tile crossed to determine maintence costs, then use 1gpt per 2 sides of a tile that they are in length. That leads to another thing. Making rivers traversable by water units. I would have water units need to have a flag checked to allow them to use rivers so only specific ones could and large ships, like battleships could be made not to be able to. This means that the river sections of canal paths would have to be built as canals and be canals in the game, or certain ships wouldn't be able to use the canals. Perhaps a way to solve this would be to make building canals along existing river terrain less time consuming to build initially when the workers build the canal.

It might be useful to have rivers as two kinds, like the ocean has 3 types in the game. One for large rivers, that can pass water units and one for smaller sized rivers that act only as rivers currently do in the game.

Exactly! I miss the 1-square-rivers from Civ 1. What I think is wrong in Civ 3 is that the flood plain areas are way too big since they occupy a 2-square-wide area. Also, the rivers are hard to manage in the editor with the current system. There should be different sized rivers which different boats can travel. Then the special unit of the vikings should be the longboat which can jump from one river to another if there's only one landsquare between them, because in really the vikings could carry their boats over land on to the next river.

Then the canals should be really time-consuming to build, and limited by hills and mountains. Maybe there could be the Panama canal wonder which lets you dig through a couple of hills, which they had to do in reality. Oh, and then you could have other civilizations pay you to let them pass through your canals. And you could close them for civs which you don't like.

What I have done with monarchy in the editor is change the corruption setting to minimal, as based on my personal experience in growing up in the Chicago area of Illinois, Monarchy it probably on par with Democracy and Republic when it comes to corruption.

You have a monarch ruling over Chicago???

 

[Marsden]

You have a monarch ruling over Chicago???

I think he means the ruling democracy is sufficently corrupt, therefore making democracies in game less corrupt is not realistic.

 

[Civinator]

Fix the sub bug and the privateer bug! If you have either of those units, expect unwanted wars. Very annoying!

I never heard about the privateer bug in Civ 3 (only in Civ 4). Can you please describe more precisly or give me a link about the privateer bug in Civ 3?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I think I would organize the units into levels. For example Warriors would fall into the first level; Spears, Archers, Swords etc into the second level; Knights, Pikes, Longbows etc into the third level; and so on. And if a unit battles another units that is two or more levels lower its A/D stats would simply multiply. So that, for example, a Cavalry (lvl 4) battling a Spearman (lvl 2) would do so with doubled A/D stats (12/6/3 instead of 6/3/3). Or a Tank (lvl 5) battling a Spear (lvl 2) would do so with tripled A/D stats (48/24/2 instead of 16/8/2).

I don't think this would complicate the combat system all that much, because most of the time, with relative tech parity, the modified stats would not apply anyway and everything would be just as it is now. But if, for whatever reason, fairly modern units get to take on ancient, obsolete units then the battle outcomes should reflect that. No more Spears beating Tanks, or something like that.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I never heard about the privateer bug in Civ 3 (only in Civ 4). Can you please describe more precisly or give me a link about the privateer bug in Civ 3?

I believe the Privateer bug is when a civ (that you are at peace with) attacks a Privateer in one of your coastal towns and thereby declares war, without the intention of declaring war.

 

[joycem10]

You havent heard of The House of Daley?

 

[TheOverseer714]

I never heard about the privateer bug in Civ 3 (only in Civ 4). Can you please describe more precisly or give me a link about the privateer bug in Civ 3?

It works like this: you build a privateer and if you park it in a city, AI ships will attack it in the city, declaring on you in the process. Even friendly AI's. Similar to the sub bug, build privateers at your own risk. If you do build them, never put them in port, unless you want war. It could be an exploit if used properly. Make a big gpt deal for a valued tech or cash, build a privateer in a port near that AI's shipping, and when they attack it, the deal is canceled.

 

[timerover51]

You have a monarch ruling over Chicago???

Well, the last Republican mayor of Chicago was elected in 1927, during the Bombs and Bullets Election, and served until 1931, but he was Al Capone's candidate. Since then, the Democrats have run the town. In 1955, Richard J. Daley was elected mayor, and served until dying in office in December of 1976. After a hiatus of 13 years, Richard M. Daley, the son of Richard J., was elected in 1989 and has been mayor since. Since out of the past 43 years, the same family has been mayor for 30 of them, I would have to say, Yes, we have a monarch in Chicago.

 

[Civinator]

Lord Emsworth and TheOverseer714, thank you very much for explaining me the privateer bug.

It´s astonishing, that even after years there appears always something new for me (and may be for others too) concerning Civ 3. I´m curious what new features of Civ 3 still are sleeping in the depth of the editor and only wait that they are been discovered.

May be this bug can be used as another interesting war-trigger for Civ 3 scenarios. I see what I can do with it.

 

[Marsden]

Actually, to add to Overseers explanation, if you "cover" the privateer with a ground unit, the AI "won't see it" and that won't happen. I found this out once on an archepelago map that when ever my mid. inf. walked out of the city on the interturn the AI frigates were drawn towards it, when I put it back (for MP) they turned away. Another instance of the AI knowing where all the units are on the whole map.

 

[Civinator]

Marsden, thank you very much, too for this add-on information.

 

[rysmiel]

I think I would organize the units into levels. For example Warriors would fall into the first level; Spears, Archers, Swords etc into the second level; Knights, Pikes, Longbows etc into the third level; and so on. And if a unit battles another units that is two or more levels lower its A/D stats would simply multiply. So that, for example, a Cavalry (lvl 4) battling a Spearman (lvl 2) would do so with doubled A/D stats (12/6/3 instead of 6/3/3). Or a Tank (lvl 5) battling a Spear (lvl 2) would do so with tripled A/D stats (48/24/2 instead of 16/8/2).

I don't think this would complicate the combat system all that much, because most of the time, with relative tech parity, the modified stats would not apply anyway and everything would be just as it is now. But if, for whatever reason, fairly modern units get to take on ancient, obsolete units then the battle outcomes should reflect that. No more Spears beating Tanks, or something like that.

I agree with the intended outcome - at least, if it's for there to be very very few spearmen killing tanks, rather than none - but so far as I can see, the only difference between this proposal and what can be achieved by judicious modding of A/D all the way through is having the multiplier kick in at two or more "tech levels" difference, and if it's appropriate for cavalry to be twice as tough relative to spearmen as currently, and for tanks to be twice as tough relative to knights, it seems to me that cavalry being as near as rounding allows 1.5 times as tough relative to knights would also be appropriate.

 

[Optional]

I've seen some good ideas coming past in this thread!

On the topic of AI units - like settler pairs - in your territory: It is a little bit annoying, but I don't mind it too much. I don't think it's badly designed the way it is. The only time I feel a bit cheated on is when an AI tells me to 'leave or declare', while at the same time they have units in my territory. That's not realistic. I would like to see the 'leave or declare' disabled when you have units yourself in that civs territory. That's all.

Ok, here's another idea of mine:

Civ-specific music in diplomacy!
I would like to hear Russian music when I'm speaking to Catherine, African percussion when I'm chatting to Shaka, Celtic music when I'm talking to Brennus, etc. Yes, I know the Dutch are in this game as well, but we can always try and keep it short when we're addressing William, can't we?

 

[TheOverseer714]

You are welcome, civinator I was frankly astonished, I thought they had fixed that bug. Now that the wars are over, I'm seeing that bug having much potential as an exploit, make peace for much cash, build a privateer, back to war but much richer. There ought to be an evil leader thread for such possibilities, I would like to know more about manipulating the AI for fun and profit

 

[QXZJ16]

Actually, I've found that piling on bonus hp as the tech level of the units increases goes a long way in getting rid of absurd wins by very low tech units over high tech ones. That involves extensive modding of the units, but I do that anyway.

I've done this with my mod, and have not yet had a spearman beat any of my modern units. But why doesn't the AI upgrade its units? I have a modern, more powerful AI civ I'm warring against, but when I kill the first two units in their city they have spears and warriors sitting there. The spear-tank thing wouldn't be an issue if the AI would upgrade their units.

And with the government issue, switching to Republic or Monarchy, what you do is add a Roman style Imperialism to the end of the Ancient Era. Make it about the same as default Democracy but with forced labor and slightly more corruption. This brings up the issue with forced labor unhappiness. I think certain governments (Early Republic, Monarchy and Imperialism, maybe Communism too) should be able to both pay citizens and use the whip. This way you can hurry with gold in your outer ring of unconnected cities early, and use gold in your core without switching governments. I'm also for a decreased anarchy; it makes the switch from ancient governments to modern Democracy, Communism or Fascism not worth it, and that is not how the game should be played.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

You are welcome, civinator I was frankly astonished, I thought they had fixed that bug. Now that the wars are over, I'm seeing that bug having much potential as an exploit, make peace for much cash, build a privateer, back to war but much richer. There ought to be an evil leader thread for such possibilities, I would like to know more about manipulating the AI for fun and profit

Well ...





Did you know that you do not suffer any rep-hits from deals that go bust due to a broken (read: pillaged) trade route as long as you were not exporting luxes/resources?

For example, breaking a deal by cutting the trade route where you buy Silks, some techs, some cash and Peace for gpt and Peace will not only give you no rep-hit, it also will give you War Happyness.

 

[Zefyrinus]

Well, the last Republican mayor of Chicago was elected in 1927, during the Bombs and Bullets Election, and served until 1931, but he was Al Capone's candidate. Since then, the Democrats have run the town. In 1955, Richard J. Daley was elected mayor, and served until dying in office in December of 1976. After a hiatus of 13 years, Richard M. Daley, the son of Richard J., was elected in 1989 and has been mayor since. Since out of the past 43 years, the same family has been mayor for 30 of them, I would have to say, Yes, we have a monarch in Chicago.

Okay, I didn't know anything about that.

I think he means the ruling democracy is sufficently corrupt, therefore making democracies in game less corrupt is not realistic.

Hmm, I see. I have the total opposite perception because I live in Sweden where corruption is not as big a problem (I looked for the transparency index just to make sure I wasn't all wrong, and it turns out Sweden was on the 4th place in 2006).

Civ-specific music in diplomacy!
I would like to hear Russian music when I'm speaking to Catherine, African percussion when I'm chatting to Shaka, Celtic music when I'm talking to Brennus, etc. Yes, I know the Dutch are in this game as well, but we can always try and keep it short when we're addressing William, can't we?

They had that in Civ 1. They should definitely take it back. The Mongol music was cool! I don't understand the Dutch joke.

 

[Pyrrhos]

I have the total opposite perception because I live in Sweden where corruption is not as big a problem (I looked for the transparency index just to make sure I wasn't all wrong, and it turns out Sweden was on the 4th place in 2006).

I too live there and have to disagree with you. Sweden is a hugely corrupt country. There's a thing called "statsrådsberedningen", allegedly working directly for our PM but in reality a Quango on a monstrous scale. Under our former PM, Mr Göran Persson, it topped 4000 employed politicians at politicians wages. You might call them MPs without a seat as this is in addition to those properly elected MPs. In all, Sweden employs and pays wages to no less than 80,000 local or national politicians plus politically appointed civil "servants". That's almost 2% of the adult working population - although to call what they do "work" is stretching the term past credibility. In addition, Sweden pays full wages for leading politicians currently out of a political job (such as chairman of the local council) until they find another job. Regular citizens have to do with 20-85% for a limited period of time. to us!

This is not measured by the transparency index, but is systematic corruption on a national scale. No other European country comes even close in the corruption stakes and it doesn't matter which party they represent - ALL are equally corrupt. And Sweden IS a democracy...

 

[timerover51]

I too live there and have to disagree with you. Sweden is a hugely corrupt country. There's a thing called "statsrådsberedningen", allegedly working directly for our PM but in reality a Quango on a monstrous scale. Under our former PM, Mr Göran Persson, it topped 4000 employed politicians at politicians wages. You might call them MPs without a seat as this is in addition to those properly elected MPs. In all, Sweden employs and pays wages to no less than 80,000 local or national politicians plus politically appointed civil "servants". That's almost 2% of the adult working population - although to call what they do "work" is stretching the term past credibility. In addition, Sweden pays full wages for leading politicians currently out of a political job (such as chairman of the local council) until they find another job. Regular citizens have to do with 20-85% for a limited period of time. to us!

This is not measured by the transparency index, but is systematic corruption on a national scale. No other European country comes even close in the corruption stakes and it doesn't matter which party they represent - ALL are equally corrupt. And Sweden IS a democracy...

Corruption in democracies is not quite the same as corruption in depotisms or a lot of 3rd world countries where bribes are a way of life. In democracies and republics, it is essentially diversion of public and private funds into non-productive activities or payments to people for no work, in Chicago what is known as "ghost payrollers". Instead of paying a $1000 bribe to get something into the country, you spend the $1000 filling out the necessary paperwork and duties to get it in. The effect is the same. That is why I feel that the corruption model is overdone. Against that, in a depotism, it can get really bad. I put democracy, republic, and monarchy all at the same level, minimal, leave depotism where it is, along with communism. Fascism probably should be higher than democracy or monarchy, based on the private empire building that went on in Germany, and the incredible duplication of effort that went on between the Japanese Army and Navy.