What Would You Change And Why

[timerover51]

If you had a chance to rework the source code of Civilization 3 Complete, what would you change and why. My two biggest sources of discontent are the corruption rule and the unit value system, however, I can edit the unit value system in the editor. The corruption problem is a lot harder to deal with. Having grown up and still presently living near Chicago, Illinois, I find the idea that democracy is significantly less corrupt than other forms of goverment to be a bit naive, to say the least. I might keep it in to reflect the waste inherent in any governmental body, but make it a bit less dominant and give more ways to deal with it. Having all but one shield vanish to corruption is a bit too much.

 

[MAS]

Firaxis changed the corruption module in Civ4.
In Civ3, cities to far away or to far above an "optimal" number become very corrupt.
In Civ4, all cities will be function as if they where the capital in Civ3, but additional cities will cost upkeep.

This seems like a genius solution, the problems with corruption that appear in Civ3 are gone, but it has its own set of problems: In Civ4 your expansion is halted every time and you need to build up your economy before you an expand. This reduces your choice in the matter. The most optimal way to expand in Civ4 is always the same pattern of building about 6 cities, then turtle up until your economy is ready to get a few more cities. In Civ3 you have the freedom to expand as far as you like whenever you like.


Anyway, the corruption module in Civ wasn't meant to simulate actual corruption as is happens in RL, its a mechanism to simulate the problems of a very big empire. Big empires are more difficult to controll and will slow down themselves until there comes a point its better to stop expanding. (I admid that they kind of failed at that due to the power of additional cities, even with 90% corruption, still being worth it, Civ4's model is more realistic for that matter)

Maybe a better solution would be if all cities are effected if you get to many cities. A kind of how communism works in Civ3 but then for all governments.

 

[Theov]

In Civ4, all cities will be function as if they where the capital in Civ3, but additional cities will cost upkeep.

Que?
I don't get what you mean with that.
.
I seem to be the only one who 'likes' the corruption system in Civ3.

1. Cities around the capital are powerhouses - the first core.
2. Then, when you expand you build the Forbiden Palace - creating a second core.
3. Then, if you go over the top in expansion and are on your way to world domination, you switch to Commie and build the Secret Police HQ - creating a 3rd core of productive cities.
4. All the corrupted cities that are captured just because you could -or have founded because of recources- can be turned into science farms.

The civilopedia says Commie corruption is 'communal' but that doesn't mean 'equal' for all cities. All cities are pushed more to the mean, but not equal. If I'm wrong, I'd like to hear it.
.
I don't know what the 'number of optimal cities' is in Civ3 or how it works if you go over that number.

 

[Sweetchuck]

I would spread out the unit attack and defense rankings a bit. It's a bit unrealistic that a spearman has the chance it does to take down tanks and the like, so much that this issue is a consistant point of discussion here.

Yeah, I know it can be done, though tediously with the editor and the game design is to be competative - but think about it. Give me a tank, you take a spear and let's go at it. It's just inconceivable that even on 1 in a billion tries that a guy with a spear could take down a tank.

 

[Jokeslayer]

I think there should be more ways to win. I'd love it if there could be a sort of collaborative space race, allowing more than one country to work on the same ship (and you'd get a lower score or something). Also more civs on the same size map. And civil war; when that cropped up in Civ2 the first time, it terrified me.

 

[Theov]

Give me a tank, you take a spear and let's go at it. It's just inconceivable that even on 1 in a billion tries that a guy with a spear could take down a tank.

Is that a bet?
By the time you figured out how to put the damn thing into 1st gear, I've stuffed the gun with dirt Bugs Bunny style.

 

[Sweetchuck]

Is that a bet?
By the time you figured out how to put the damn thing into 1st gear, I've stuffed the gun with dirt Bugs Bunny style.

I've actually driven a tank before, an old WWII version that this guy was restoring. They're suprisingly quick and nimble, and it wouldn't take much to run someone over regardless of how many carrots were jammed in the barrell.

 

[rysmiel]

Large signs saying "STOP NITPICKING ABOUT HISTORICAL REALISM, IT'S AN APPROXIMATION FOR THE SAKE OF GAMEPLAY" ?

Seriously, I'd like somewhat more flexibility in dealing with corruption; possibly, if I am understanding it right, the Forbidden Palace functionality as it was supposed to work in Civ 3 Vanilla, rather than either the overpowered version actually in Civ 3 Vanilla or the nerfed version in C3C.

Firepower and hit points as in Civ 2, yes. And battleships with blitz/multiple bombard capacity, or alternatively, naval units beyond a certain tech level being able to attack units on land.

I also think it would add an interesting dimension to the game if the capacity to enslave enemy workers/artillery were limited to specialised units, and most units moving onto the same space as workers/artillery just killed them; getting both enslaving capacity and combat capacity in the same unit seems overpowered to me.

I think I would relax the restrictions on how it is possible to get shields for Wonders a little too. Make them buyable at something like five times the price per shield of regular improvements, or allow forest-chopping shields to be counted.

 

[MAS]

Que?
I don't get what you mean with that.

There is no corruption and waste in Civ4. But cities further away from the capital and in larger numbers cost maintenance. (but city improvements don't cost maintenance) Courthouses reduce maintenance.

I was trying to explain that firaxis already taken a look at the corruption model due to the many complaints they picked up, but that their solution has its own set of problems. Just a bit of added info.

I seem to be the only one who 'likes' the corruption system in Civ3.

I don't really mind it either. I find the Civ4 model nastier.

I don't know what the 'number of optimal cities' is in Civ3 or how it works if you go over that number

Cities above this number have even more corruption than the ones below it.
It is set in the editor, and in the standard game, is different per map size. (8 on standard) Reaching it triggers the ability to build the FP. The FP doubles the number. The SHQ also doubles it.



Now I shall give an answer the OP as well: There are a number of bugs left in the last version of C3C that I'd still like to see fixed. Such as the bug where the AI accidentally declares war because it ignores stealth units. (one thing where the AI knowledge of all unit locations can legitimately be used and it doesn't!!!)

 

[rysingsun]

Regarding tanks and spears, Russia lost hundreds of tanks planes and helicopters in such a backward country as Afganistan.

If modern units had improved performance in civ against obsolete units it would make it harder for me to win on sid and deity games, which are the only ones particularly challenging to play. I'm absolutely convinced that the vast majority of complaints about the tank/spear thing are by players who are too lazy to use strategy but want to play on low level, gain a huge technology lead and gain a huge production lead (hence the complaints about corruption), and then roll over the enemy by attacking cities with no support and no strategy whatever. And to do all this with no diplomacy, no alliances, no trade. Just get a few techs ahead and brute force the game to an end.

Ok, that's rys on a rant. i feel better now

 

[AznWarlord]

I actually find the corruption system okay. I mean, people farther away from the capital are harder to control, thus government workers steal fund and workers slack off.

It's at least much more realistic than a Culture Victory.

 

[rysingsun]

The Afghans were hardly using spears. They were supplied with countless numbers of modern man-pack missile hardware and explosives...

The spearmen in civ no doubt would be similarly supplied. The Afganis were extremely backward economically before they were invaded and could not by any means have been compared to the civ "guerrilla" unit.

 

[Sweetchuck]

You can see the AI attempt to over ride the odds during battles as their 1 hp low defense stat units carve off 4, 5, 6 hp off 7-8 hp attacking units that have 2-4 times the attack stats of the AI units defending, including all the adjustments. It's like a switch that gets triggered that ensures the AI will win each round of that particular combat.

Yeah, I notice this also. If I have a stack that's seiging a city guarded by lesser units, I notice that there is a tendancy for the initial units guarding the city to drop like flies - however that last one or two units sure find a way to get some two-out lightning.

Although I've been told that I suffer from cognitive error.

 

[Sweetchuck]

Regarding tanks and spears, Russia lost hundreds of tanks planes and helicopters in such a backward country as Afganistan.

Actual battle systems are a LOT more complicated than this game, which is relatively simplistic all things considered. You can't really compare the two.

I'm absolutely convinced that the vast majority of complaints about the tank/spear thing are by players who are too lazy to use strategy but want to play on low level, gain a huge technology lead and gain a huge production lead (hence the complaints about corruption), and then roll over the enemy by attacking cities with no support and no strategy whatever. And to do all this with no diplomacy, no alliances, no trade. Just get a few techs ahead and brute force the game to an end.

I play regent, so I'm not sure if that falls into your category.

One thing I do notice is that the AI doesn't seem to upgrade it's units. It focuses on building masses of units - quantity over quality. When they get to a point that they can build advanced units - they build them, but don't seem to upgrade the ones that they already have.

So, when seiging a city - I find they have maybe (for example) a rifleman. Since that unit is the first one up to bat, my stack of, say riflemen will eventually eliminate him. Then my remaining stack is focused on what's left. Spearmen and the like.

I'm not going to seige a city with spearmen, or one or two riflemen and the rest spearmen if I have better units available - however the AI is cool with defending it's cities as such.

I might be building spearmen at one point, but I upgrade them if I have the gold - and if I don't have enough to upgrade all of them, I upgrade the ones in strategic areas.

 

[rysingsun]

Actually, the guerilla unit in civ would probably be considered too weak with regard to modern units in the game if used for Afghan or Iraqi resistance fighters.

So the weakest units in the modern world are stronger than a civ guerilla unit? It seems to follow by your logic that spearmen in civ should be strengthened against tanks since no unit in the real world is weaker than a guerilla. It might be good idea

And btw, kid...

been a long time since i've been called that, kid.

 

[Sweetchuck]

The AI is noted for its unwillingness to upgrade its units. Considering how easy that would have been to program this into the game, and how much it would improve gameplay, one wonders why it wasn't. Then looking at what they did to civ4, I'm not surprised they left out upgrading in the AI programming. There are actually quite a few small modifications they could have made to the game that they didn't that would improve gameplay considerably and I'm curious why they basicly kept so much of the flawed AI programming from civ1 all through the 1st 3 editions of the game.

One thing that I see most every time is that AI civs generally have little or no gold. It's rare to see an AI civ with even just a couple hundred gold, so even if they did bake in an AI upgrade trait, they would have little gold to do so.

I don't know what the AI does with all of their gold. Build spearmen, I guess.

 

[Bartleby]

Re upgrading: I don't think that the AI is unwilling to do so, but as Sweetchuck says, they can rarely afford to.

In the picture in this spoiler:

Spoiler :

you can see that a large amount of gold has disappeared from the economy, I presume it went on a mass upgrade.

 

[Pyrrhos]

Changes:

1) Major civs >> Minor Civs and slightly closer to their RL counterparts.
Examples: China - Agri, Sci & Rel. Rome - Ind, Com & Mil. Arabs - Sci, Rel & Exp, England - Seafaring, Mil & Com. Netherlands - Seafaring & Com, Aztecs - Mil & Rel. Iroquoise - Rel.

2) Units & Combat System.
Greater gap in Attack, Defense and hp. Example: Warrior 1-1-1, 2hp reg. Infantry 12-16-1, 8hp reg. Combat not to the death but probability +/- a percentage based on A vs defence with unit strength taken into consideration. Plus a chance of a rugged defence as a joker in the pack.

3) Age of Sail & Naval Units
The years c.1600-1850, ie when the modern world as we know it was formed, are almost completely missing from the game. Caravel & Carrack would come with Engineering, Galleon with Education, Ship-of-the-Line and Frigate with Astronomy and First Rate with Navigation. None of the wooden ships would be upgradable. The English UU would be a Ship-of-the-Line with the stats of a First Rate and the Privateer would be eliminated. Ironclads, non-upgradable, would come with Steam Power and Dreadnoughts with Steel.

4) Corruption Model.
There would be a cap at 60% corruption and you'd be able to build more towns before reaching it. A military presence as well as priestly in the form of Barracks, Temples and Cathedrals would lower corruption. This is in line with RL as religion and the military always have been closely linked with the state. ncidentally, it would give the Rel trait a boost which too is close to RL up to c1900.

5) Pollution
Three levels, each reducing output from tile by 1food-1shield-1commerce. Each level taking 3 base worker turns to clear multiplied by terrain factor, ie lvl 1 pollution on grassland would take three worker turns to clear, a lvl3 pollution on mountain would take 27 worker turns to clear. Pop and Bld pollution would be lvl one and have to strike the same square three times to get at lvl 3 or be left unattended for four turns before automatically reach the next lvl. Nuclear pollution is automatically lvl 3 and will take three times as long to clear. Also, there would be a Sewage Works available with Combustion that would slightly reduce pop & bld pollution.

 

[rysingsun]

I'd make the penalty for neglecting culture more severe in order to force people to build culture. Yup! Culture flips would be more common and you wouldn't be able to fully avoid them by owning your whole "fat X". I might eliminate city razing and starvation as loopholes to avoid the culture problem. And you know what that means: if your culture stinks then don't expect to take over the world, because the whole thing will flip back.

I'd consider having bigger differences between the civs. Traits would have bigger effects. UU's might be slightly stronger.

I'd get rid of the 4 turn minimum and 50 turn maximum. I don't like those. (but I don't mod my game, because I never know if some game is going to turn into a hof admission.)

 

[tomart]

Obviously, I'd reduce waste/corruption. The slider and OCN adjustments do help somewhat, but huge faraway cities reduced to 1 shield, just reduces fun. I LIKE big empires, and felt discriminated against and punished by the game.

In the Age of Discovery Conquest, you can see they actually did program in a big relaxation of the otherwise punitive waste/corruption numbers. In the beta, I said "Hey! Great idea! Let's reduce it in the epic game too!" But there were actually some who said, "Nerf!"... like they enjoyed being artificially limited and struggling with clumsy fixes...