UnlockPotential
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2008
- Messages
- 74
They look sweet! Bring them back 
What would you have wanted different in Civilization 4?
- Thread starter Levgre
- Start date
I thought of another one... a unit that is fortified should have collateral damage reduced by that much... 5-25%.
That is what units like infantry would do, they'd 'dig in' to avoid artillery or plane barrages.
I don't think it would be overpowered because it means you are taking a real trade off in the mobility of your forces if you let units fortify for 5 turns.
Right now enough siege weapons completely roll over anything but humongous stacks or machine guns (or other siege weapons, but those aren't built for defense).
That is what units like infantry would do, they'd 'dig in' to avoid artillery or plane barrages.
I don't think it would be overpowered because it means you are taking a real trade off in the mobility of your forces if you let units fortify for 5 turns.
Right now enough siege weapons completely roll over anything but humongous stacks or machine guns (or other siege weapons, but those aren't built for defense).
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
It was terribly imbalanced and overpowering. Siege ruled civ III. You could bombard defender's health down regardless of where they were until they had 1 hit point left, then basically clean up with anything halfway decent.
Enough cannons = win. You'd literally shred armies to pieces before they could do anything about it, with no true risk of retaliation. Siege in civ 4, despite its problems, is much better balanced than civ III.
I'd like to see an AI that plays better rather than relying on 0394875039487 bonuses.
mystikmind2005
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2006
- Messages
- 510
Haleluja! the blind shall see and the lame shall walk!!! but nothing impresses me more than finally seeing somone else comment on this HUGE blunder in civ4
Balderstrom
Emperor
Can't say I played enough of CIV3 to test bombardment. But everything I have read indicates CIV3's bombardment was completely wack. Siege units were overpowered and a stack of them was all that was needed to create a SOD: bombard a cities defenders down to 1hp. Which doesn't sound like much fun to me.
Now if people are referring to the ability to bombard coastal ships with catapults, then yes that would make sense
Now if people are referring to the ability to bombard coastal ships with catapults, then yes that would make sense
A sentry mode telling you when a big SoD passes through towards your lands, no matter if they're not enemy yet. The unit should wake up when anything is near, not only declared enemies.
A patrol mode set to intercept anyone trying to pass between spot A and spot B.
Automated reckon missions.
Ranged detection for coastal incomings in the late game, with radar or satellites : no more "X declared war on you" with a huge stack of destroyers and transports already on your shores despite your huge fleet of battleships being right there on the next tile.
Speaking of satellites : I'd like them to show the map how it actually looks like, with cities and improvements, not a bare map like it was in 4000 BC.
AIs demanding stuff with a little more common sense : no more furious civs asking you to join war versus your best ally, no more enemies asking you Rifling.
The ability to "red out" stuff you don't want to trade or do.
The ability to cut diplomatic relations with a civ, with a diplo hit if necessary : "No Joao I won't talk to you anymore, all you do is beg for techs or threaten for tributes and you really pissed me off. Get the hell out of my palace before I let the dogs eat your leg, and don't dare coming back until I call you."
Advisor in the info screens would be cool, yes. That's not really important, but that would add some flavor to the game.
A patrol mode set to intercept anyone trying to pass between spot A and spot B.
Automated reckon missions.
Ranged detection for coastal incomings in the late game, with radar or satellites : no more "X declared war on you" with a huge stack of destroyers and transports already on your shores despite your huge fleet of battleships being right there on the next tile.
Speaking of satellites : I'd like them to show the map how it actually looks like, with cities and improvements, not a bare map like it was in 4000 BC.
AIs demanding stuff with a little more common sense : no more furious civs asking you to join war versus your best ally, no more enemies asking you Rifling.
The ability to "red out" stuff you don't want to trade or do.
The ability to cut diplomatic relations with a civ, with a diplo hit if necessary : "No Joao I won't talk to you anymore, all you do is beg for techs or threaten for tributes and you really pissed me off. Get the hell out of my palace before I let the dogs eat your leg, and don't dare coming back until I call you."
Advisor in the info screens would be cool, yes. That's not really important, but that would add some flavor to the game.
The Frisian
Puny Mortal
I think 'tourism' should be somehow incorporated in the game. (I'm a Civ4 Vanilla player, so I'm not sure about the expansions, but I haven't read about such a feature yet).
I end about 90% of my games running state property. I've usually conquered a number of neighboring civs by the time I get to the modern era and I find that communism frees up so much money (esp. for huge multi continent archipelago states) that it just beats free market. The Cold War should have been won hands down by Russia. Especially since the USA has its capital in the wrong place to be effective
I think the large free market civs should get some extra benefit to justify free market. By the time a free market civ builds its courthouses, harbors and airports to maximize trade and income, the communists (i.e. me) have already started invading the borders with tanks and gunships. So what's needed?: TOURISM trade doublers that increase gold the farther away they are from the capital. Think about it. You've just settled on some tropical island (let's call it Hawaii) far away from civilization and build a port (or airport). Tourists from the mainland should be flocking in. And some sort of tourist tax should come into play.
Perhaps Steam Power (think Titanic... wait bad example) could be the tech that triggers the tourism multiplier to the trade screen of cities. The greater the distance from the palace, the more money you make in that city. And there should be a second factor: Tourism money from culture in high culture cities. All those wonders and culture buildings are starting to get a bit useless in the modern era, unless you're going for a cultural victory. So why not tie them to the tourist function? Every expanded culture ring could correspond to an increased percentage of 'tourist tax' income. Or, a percentage of the culture per turn could be converted into gold. So now you have tourist income from far away islands (though not necessarily enough to cancel out the 'distance from palace penalty'), and tourist income from (high) culture. Perhaps there could even be a 'resort' building that boosts tourist income in a city.
In order to make free market roughly as profitable as state property, a economic modifier could be added to the economy-civics.
Free market + 100% tourism rate in all cities.
State property + 10% tourism.
Environmentalism + 100% tourism (to justify its high cost. And people like forests.)
I also agree with a previous poster who said that there should be an ideology penalty between civs who runs free market vs state property. (Although the 'adopt this civic or we'll get mad' diplo talks seem to emulate this somewhat).
Well, gotta get back to my Aztec comrades, who are about to show the capitalist Malinese why state property is superior.
I end about 90% of my games running state property. I've usually conquered a number of neighboring civs by the time I get to the modern era and I find that communism frees up so much money (esp. for huge multi continent archipelago states) that it just beats free market. The Cold War should have been won hands down by Russia. Especially since the USA has its capital in the wrong place to be effective
I think the large free market civs should get some extra benefit to justify free market. By the time a free market civ builds its courthouses, harbors and airports to maximize trade and income, the communists (i.e. me) have already started invading the borders with tanks and gunships. So what's needed?: TOURISM trade doublers that increase gold the farther away they are from the capital. Think about it. You've just settled on some tropical island (let's call it Hawaii) far away from civilization and build a port (or airport). Tourists from the mainland should be flocking in. And some sort of tourist tax should come into play.
Perhaps Steam Power (think Titanic... wait bad example) could be the tech that triggers the tourism multiplier to the trade screen of cities. The greater the distance from the palace, the more money you make in that city. And there should be a second factor: Tourism money from culture in high culture cities. All those wonders and culture buildings are starting to get a bit useless in the modern era, unless you're going for a cultural victory. So why not tie them to the tourist function? Every expanded culture ring could correspond to an increased percentage of 'tourist tax' income. Or, a percentage of the culture per turn could be converted into gold. So now you have tourist income from far away islands (though not necessarily enough to cancel out the 'distance from palace penalty'), and tourist income from (high) culture. Perhaps there could even be a 'resort' building that boosts tourist income in a city.
In order to make free market roughly as profitable as state property, a economic modifier could be added to the economy-civics.
Free market + 100% tourism rate in all cities.
State property + 10% tourism.
Environmentalism + 100% tourism (to justify its high cost. And people like forests.)
I also agree with a previous poster who said that there should be an ideology penalty between civs who runs free market vs state property. (Although the 'adopt this civic or we'll get mad' diplo talks seem to emulate this somewhat).
Well, gotta get back to my Aztec comrades, who are about to show the capitalist Malinese why state property is superior.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
Free Market is fine. It comes earlier in the game, and if you set the trade routes up correctly can be a HUGE source of income.
Courthouses/FP usually take care of any woes for FM. State property is very late in the game though I'll often switch if I can swing it and I'm THAT big already.
Keep in mind state property disallows corps, while free market cuts their costs. Corps can be pretty powerful, and on some maps trade routes in a city can be worth the same as 4-5 pop's worth of towns in big cities. That's a lot of commerce.
Courthouses/FP usually take care of any woes for FM. State property is very late in the game though I'll often switch if I can swing it and I'm THAT big already.
Keep in mind state property disallows corps, while free market cuts their costs. Corps can be pretty powerful, and on some maps trade routes in a city can be worth the same as 4-5 pop's worth of towns in big cities. That's a lot of commerce.
I wish conquest moved faster. All the elements in Civ 4 are designed to slow down conquest: massive defender bonuses, loss of culture for captured cities, ultra slow movement for attacking units in enemy territory (blitzkrieg, what's that), the incredibly unrealistic need for waves of kamikaze siege units, and so on and so on and so on.
Scoottr
Prince
The ability to remove deserts from a map being created without using an editor. Just click something so that deserts are not in there at all. Can't stand them! I always have some huge friggin desert right in my path of expansion.
Bombardment should reduce a unit's fortification bonus.
Siege units should be less likely to retreat successfully if attacking a stack that includes untapped mounted units.
Cannon and higher should be able to damage ships. Ships should be able to damage land units. Aircraft should be able to sink ships (duh! duh! duh!). Damaged siege units and ships should bombard less effectively.
Siege units should be less likely to retreat successfully if attacking a stack that includes untapped mounted units.
Cannon and higher should be able to damage ships. Ships should be able to damage land units. Aircraft should be able to sink ships (duh! duh! duh!). Damaged siege units and ships should bombard less effectively.
mystikmind2005
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2006
- Messages
- 510
Can't say I played enough of CIV3 to test bombardment. But everything I have read indicates CIV3's bombardment was completely wack. Siege units were overpowered and a stack of them was all that was needed to create a SOD: bombard a cities defenders down to 1hp. Which doesn't sound like much fun to me.
Now if people are referring to the ability to bombard coastal ships with catapults, then yes that would make sense
If not catapults then at least cannon and artillery.
The first game of civ 4 i ever played, i got to a point in the game where i tried to bombard a naval unit with my cannon, and i'm like,, "uh, what the??"
Next step after that was to immediately uninstall the game and box it for a year!
As for civ3, well the artillery was pretty lethal against ground units as well. That is just the reality of artillery if you want a realistic game. The fact that the AI failed to push artillery in kind is the reason artillery was castrated in Civ4. This is a failure to succeed with AI development, not a game improvement.
JujuLautre
Deity
Having not played CivIII enough, I assume that the way it's handle is what I have sometimes read: With an artillery unit, you could use a special action and bombard an adjacent tile. The main idea being to bombard the opponent's units all the way down, and then mop-up with "cleaning" units.
If I'm correct, I can't see how realistic this is. I mean, we're talking here about a battle where one side has no casualty whatsoever? This seems pretty unrealistic to me.
Don't hesitate to tell me if I'm wrong with my information though.
If I'm correct, I can't see how realistic this is. I mean, we're talking here about a battle where one side has no casualty whatsoever? This seems pretty unrealistic to me.
Don't hesitate to tell me if I'm wrong with my information though.
mystikmind2005
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2006
- Messages
- 510
The battle you describe is preciselly how it happens in real life when one side fails to counter the other sides artillery. The artillery side will take some casualties but this is represented in CIV3 as damage. The game does not show individual loss of life, only the loss of an entire unit.
As i mentioned earlier, it is a failure of the AI to use counter artillery that is the problem, not the way artillery works in civ3
JujuLautre
Deity
Am I right in saying that you would have the same situation (non-casualties battles) even with tech parity? What about if you have a tech disadvantage? Will it be the same?
As I said, I'm not sure about this, since I didn't really play CivIII.
As I said, I'm not sure about this, since I didn't really play CivIII.
mystikmind2005
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2006
- Messages
- 510
Well if you counter AI tanks with warriors and catapults then i guess you have a problem!
But in Civ3 you can take on a far more powerful AI enemy with much greater ease than in civ4
JujuLautre
Deity
Could you please answer my question? I'm really interested by this stuff.
Basically, is it possible in CivIII to take down almost every army this way, even if it's technologicaly superior, provided that you have enough siege engines?
Basically, is it possible in CivIII to take down almost every army this way, even if it's technologicaly superior, provided that you have enough siege engines?
mystikmind2005
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2006
- Messages
- 510
Well if you have 'enough' siege engines, you can do that in civ4 or civ3. Infact because of collateral damage in civ4, you would require far less siege engines to do the same job than in civ3 but.... you can expect to take some casualties doing that in civ4. If your careful, you can avoid casualties in civ3 - so i guess this is the key difference except that the artillery in civ3 are highly fun to use!
So in civ4, because of inevitable casualties, the overall production power of each nation is more significant than it is in civ3. This is a good thing but i just which they had achieved it in some other way apart from castrating the artillery.
Similar threads
