You Know What I REALLY Miss From Civ 2?

[norwegianviking]

What about in the ancient and medieval era?

Fake road? Maybe it leads into a pit or jungle or something. like someone said: unfamiliar terrain (sorry for not quoting that!)

 

[rysingsun]

it would be highly unrealistic to allow full movement rate in enemy territory. the germans when they invaded russia drew the awe of millions by advancing a few hundred miles in a month. 10 miles a day for their fully motorized advanced armor divisions against little organized resistance after the first few days. on their own roads that would have been laughable. you might think a continent has only 2 rivers crossing it because its portrayed that way in the game. in reality there are hundreds of rivers streams and gullies that must be crossed and they all require bridges that can easily be sabotaged by a retreating enemy. supply lines are also time consuming to establish. if you think a division of tanks is going to just pull into a gas station and fill up deep inside enemy territory i think its not going to happen. not on the scale necessary to keep them fueled. roads can be mined or blockaded. it can be debated why it takes so long to advance in enemy territory but it is a fact of war all the same.

as for civ2 i really dont want to go back to the old days where i built an army of howitzers and launched a preemtive attack on the capital of an enemy twice as strong as me on HIS OWN RAILROADS and through him into civil war and proceeded to all but obliterate his empire in one turn. yes a turn represents a whole year but the cities owned by a civilization in the game represent those cities which are integral parts of the empire not cities which are merely "occupied".

a similar argument can be made for distance corruption. if it disturbs you that a city 20 squares away from a capital on a medium map is almost useless from a production standpoint consider that that distance represents something like 5000 miles. i cannot think of any civilization that ever existed with a span that big besides the soviet union. and really i dont think they ever drew much benefit from the far reaches of siberia anyway. the british empire certainly had colonies farther away than that but they were not major production centers compared to great britain. they were trade sources much like the trade sources in the game. and almost all of them eventually culture-flipped too when england was no longer willing or able to keep enough troops in those places to prevent it from happening.

tanks versus spearmen occasionally taking losses? russia occasionally took losses in afganistan too.

really i think civ III has done a tremendous job of rectifying many unrealistic practices of civ I and II.

 

[Turner]

I wish that in Civ3 workers would turn into a unit like the Engineers from Civ2. It's funny to see little men using shovels to build roads and such in modern times. They should be driving little backhoes or bulldozers.

Same can be said about settlers. In the modern ages, rather than have a dude walking around with a knapsack on his back he should be driving a little U-Haul truck.

I think in C3C you can set it up to have different ani's for each ear. I wouldn't change the settler (The truck in DyP really threw me at first) but the worker ani upgrading makes sense....

 

[Richard Cribb]

I miss the caravans and the possibiltiy of rush-building Wonders. If I am loaded with cash, why shouldn't I be allowed to build a nice temple for my favourite pagan-god or a cathedral for papa Bach?

 

[Falcon02]

Well, I've come up with a solution to the Movement issue.

Once your troops have fortified an enemy tile for 1 (or more) full turn(s) then you gain the effect of the movement upgrade of that tile (maybe Railroad should be nerfed for this though maybe to 1/5 movement cost). Also, a unit must remained fortified on that tile in order for you to keep the effect, otherwise you will have to "reclaim" it. I feel it makes it more realistic.

Once you have control of an area for a while you can move through it freely, with only minimal fear of sabotage and ambush. Yes, enemies can bombard bridges and roads and take it away from you in real life... but that's already in the game.

 

[bob rulz]

if it disturbs you that a city 20 squares away from a capital on a medium map is almost useless from a production standpoint consider that that distance represents something like 5000 miles. i cannot think of any civilization that ever existed with a span that big besides the soviet union.

The Soviet Union wasn't 5,000 miles, although the Mongol Empire was.

and really i dont think they ever drew much benefit from the far reaches of siberia anyway.

Except for oil, more natural resources than you could even imagine, and access to the Pacific Ocean.

tanks versus spearmen occasionally taking losses? russia occasionally took losses in afganistan too.

Yes, but Afghanistan wasn't at spearman-level technology were they?

 

[rysingsun]

Yes, but Afghanistan wasn't at spearman-level technology were they?

well ... yeah.

i guarantee you that you can find the most backward society on earth and if pressed to war it wont be long before you see many of them toting rifles and planting land mines. the american indians in the late nineteenth century even had rifles. where did they come from? captured in their case. in the case of stinger missles on the afgan soldiers they were covertly supplied by sympathetic governments that wanted to avoid open war. i would think in civ during the modern age that any spearmen left over from earlier builds to be realistically represented would have to be considered to have acquired at least a modest amount of somewhat advanced arms from "somewhere".

 

[SwitchbladeNGC]

Why are you volunteering this information..?

Possibly to help out those that are new to the game. That is what these forums are for are they not?

 

[sourboy]

I miss the wonder videos. That music & the collage of pictures that made you feel good that you built a wonder, even if you really didn't need it. It was like a small victory in the midst of a huge war.

 

[philippe]

i agree with sourboy but i heard about the high costs for something like that...

 

[Madroc]

I think I built the Eiffel Tower once for no other reason than to see the movie. Those were pretty cool. In a similar vein, the cartoony military advisor asking for more funding isn't nearly as cool as a guy in full armor ordering me to "give me more men, Sire, that they may sheath their swords in the beating hearts of our enemies!"... and don't get me started about the Elvis impersonator...

 

[alamo]

Teraforming was lost - the ability to grind down mountains is big loss.

Of course SMAC had more terraforming options.

Movies and sound clips are nice, but better gameplay is much more important.

 

[narmox]

One thing I think that should be in CIV III is how in CIV I you could'nt build roads over rivers until you had construction.

in Civ1, the RIVER was the tile so you couldn't build on it - in civ3 however, the rivers are between the tiles, and so you can build roads on the tiles themselves. However, it counts as one full movement point to move from that tile accross the river unless you have Engineering.

So it ends up being the same, except a bit faster cauyse you can build roads everywhere but can't use them in every direction until engineering. And a bit more realistic - you can at least build roads UP TO the river in civ3 bridges appear automatically later.

 

[skyline5k]

In Civ 1, you had the option of throwing a settler onto a transport and building a "bridge" over the ocean between 2 islands, providing that the boat was touching both islands. That was cool.

In the Earth map in Civ 1, I used to link England and France that way. You could only do that in the computer version. Not in the SNES version. (I think.)

 

[Turner]

You can still sorta do that in Civ3. Load the settler up into the transport while it's in a city and has it's movement points left. You can then take the transport to the other coast and land the settler in the same turn, assuming the transport is within range of the island.

 

[skyline5k]

But it's not the same. You'd have to keep your transport there. I'd just assume have a bridge. Perhaps "Chunnel" should be added to the build orders in the modern era!

 

[Jaded_Feriluce]

I think it would be cool if at least for those annoying one tile spaces between an island and the mainland in your territory that you could make somthing like a suspension bridge, or somthing to that effect. At least it'd be more realistic than everyone having to use a transport....... and I miss in civ2 where you could send a caravan with food from one of your cities to another thats starveing. Especially when you get that Great Wonder of Longitivty, I mean whats the use of getting two population points if you cant feed them? It reeks havok on the scores. Sorry about the spelling Im sick.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Did I hate the caravans in CivII! Good riddance!

Seeing how many units you sunk in a transport was pretty cool, but it's not like it really matters, does it? AI transports are always stuffed with two Tanks, one Inf, one Cav, one Medieval and one Longbowman.

 

[Turner]

I didn't hate them, because they were useful when trying to complete wonders, but I sure hated trying to establish trade routes with them.

 

[Paradigne]

I think it would be kinda cool if they had one more tech age... all the toys that are in the near future...