 |
| |
|
|
Tommar
|
|
Removal of repetitive tasks, such as being able to specify a default building queue to be used by ALL cities (with over-rides or enables), instead of having to specify the same queue, over and over again, for each city. Alternatively, be able to micromanage your Governors' activities, by specifying precisely what they should build, in what order, and what they should not build under any circumstances.
Similarly, more automation choices for formers (like plant forests!  . Better yet, be able to tell it what to build for different terrain types (if rainy and rolling, build farm and mine; if arid, plant forest, etc.
Must keep: SE and Workshops, although improvements would be nice.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tommar
|
|
Be able to refuse communications from other factions, just like they can refuse player communications.
Be able to break treaties/pacts without loss of reputation if the faction leader refuses communications (like when they stray into your territory and you can't tell them to leave because they refuse communications, but you lose reputation if you break the pact.)
Stop the AI from trying to use extortion tactics ("if you give me half your money, I'll call off this war!" when you have 20 Deathspheres parked outside one of their cities.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Commy
|
 |
St. Louis, MO, USA
Mar 2004
time: 05:21
|
|
IIRC, in the comlink window, you can right-click on a faction and tell them to get out of your territory, whether or not they want to talk to you...a player can't ignore these messages, including the AI, but unfortunately it will most likely result in war, unless, of course, you like war, then this could be good...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tommar
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
IIRC, in the comlink window, you can right-click on a faction and tell them to get out of your territory, whether or not they want to talk to you...a player can't ignore these messages, including the AI, but unfortunately it will most likely result in war, unless, of course, you like war, then this could be good... |
Cool, thanks, I didn't know about the right click option.
It's ok if it results in war. When they start ignoring your messages, war is often inevitable. And I never make a demand that I can't enforce.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tommar
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hercules
I would like to see tunnelling (my apologies to those who have mentioned this in a wish list before) an option at some stage, maybe at Ecol Enginnering. Effectively the same as roads but also like submarine but below ground. This could be accomplished in a number of ways:
A former acquires tunnelling ability. A former builds the tunnel rather like building roads and magtubes. Non naval Units would travel along these in the same way as on the land surface. All tunnels would all be at the same subterranean level.
capabilities.
|
I like this idea. Even in SMAX, seabases are weaker than land because of transportation issues. I use brute force to overcome this - build land bridges. It seems like a civiliization that has the resources to build land bridges could also build a tunnel.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tommar
|
|
If tunnels are more onerous than land bridges, than there is no point.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
IIRC, in the comlink window, you can right-click on a faction and tell them to get out of your territory, whether or not they want to talk to you...a player can't ignore these messages, including the AI, but unfortunately it will most likely result in war, unless, of course, you like war, then this could be good... |
IIRC, you can also right click and declare a vendetta, though the option doesn't show up all the time 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yogho
|
|
Since the whole idea of SMAC is that people are trying to live on a hostile planet, and it's one of the biggest differences to Civs, I think that aspect should be expanded.
One way of doing it could be putting some kind of support cost to bases. Currently a base in a crap location is still better than no base at all, and this results in bases covering almost every bit of land, which doesn't feel like colonising a hostile place. So, if there were support costs, a base in poor location wouldn't be self-sufficient, and would consume more resources than it produces, and would require help from other bases. Then it'd only make sense to build bases to good spots, first of all making exploration more important.
The bases would potentially be far away from each other, with nothing but dangerous wasteland between them. This would create new challences conserning transportation and infrastructure, etc. It would create a feeling that the bases are colonies that are pretty much on their own, and life in them is dangerous.
Of course the maps would have to be bigger, so there would be a lot of land.
It would make wars different, since it would be more difficult to get an invading army to enemy's bases, but it would be equally difficult for the defender to reinforce his bases. there would be less actual fighting, but more challence for both, and the fights would be more important. That also goes well with the setting, since there are a lot fewer people on the planet than there are on Earth, so there would also be fewer soldiers, and leaders wouldn't waste their lives as lightly as they would o Earth. And so the there would be a lot considerations for launching any meaningful invasion.
Another good thing would be to have terrain improvments have support costs, so you couldn't just build every place full of stuff, instead you'd have to seriously think what to build and where. Also, this combined with longer distances between bases and the importance of roadnetwork would create important intersections, that would be strategic points to defend and attack during a war.
It of course would require AI that could play well with these rules, but a signicantly better AI goes to any reasonable wishlist without saying anyway.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Xian
|
|
3 suggestions
1a. More interactive and involved UN. Anti-war resolutions, Some type of equivalent to ecological resolutions (instead of Kyoto protocols there coudl be "pro-planet resolution 646: all factions reduce total eco-damage by 2047 or something) democratically decided sanctions on unpopular factions, debates over things like Solar shades. Better and less buggy bribing system. More complexity in vote counts.
1.b related to above, WAY MORE States to be fit in the game, for gameplay at least, it was ridiculous to have only 7 factions (although given the storyline if anything there should have been less) We need to have at least ten to make diplomacy and war really complex. The entire idea of having "superpowers" makes no sense if there are only 5 or 6 other competitors on planet.
2a. No concept of "factions," let each player define entirely what they want to be uniquely for every game by drastically extending the complexity and significance of the SE table
2b. A much more complex and significant SE table. AC was a huge step in the right direction, we need more options, more sets of options, and the ability to choose more than one and/or blend different ideas.
One way to do this would be to make each option (and balance all game events and things that affect them) come in multiples of 3 (instead of +2, +6 but still balanced relatively) and then allow the player to choose between blending different SE ideas. (ie Green currently offers +6effic +6 planet and -6 Growth, and planned offers +6 growth -6 effic and +3 industry - so allow the player to combine both leaning towards a green or planned getting 0 effic +4 planet 0growth +1 industry or 0 effic +2 planet 0 growth +2 industry respectively.
Ideas that are incompatible like democratic police state might only be able to be combined evenly, meaning an overall lost of 33% of the possible advantages and disadvantages and no ability to lean in either direction - thus discouraging combining Se choices that would otherwise give advantages or whatever.
3. More interactivity with any players reputation, specifically by the AI. One thing that pissed me off in my games of AC is that it was impossible to please certain opponents diplomatically.
Some examples could be Green factions should not be mad at you JUST for running Free market or Planned as long as your not polluting. Democratic factions should NOT be as mad at a police state that has no problems with its citizens (no heavy policing no drone riots) as they are with a brutal dictatorship or taliban that has to constantly violently keep people in line. A free market faction should not critiscize you for running a planned/green/whatever as long as your making money paying lenders and actively participating in trade.
Besides being more realistic, these changes would put more power in the hands of the player and make for much cooler roleplaying and AI interaction. I dont think any of these changes would be technically difficult and they all would make the game more fun without requiring advanced programming or technology.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
biru biru
|
 |
Tokyo
Oct 2004
time: 14:21
|
|
I've played this game. I liked it a lot. I went and bought it at the store. It doesn't swork on my computer. I want to see a game that works on my computer, thanks. PS, I've dowloaded the patches and such. 
anyway, civ ii still works, so I guess I'll live. But I just got Gal Civ and it has a nice start page, but doesn't work either, so I'm like ***k, #$%&@&$%#!. Then i'm, like, ***k, #$%&@&$%#!. finally, I'm like 
I'm on XP, NEC laptop. If you can help, I can be happy. 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-06-2005 23:22
I suppose you have a webcam?
OT posters
|