 |
| |
|
|
Theben
|
 |
Dance Dance for the Revolution!
Jan 1970
time: 00:14
|
|
Beaten to the punch, but I'll say that any military unit should be able to capture a square of rr. And the quick destruction of rr's in retreat (or for whatever reason) is a good idea. Now if there are small units, from single persons to small groups of individuals (explorers, leaders, spies if still used as units *shudder* but not diplomats) they should be able to ride enemy rails as they could blend into the population easily. However, there should be a small % chance each square they move that they will be caught (by local authorities not on game map).
Maniac,
I consider SMAC-style raised terrain an interesting idea that failed in use. It made it difficult to see where units were, what TI's were on the tile that was tilted away from you on the map. Also it's not very realistic; considering the vast scale we're operating with the tiles should all look "flat" to our view. When tallying the pros & cons, in the end the flat tiles win me over.
Regarding your complaint, I did suggest new tiles: forested mountains & forested hills. They'd have +1 food & +1 production each, and would be found on the windward side of mountain ranges (west slope, like SMAC rainfall). I think your major concern is a lack of different terrain tiles.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Sheth
|
|
Houston, TX 77030
Jan 1970
time: 05:14
|
|
The use of a different railroad gauge from your neighbor in order to prevent that neighbor from using your lines to attack you has some basis in historical fact. Russia and China use different gauges, so people travelling from one country to the other by train have to ride in specially designed cars that can switch wheels at the border. This wheel switching takes a bit of time, and could possibly be approximated by having to wait for a turn or two when encountering an enemy's railroad system before that system can actually be used.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecce Homo
|
|
Stockholm, Sweden
Apr 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
If SMAC features altitude, Civ 3 probably will. But, please make sure it is specified in meters (optionally in the English system), for us non-Americans' sake.
------------------
The best ideas are those that can be improved.
Ecce Homo
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecce Homo
|
|
Stockholm, Sweden
Apr 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
M@ni@c's post about clearing forest made me think of that most of Europe, east Asia and eastern USA was covered by dedicious woods before it was cleared for agriculture.
In Civ 1/2, grasslands dominate the map. In Civ 3, they should be more uncommon.
Has anybody handled the issue of resource depletion? As far as I have understood, mineral deposits are never depleted, but become increasingly scarce, until the industry no longer breaks even. How this should be simulated depends on whether Civ 3 should use "shields" or different trading commodities.
------------------
The best ideas are those that can be improved.
Ecce Homo
|
|
| |
|
|
|
I really hate the way Civ/SMAC treats huge hunks of land (~100 mile square tiles) as undifferentiated terrain. I also hate the way you can only have one type of terrain improvement, like as if farms and mines and forests (Civ) or mines and solar collectors and forests (SMAC) can't coexist within a tile!
In reality the populace improves the land they need to use. They break new ground for farms in the midst of forests, hills, swamps, or whatever. They mine wherever they discover minerals worth the digging. It does take government initiative or incentive to prospect and mine away from population centers, and in that case people working there are unlikely to engage in agriculture worth notice on the scale of this game.
I'd want to see something a little more innovative for handling terrain use and improvement. Allow more than one pop unit to use a tile, with some kind of diminishing returns depending on terrain. For hills only one pop unit could farm at the highest productivity, but for a fertile grassland several could. Then Civ3 could actually use a linear population scale for the city size… but maybe I'm asking too much.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecce: can you name a resource that has been depleted (excluding and animal species)? The answer is, "No." There are places where individual mines or veins are depleted to the point of zero net economical value, but that point drops with technology. Oil fields that were considered depleted thirty years ago when Paul Erlich et alia started whining about the sky falling are now producing again, despite low crude oil prices.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CivPerson
|
|
I like the idea of natural disasters. What if, like pollution, you had sqares that where on fire. Have that sqaure usless to a city and inflict damage on any unit that goes on that square. Have a Tech Advance of Figherfighting which would allow a city to build a Firestation to protect that city from that disiaster, like the SDI deffense does with nukes. In the same way create a new military unit, say Flamethrower, to inflict squares with fire, perhaps the same way an engineer builds roads. How about Napalm bombs down the road to create fire in multiple squares? To be realistic about this, the fire should not continue longer than a couple of turns, but afterwards no improvemnts should be left on the square.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CivPerson
|
|
Allow units to have unlimited movement from the RR only when they leave from a city; otherwise, the RR is treated like a road. This will keep other Civs from having full advantage of your RR. Unless they link up to it with their own RR.
-- I like the idea of colored owned RR. --
|
|
| |
|
|
|
NotLikeTea
|
|
HRM, NS, Canada
Apr 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
I'm not sure about a "burning" square, but weapons to destroy terrain would be cool. Napalm and various defoliants were important in Vietnam to remove cover, and reduce defensive bonuses.
On another topic, I've been thinking of rivers. What is CivIII divided rivers into minor and major? Minor rivers would combine and form major rivers. Both river types would give a food bonus, and would be allowable sources of irrigation, but only Major rivers would be navagable by sea units and would provide trade bonuses.
Speaking of navigation, the current system of reduced movement costs for rivers is a bit odd. What is a unit moving ONTO a river square gets a movement penalty of maybe 2 movement points, instead of the usual 1 (fording rivers, preparing rafts, etc. Maybe a bigger penalty of major rivers since thet're harder to cross?), but moving along a river from one river square to another would give the traditional movement bonus. Would allow rivers to act both as aids to movement, and as useful barriers for defence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CivPerson
|
|
In a regular game (w/earth) have an option of a large map (say: 100X100) so that the terrain can have more detail. Of course it would lead to a longer game, and that is why I would like to see it as an option.
I like the CIV games because of the learning value comes with it, like history. How about expanding the learning area by associating land squares with actual city names. This would help people become more aware of geography. Since a square can cover several real cities, have mutiple names for that square.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flavor Dave
|
|
dondon--I don't see your complaint about undifferentiated terrain. That just seems a natural result of the kind of game civ is. You can always play on maps and *pretend* that you're not playing on the whole earth, but just a portion of it (flat world option.) I mean, maybe this isn't the whole world, but just 1/10 of it, right? Then the undifferentiated terrain makes sense.
"ember: If you give RR a 1/5 Movement Bonus instead of an unlimited MB"
Here's my suggestion--unlimited RR movement WITHIN your borders (we're gonna get borders, right?). And then 1/6 (twice as good as roads, so this makes more sense to me) outside your borders. This will go a long way to solving the strategy funnel problem of the howie blitz. Combined with some changes to how bombers work, you could really get to use the whole military.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindlace
|
|
Lisbon, Portugal
May 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
EnochF: cloneodo's Engineer suggestion (7/17) was incredibly cool. It would take a lot of the micromanagement out of terraforming. I'd do the checkbox by terrain type, though- after you've selected the terraforming area the pop-up box looks like this:
_______Farm__'solar'__Mine__Road
Plains__[X]____[X]____[ ]___[ ]
Rocky___[X]____[ ]____[X]___[ ]
etcetera...
--
Fortification should be something like outposts in MOOII: If you build a fortification and then settle inside it you should have a city wall.
--
I vote for 3d terrain, but i think it should be finer-grained than the squares so that you don't get the 'softly rolling hills' look like SMAC- each game square is devided into, say, a 3x3 grid, and this is deformed by the 3d engine. The 3d engine would represent altitude and moisture ala SMAC.
Since it's not a barren world, have sprites for the flora- trees, grassland, jungle. It'd be cool if the jungle could stick up more than a forest- I know it wouldn't be 'realistic' but I'd love to see a prominent Amazon...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindlace
|
|
Lisbon, Portugal
May 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
tecnophile's road imprivements are awesome. Vaccuum Tunnel should be more expensive with each square of added length, and not allow cross-connections.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I like 3d but I have a big problem with smac style terrain
that is, that it looks incredibally big for a civ square a smac volcano was bigger than france and even nurmal mountains would rais straight for two squares without going down
really they are few mountain ranges that wide and mountain rainges go up and down
I thing something like smacs terrain would work (more flatter looking) as the base of the land but not the mountains and hills themselves
by base I am meaning that they would be able to show a difference between lowlands and high lands
then maybe they could use squares for the mountains and hills themselves so that the himalyas don't look like one mountain
the square terrain can be 3d too
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dinoman2
|
|
pjiowe
Jul 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
I like the idea of bridges being able to connect land squares across water as well. At first, you could only build bridges across 1 square of water, and as technology improved, the number of squares would improve. But it shouldn't be more than about 3 squares max.
Also, I like ctp's public works, but it is frustrating that you can't build anything outside of your base radius. So, I think you should have the public works, but then you could also have engineers and settlers, so you could build roads outside of bases, or prepare an area for a base.
------------------
"Idealism is the despot of thought, just as politics is the despot of will"
-Mikhail Bakunin
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Theben
|
|
Dance Dance for the Revolution!
Jan 1970
time: 00:14
|
|
mindlace: Check out my 7/7 post for auto-engineers, which is similar to what cloneodo's idea is (I think). To spell it out, in a PREFERENCE screen, similar to SMAC, you'd assign an order of priority to your engineers based on 1) terrain tile and 2) what to do to the tile & in what order. 1st the AI (your engineer) would check to see what tiles are in the area it is meant to modify. If grassland is #1 on your list to modify, it would scan for grassland, then move to the closest grassland if there's one present. If not, it'd move down the list until there was no tiles left to modify (at which point it would un-auto itself). Once there, it would check to see what you want done to the tile, and in what order. You clicked roads as #1 priority in the preference screen, so it builds a road. Then irrigation as #2. Nothing else is chosen (or available due to lack of tech), so it goes back to step #1, searching for more grassland. This setting could be changed during the game, and would stay from one game to the next until changed (or reset to default). You should also be able to change the AI's preferences in a .txt file, for scenarios and modpacks.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Theben (edited July 23, 1999).]</font>
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-07-1999 09:57
|