 |
| |
|
|
dexters
|
 |
Vancouver, Canada
Nov 2001
time: 05:28
|
|
To Firaxis,
I have been with Civ III since day 1 of the game’s release in 2001. I want to say that I am pleased with the announcement of Conquests. I just got back from The Matrix Reloaded and this announcement just topped off my day perfectly. Thank you for all the fun. You have my business for your latest XP.
I have a few concerns and suggestions I would like to be considered.
1)TRADE - I’ve been discussing with a lot of players about a slightly Modified trade system where aside from trading techs, gold, luxuries, resources and workers, a new diplomatic option of establishing a trade route (meant to represent the flow of goods) will be added. Check this thread for more details http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...892#post1988603
2)AI - The AI in Civ III PTW is pretty darned good and I assume with the new slate of features, the programmers will have their hands full implementing and fine tuning the AI needed for the new features. I think the fans deserve a better all around AI too. Just as you guys delivered a superior AI in PTW, perhaps some of the AI lapses (such as worker inefficiency) and others can be fixed. See link for my research into AI worker inefficiency. (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...ighlight=worker)
3)Diplomacy - I am encouraged by the new feature of “Locked alliances” but please don’t make it a glorified MPP between multiple nations. If locked alliances is IN, then allow for unit trading. Known abuses of this can be fixed by 1) disallowing trade of units outdated relative to the receiver 2) unit trade cap on the lifetime of the alliance 3) Better AI management of its own units. If it gets 3 tanks in a trade and still has 3 medieval infantry somewhere, it should disband its outdated offensive units and have the tanks replace it.
Also, make the UN more political, rather than just an end run kind of thing.
4)PATCHING - I understand Conquests is supposed to work with Civ III standalone. But I assume it will also work with those of us who have both Civ III and PTW. I’d like to see streamlined patching. The way things are currently going, it is likely we will get something like this in our install directory under “Add/Remove programs.”
Civ III > Civ III Patch > PTW > PTW Patch > Conquests > Conquests Patch
I’m no programmer, but I’d have to assume this is a little inefficient, and may take us extra HD room as well as hinder the performance for someone playing Coquests, with so many layers of patches and programs stacking on one another.
If at all possible, can Firaxis include THE OPTION for PTW owners to install a universal patch for Civ III , PTW and conquests? I’m assuming the 1.29f for CivIII is final. And PTW may receive its final patch soon. It would be nice if we could streamline this a little and have something like this instead.
Civ III > PTW > Conquests > Universal Patch
Variances of the patch could also be released for those who only own Civ III and Conquests.
5) Requirements - The Conquests FAQ lists the XP as running on a P II 300 Mhz, same as Civ III and PTW. However, PTW’s manual and readme lists the game as requiring a PII 400 Mhz, despite the Civ3.com FAQ saying otherwise. I have a PIII 450 MHZ, a marginal system, and would appreciate it if Conquests is kept workable in the 300 Mhz limit listed in the FAQ, at least for the map sizes up to 160X160.
6) Related to the issue of Technology. For a marginal system like mine, in PTW, the military screen “F3” is nearly unworkable in the middle to late game when spies are planted. It takes several seconds to scroll one line down to check an AI civ’s military lists. If something can be done to fix this, It would be appreciated.
Last edited by dexters on 16-05-2003 at 12:44
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:28
|
|
Firaxis says it is putting more diplomacy into the game... and there are a few things that I want specifically (most of these were talked about in the past on these boards, but I haven't seen them since the Conquest announcement was made).
1. One way ROP.
If I'm at the end of a landmass, it's silly for an ally who is between me and our common enemy to have to pass through me. Should be easy to program, realistic (look at US today).
2. Duration editing of deals
Why does every deal have to be twenty turns? What if I want a spice for gems deal until the end of time? Or a mutual protection pact for only 10 turns? I would love to be able to sign a military alliance for only 10 turns during the modern era when war weariness is crippling but I don't want a rep hit.
The AI could weight the values of trade deals according to how long they will last, which it already does for gpt deals anyhow.
3. Cease fire.
I see these working as follows: Nobody pays anybody anything, but all fighting stops. Now you can negotiate for peace over the course of the cease fire (which is an editable duration, of course!). If the cease fire expires, it remains unofficially in place until hostilities are reopened. I especially see this as useful in multiplayer, where either diplomacy is carried out over several turns, or you can't necessarily drop everything to negotiate a peace deal. Also, the tension of such a deal is one of the greats from Civ 2 and Alpha Centauri. Entering a cease fire would make relations with the other civ improve over a state of war. Breaking a cease fire would come with a small rep hit.
4. Stacked units with allies.
Been talked about in these threads. It is very important, I think.
5. Alliances without enemies.
This might be what the "permanant alliances" they've talked about are, I don't know. Alliance status increases relations greatly, allows use of each others roads, rails, airbases, and allows unit stacking. Their units can heal in your barracks. Includes an ROP, and implies a MPP. If one gets attacked, you don't get thrown into war, but they can ask you to join to honor the alliance. Not doing so when requested has penalties.
6. Option to honor/not honor agreements.
This is to clean up some of the ridiculous logic of MPPs. Let's say I have an MPP with Greece and Rome, and Rome attacks Greece. I should get a popup saying "The Greeks are under attack by Romans, shall we honor our agreement with Alexander and declare war?" Saying yes is obviously expected, and no has a rep hit and makes people less likely to honor a MPP with you, but it's an option. Let's say Greece is half of Rome's size, and you share an enormous border with Rome, and the only reason you signed an MPP with both was for protection against some other common enemy... I can see not wanting a Roman war shoved down your throat.
7. Multilateral diplomacy!
Many of us have cried out for this one, however unlikely. But if you're going to ask us to pay money for a game we already own, then make it worth our cash! I'd pay if this were the only addition.
8. Unit trading.
See the thousands of threads already dedicated to this topic.
9. Constant choice between "Please leave" and "Get out or war."
10. Some effect from "please leave."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:28
|
|
I almost forgot... no free palaces!
Building a palace is so expensive, but losing your palace means you get a free one?! What the heck?
The player is given an advantage because he knows that abandoning his capital is sometimes a great idea, which is absurd.
And losing a capital doesn't really matter... I propose that losing the palace means all cities are counted as being, for exapmle, six cities away form the capital in terms of corruption. I don't know exactly what would be a good number, maybe Alexman, or someone else who really knows corruption could come up with one.
Also, if a civ has no palace, then a new palace is hugely discounted, so that a reasonably built up, but largely corrupt city, could finish it in about 20 turns.
ANd if you have the FP when you lose your palace? Make FP change into a palace, and now you can build the FP somewhere else.
Losing your Palace should be a horrible thing, and the enemy's capital should be a prime military target (besides for culture fliping reasons). My suggestion would reflect this, without being too powerful.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Falconius
I like the gist of your idea. But if one of the factors calculating corruption is distance from capital, how do you do this when there is no capital? |
Just say that every city is X number of tiles away from the capital if there is none. That's how it's worked in past games.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kloreep
|
 |
of the pillow
Jun 2002
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fosse
4. Stacked units with allies.
Been talked about in these threads. It is very important, I think. |
 This is one feature I really want. Heck, I would probably buy the expansion just for this.
quote:
Originally posted by Fosse
6. Option to honor/not honor agreements.
This is to clean up some of the ridiculous logic of MPPs. Let's say I have an MPP with Greece and Rome, and Rome attacks Greece. I should get a popup saying "The Greeks are under attack by Romans, shall we honor our agreement with Alexander and declare war?" Saying yes is obviously expected, and no has a rep hit and makes people less likely to honor a MPP with you, but it's an option. Let's say Greece is half of Rome's size, and you share an enormous border with Rome, and the only reason you signed an MPP with both was for protection against some other common enemy... I can see not wanting a Roman war shoved down your throat. |
Definitely needed, though the rep hit must be quite harsh to keep MPPs from being fluff. Possibly keep AIs from ever signing an MPP with you again, like with breaking gpt deals.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-05-2003 12:29
|