Civ II & Capitalization
Jeffrey M. George
Danny Johnson wrote:
>
> Has anyone else found it impossible to achieve the Capitalisation
> feature. I have made it my goal from the very start of the game to
> achieve this but it always appears in brackets and can't be accessed.
>
> Am I missing something blatantly obvious or is it something very
> subtle I am not doing.
>
> All suggestions welcome
>
> Danny Johnson
Capitalization is not actually a city improvement, but a process by
which all your shields are converted to gold on a 1 to 1 basis until you
turn it off.
--
JMG (Jeff George)
j.ge...@ix.netcom.com
If I sound like a ranting madman, it's probably because of my insanity.
Danny Johnson
Perry Quan
Danny Johnson <daniel....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in article
<33123b00...@news.ukonline.co.uk>...
>
>
> Has anyone else found it impossible to achieve the Capitalisation
> feature. I have made it my goal from the very start of the game to
> achieve this but it always appears in brackets and can't be accessed.
Capitalization is not a wonder that is built and achieved. Instead, it
turns your production into money. This happens every turn, so you can
ignore whatever time is given to build it.
Roland Reichel
Danny Johnson wrote:
>
> Has anyone else found it impossible to achieve the Capitalisation
> feature. I have made it my goal from the very start of the game to
> achieve this but it always appears in brackets and can't be accessed.
>
> subtle I am not doing.
>
> All suggestions welcome
>
> Danny Johnson
Hi,
I think you missed something:
1) To be able to "build" Capitalization you need to have the
Civilisation Advance "The Corporation". This is not the
problem, isn't it?
2) When you change your city to produce Capitalization, you should
notice that your shield production changes to gold production and
this city produces overall more money.
This means Capitalization will never be finished but instead produces
money every turn.
I think this is the problem, is it?
There are two situations where it is useful to switch a city to
produce Capitalization:
1) You have run out of money for some reason and you cannot or want
not increase the tax rate or hire tax collectors.
2) The city can't build anything really useful (in the mid game when
you are not so fast in researching) or has produced anything there
is (obviously only in the late game) and you don't want to produce
unit after unit.
In general, Capitalization can be seen as a kind of conversion from
a local resource (Shields) to a global resource (Gold)
I hope this helps
have fun,
Roland Reichel
r...@worldaccess.nl
Aan 25-02-97 2:14, in bericht <33123b00...@news.ukonline.co.uk>, Danny
Johnson <daniel....@ukonline.co.uk> schreef:
>
> Has anyone else found it impossible to achieve the Capitalisation
> feature. I have made it my goal from the very start of the game to
> achieve this but it always appears in brackets and can't be accessed.
>
> Am I missing something blatantly obvious or is it something very
> subtle I am not doing.
>
>
> All suggestions welcome
>
>
> Danny Johnson
>
Oh ny god, Danny hasn't read the manual!
I've found your question in several sources and I'll answer it here for you
again:
Capitalisation is NOT something you can build or achieve. when you turn on
(CAPITALISATION) as a WoW in 1 or more towns, those towns will convert ALL
shield (except those needed for unit-support) into GOLD (your icons in the
indicating bar should change). this is the sole purpose of Capitalization:
Quickly earn lots of money or make good use of a town when all improvements are
build (In CIV 1 I used to build SDI's and sell them after completion)
Since you seem to have interest (or maybe Lack of..)in the economic part
you'dd make an excelent playtester for the dutch modpack I'm currently writing.
If you want that, or haven't got a clue on what a MODpack might be, let me Know.
GreetinX from BeatriX, Queen of the dutch
Gregg Charlton
Remember though - you can only "capitalize" for the number of turns
given on the info screen. More than that and you'll start losing
previously build improvements.
David Adrien Tanguay
Roland Reichel wrote:
> There are two situations where it is useful to switch a city to
> produce Capitalization:
>
> 1) You have run out of money for some reason and you cannot or want
> not increase the tax rate or hire tax collectors.
>
> 2) The city can't build anything really useful (in the mid game when
> you are not so fast in researching) or has produced anything there
> is (obviously only in the late game) and you don't want to produce
> unit after unit.
3) When you're in Fundamentalist conquer the world mode. Throw everything
you've got at an opponent's capital until you take it. Repeat until he
has no more capital. On the next turn, buy out all his remaining cities
with a flock of pre-placed diplomats/spies at bargain basement prices
(his civ is in revolution). Capitalism (+factories) gives you the funds
for this strategy.
--
David Tanguay d...@Thinkage.on.ca http://www.thinkage.on.ca/~dat/
Thinkage, Ltd. Kitchener, Ontario, Canada [43.24N 80.29W]
David Nizza
Danny Johnson wrote:
>
> Has anyone else found it impossible to achieve the Capitalisation
> feature. I have made it my goal from the very start of the game to
> achieve this but it always appears in brackets and can't be accessed.
>
> Am I missing something blatantly obvious or is it something very
> subtle I am not doing.
>
> All suggestions welcome
>
milatary unit. When you select capitalization from the improvements
menu, all of that particular city's productions (the blue shields)
change to tax rates (gold coins). In essence you are sacrificing that
city's production in exchange for money. So while you aren't producing
any new military units or city improvemnets - you are gaining a
signifigant amount of income. DTN
Eldred Pickett
In article <3312E2...@PCMSGW.VF.LMCO.COM> Gregg Charlton <gcha...@PCMSGW.VF.LMCO.COM> writes:
>Path: news.itd.umich.edu!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!news.uoregon.edu!tezcat!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newshost.atl.lmco.com!news.vf.lmco.com!news.den.mmc.com!usenet
>From: Gregg Charlton <gcha...@PCMSGW.VF.LMCO.COM>
>Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,ukonline.computers.games,alt.games.civnet
>Subject: Re: Civ II & Capitalization
>Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 08:00:33 -0500
>Organization: Lockheed Martin M&DS
>Lines: 3
>Message-ID: <3312E2...@PCMSGW.VF.LMCO.COM>
>References: <33123b00...@news.ukonline.co.uk>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.17.140.132
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I)
>Xref: news.itd.umich.edu comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic:247889 alt.games.civnet:2265
>Remember though - you can only "capitalize" for the number of turns
>given on the info screen. More than that and you'll start losing
>previously build improvements.
HUH?!? You mean your temples/libraries/etc. start disappearing? That doesn't
make sense...
________
Eldred Pickett
e-mail address e...@mssmtpgate.housing.umich.edu
I am NOT paranoid. And why are you always watching me?!?
James Gassaway
e...@mssmtpgate.housing.umich.edu (Eldred Pickett) writes:
It's also bullshit. You don't lose improvements by using Capitalization.
--
Dimensional Traveler
Commander, WarForce Omega (the Star Killers), Multiversal Mercenaries.
You name it, we kill it, any time, any reality.
Eldred Pickett
>e...@mssmtpgate.housing.umich.edu (Eldred Pickett) writes:
>>In article <3312E2...@PCMSGW.VF.LMCO.COM> Gregg Charlton <gcha...@PCMSGW.VF.LMCO.COM> writes:
>>>Remember though - you can only "capitalize" for the number of turns
>>>given on the info screen. More than that and you'll start losing
>>>previously build improvements.
>>HUH?!? You mean your temples/libraries/etc. start disappearing? That doesn't
>>make sense...
>>________
>It's also bullshit. You don't lose improvements by using Capitalization.
I didn't THINK so.<g>
>--
>Dimensional Traveler
>Commander, WarForce Omega (the Star Killers), Multiversal Mercenaries.
>You name it, we kill it, any time, any reality.
Richard Gilliam
I've not yet figured out what is the significance of the number of
turns shown on the line for selecting Capitalization. Can someone
explain? Also, do you suffer penalties if you switch back and forth
between Capitalization and production? (Assuming that when you switch
to production that you complete whatever it is you are producing.)
Thanks,
Richard
e-mail to:rgil...@netnet.net
(No commercial e-mail, please.)
Lee Cole
I don't think there is any significance to the number of turns. I think that
the code to calculate number of turns to completion, just fails to have a test
in it that would account for something that is NEVER built.
If you complete building whatever, before switching to capitalization, then
there is no penalty for switching.
In the original CIV, we often ran out of things to build, or needed cash more
than we needed units or whatever, so CIV players used to pick something (mine
was WALLS) and build it, then sell it, and build it again. Many players,
myself included, begged for a macro (or feature) that would do this
automaticlly. The result? CAPITALIZATION. It is building some unnamed
structure, then destroying it for it's 'worth'. It is never completed. It
boosts your cash.
It does not destroy any already built structure. If structures are
disappearing, it isn't CAPITALIZATION that is doing it, you are just operating
at a deficiat. You have greater maintence costs than income. Whenever your
maintence costs exceed your income, CIV (all versions) will sell something.
I do not know HOW CIV decides what to sell, or where to sell it from.
Lee Cole
In article <331b09a8...@news.netnet.net>, pls...@sig.for.address
says...
--
Lee Cole Sometimes I sits and thinks,
lee...@bigfoot.com and sometimes I just sit.
http://www.ipass.net/~leecole/
James Gassaway
pls...@sig.for.address (Richard Gilliam) writes:
>I've not yet figured out what is the significance of the number of
>turns shown on the line for selecting Capitalization. Can someone
>explain? Also, do you suffer penalties if you switch back and forth
>between Capitalization and production? (Assuming that when you switch
>to production that you complete whatever it is you are producing.)
There is no real significance to the number of turns. The game engine
requires a "number of shields to complete" figure even if the improvement
is never completed. The number of turns is an artifact of that
requirement. As long as you complete whatever you're building, there is
no penalty for switching between Capitalization and normal production.
Andy McFadden
In article <5ff34r$4oe$1...@news.ipass.net>,
Lee Cole <NoJun...@this.address> wrote:
>It does not destroy any already built structure. If structures are
>disappearing, it isn't CAPITALIZATION that is doing it, you are just operating
>at a deficiat. You have greater maintence costs than income. Whenever your
FWIW, Civ II does do the right thing, and factors in capitalization income
BEFORE deciding to sell things off. So you can set your tax rate to zero
if your production is high enough. I've thrown all of my production
centers into capitalization in the 1970s to get my research from 3 turns
down to 2 turns while making a dash for space technology...
>>I've not yet figured out what is the significance of the number of
>>turns shown on the line for selecting Capitalization. Can someone
>>explain? Also, do you suffer penalties if you switch back and forth
>>between Capitalization and production? (Assuming that when you switch
>>to production that you complete whatever it is you are producing.)
I *think* capitalization counts as a wonder. I know I've switched between
capitalizations and wonders before. It might be that it remembers what
you were doing before and lets you switch back to it (easy to test, but
I'm not in front of my machine right now). You also don't lose the
previous production, so you can wait until you have several hundred
shields applied to an already-built wonder, switch to capitalization, and
bask in the extra income until the next wonder becomes available.
--
Send UCE to consum...@ftc.gov
Send mail to fad...@netcom.com (Andy McFadden)
Fight Internet Spam - http://www.vix.com/spam/
Richard Mercer
In <331b09a8...@news.netnet.net> Richard Gilliam wrote:
> I've not yet figured out what is the significance of the number of
> turns shown on the line for selecting Capitalization. Can someone
> explain? Also, do you suffer penalties if you switch back and forth
> between Capitalization and production? (Assuming that when you switch
> to production that you complete whatever it is you are producing.)
>
This field is calculated as cost divided by current production (shields) of
the city.
The Capitalization does not have an actual cost associated with it, but the
game designers were forced to put an artificial value in this field so that
the game engine doesn't choke on it. What you see is this artificial value
divided by your production rate.
--
Richard Mercer
ric...@seuss.math.wright.edu
"I meant what I said and I said what I meant,
An elephant's faithful, one hundred per cent."
James Gassaway
j_we...@escape.com (Jay Weedon) writes:
>On 3 Mar 1997 22:09:05 -0800, dtr...@crl.com (James Gassaway) wrote:
>>pls...@sig.for.address (Richard Gilliam) writes:
>>
>>>I've not yet figured out what is the significance of the number of
>>>turns shown on the line for selecting Capitalization. Can someone
>>>explain? Also, do you suffer penalties if you switch back and forth
>>>between Capitalization and production? (Assuming that when you switch
>>>to production that you complete whatever it is you are producing.)
>>
>>There is no real significance to the number of turns. The game engine
>>requires a "number of shields to complete" figure even if the improvement
>>is never completed. The number of turns is an artifact of that
>>requirement. As long as you complete whatever you're building, there is
>>no penalty for switching between Capitalization and normal production.
>Someone posted something last week suggesting that the number in
>parens represents the max number of turns capitalization can be
>sustained. Any truth to this? I rarely use it for more than a handful
>of turns.
No truth to it. There is no limit to how long you can "build"
Capitalization.
Roland Reichel
Lee Cole wrote:
>
> I don't think there is any significance to the number of turns. I think that
> the code to calculate number of turns to completion, just fails to have a test
> in it that would account for something that is NEVER built.
>
There is a kind of significance in the number of turns. Capitalization
needs 600
shield to complete (It will never complete, I know) according to the
Civilopedia.
I think the game just needs some number of shields. So the number of
turns displayed
is just as high as when you build any other 600 shield city improvement
or wonder.
But you should notice that this number never gets decremented (Thats
because the
games calculates the number of turns needed to complete again in every
turn)
<snip>
> It does not destroy any already built structure. If structures are
> disappearing, it isn't CAPITALIZATION that is doing it, you are just operating
> at a deficiat. You have greater maintence costs than income. Whenever your
> maintence costs exceed your income, CIV (all versions) will sell something.
> I do not know HOW CIV decides what to sell, or where to sell it from.
> Lee Cole
>
I think I know how CIV decides where to sell where. At the beginning of
any turn CIV
cycles through all your cities (I'm not sure in which order). It adds
then the city
income to your treasure and cycles through the city improvements
subtracting
the maintenance costs from your treasure. If you don't have enough money
to support the
building it is sold.
If you have some cities with a surplus of money and some cities with
(what is the negative
of surplus, english is not my first language?), you will notice
sometimes that you have overall enough money but some city improvement
has been sold.
For example: You end a turn with 100 gold, Civ sells something for 100
gold and when you
are to move your units again you notice you have 210 gold, so what was
the selling good for?
All this is concluded from game behavior, so i might as well be wrong.
Have fun
Roland Reichel
RDClark
> Slightly off-topic: This ordering thing has puzzled me for
> years. If you bring up the Cities list with F1, what IS
> the ordering of the list? It's some kind of IQ test that I
> seem to fail every time.
>
It would seem to be the order in which the cities were founded, regardless
of by whom. Scanning this list is sort of a dim echo of the "recap"
feature from Civ I, since you can sort of get an idea of how rapidly each
of the other civs was expanding, relative to each other, in the early
game.
|--RichC-------------------------Interfacing is Easy--|
|--RD...@aol.com----Compatibility Takes a Lifetime--|
Felix Carbury
In article <3322039d...@news.zippo.com>, j_we...@escape.com (Jay
Weedon) wrote:
> Slightly off-topic: This ordering thing has puzzled me for years. If
> you bring up the Cities list with F1, what IS the ordering of the
> list? It's some kind of IQ test that I seem to fail every time.
>
> Jay.
Isn't it oldest cities first? In my current game I founded Kyoto on my
second turn; after I captured Persopolis, it moved down to second on my
list.
--
Felix Carbury
Jeffrey M. George
Roland Reichel wrote:
>
> (what is the negative
> of surplus, english is not my first language?),
deficit
James Gassaway
j_we...@escape.com (Jay Weedon) writes:
>Slightly off-topic: This ordering thing has puzzled me for years. If
>you bring up the Cities list with F1, what IS the ordering of the
>list? It's some kind of IQ test that I seem to fail every time.
>Jay.
The cities are listed in the order in which they were founded.
Warren Lauzon
You are missing something blatantly obvious. Capitalization is strictly
for converter shields to money. It's in both the help and in the
instruction book.
------------
Danny Johnson <daniel....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in article
<33123b00...@news.ukonline.co.uk>...
>
>
Warren Lauzon
I don't know where you get this from. You can capitalize forever. You
lose nothing.
---------------
Gregg Charlton <gcha...@PCMSGW.VF.LMCO.COM> wrote in article
<3312E2...@PCMSGW.VF.LMCO.COM>...
Graham Thurlwell
The reason why capitalisation is in brackets is, I think, that you
aren't actually producing anything physical with your sheilds.
James Gassaway
j_we...@escape.com (Jay Weedon) writes:
>On 6 Mar 1997 23:31:41 -0800, dtr...@crl.com (James Gassaway) wrote:
>>j_we...@escape.com (Jay Weedon) writes:
>>
>>
>>>Slightly off-topic: This ordering thing has puzzled me for years. If
>>>you bring up the Cities list with F1, what IS the ordering of the
>>>list? It's some kind of IQ test that I seem to fail every time.
>>
>>>Jay.
>>
>>The cities are listed in the order in which they were founded.
>Regardless of which civ founded them?
Yes, regardless of founding civ.
Esore
In article <5g04o0$6...@crl11.crl.com>, dtr...@crl.com (James Gassaway) wrote:
>j_we...@escape.com (Jay Weedon) writes:
>
>>On 6 Mar 1997 23:31:41 -0800, dtr...@crl.com (James Gassaway) wrote:
>
>>>j_we...@escape.com (Jay Weedon) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Slightly off-topic: This ordering thing has puzzled me for years. If
>>>>you bring up the Cities list with F1, what IS the ordering of the
>>>>list? It's some kind of IQ test that I seem to fail every time.
>>>
>>>>Jay.
>>>
>>>The cities are listed in the order in which they were founded.
>
>>Regardless of which civ founded them?
>
>Yes, regardless of founding civ.
>
>
A nice feature for CIV III might be an option on the order in which to list
your cities. It's really difficult when you have about a million cities
trying to find the one you're looking for in order to issue a "Go To" command
to a unit.
esore
Mark Henderson
In article <5g0ujo$1v0...@netcom.com>, Esore <es...@netcom.com> writes
>A nice feature for CIV III might be an option on the order in which to list
>your cities. It's really difficult when you have about a million cities
>trying to find the one you're looking for in order to issue a "Go To" command
>to a unit.
It's possible to make the goto command easier to use. When the city
list is on screen just press the first letter key for the city you're
after and it will cycle through all the cities starting with that
letter.
--
Mark Henderson
Wheathampstead, England.
Gunk-a-loo
esore,
You should be able to just press the first letter of the city that you want
to go too. Just keep pressing that letter, it will scroll through all cities
that begin with that letter. Hope this helps. Great Game!
Gunkaloo
: A nice feature for CIV III might be an option on the order in which to list
: your cities. It's really difficult when you have about a million cities
: trying to find the one you're looking for in order to issue a "Go To" command
: to a unit.
: esore
Dugal Ure
dtr...@crl.com (James Gassaway) writes:
>j_we...@escape.com (Jay Weedon) writes:
>>On 6 Mar 1997 23:31:41 -0800, dtr...@crl.com (James Gassaway) wrote:
>>>j_we...@escape.com (Jay Weedon) writes:
>>>
>>>>Slightly off-topic: This ordering thing has puzzled me for years. If
>>>>you bring up the Cities list with F1, what IS the ordering of the
>>>>list? It's some kind of IQ test that I seem to fail every time.
>>>
>>Regardless of which civ founded them?
>Yes, regardless of founding civ.
It's a little more complicated than that - the cities are all stored
in a big long ordered list (all cities, in one list). This big list is
as you say in the order in which they were founded *except* that if
any city is destroyed, it makes a gap in the list. The other cities
don't all move up one, rather the next city to be founded will be put
in the first gap in the list. The 'F1' list is the same as the big list,
minus other civs cities, obviously.
So for example, if you destroy Moscow and thn immediately afterwards
found Bazookaville, you'll notice Bazookaville unexpectedly high up on your
list, even if it was your 254th city.
Dugal
>--
>Dimensional Traveler
>Commander, WarForce Omega (the Star Killers), Multiversal Mercenaries.
>You name it, we kill it, any time, any reality.
# "My middle name is Luck!" said | Dugal Ure #
# Rincewind. "Unfortunately my | Department of Mathematics #
# first name is Bad..." | University of Melbourne #
Andy McFadden
In article <5g3n21$i...@prometheus.acsu.buffalo.edu>,
Gunk-a-loo <j...@acsu.buffalo.edu> wrote:
>You should be able to just press the first letter of the city that you want
>to go too. Just keep pressing that letter, it will scroll through all cities
>that begin with that letter. Hope this helps. Great Game!
I wish they'd done it the right way though, and allowed you to type
more than one letter (like the Mac Finder or Win95 Explorer). Either
that or list them alphabetized... sorting 200 short strings would only
take a fraction of a second.
One thing I didn't realize is that there are arrows in the city display,
and you can go through the cities in alphabetical order by clickin on
them. So if you want to go through and stare at all of your cities for
some reason, it may be easier than doing it from the "city status" list.
--
Send UCE to consum...@ftc.gov (Spam Bait)
Richard Arnesen
Andy McFadden <fad...@netcom.com> had nothing better to do and thus wrote:
: In article <5g3n21$i...@prometheus.acsu.buffalo.edu>,
: Gunk-a-loo <j...@acsu.buffalo.edu> wrote:
: >You should be able to just press the first letter of the city that you want
: >to go too. Just keep pressing that letter, it will scroll through all cities
: >that begin with that letter. Hope this helps. Great Game!
: I wish they'd done it the right way though, and allowed you to type
: more than one letter (like the Mac Finder or Win95 Explorer). Either
: that or list them alphabetized... sorting 200 short strings would only
: take a fraction of a second.
But then if we added every little thing when would the game be released :)
: One thing I didn't realize is that there are arrows in the city display,
: and you can go through the cities in alphabetical order by clickin on
: them. So if you want to go through and stare at all of your cities for
: some reason, it may be easier than doing it from the "city status" list.
Actually you can even hit the up and down arrows and (or maybe its page up/down)
and scroll through your cities. Way cool.
: --
: Send UCE to consum...@ftc.gov (Spam Bait)
: Send mail to fad...@netcom.com (Andy McFadden)
: Fight Internet Spam - http://www.vix.com/spam/
--
Richard D. Arnesen Jr. "Bill Clinton's Promises have the
Unix DCA Support, Nortel lifespan of a Big Mac on AirForce
The opinions expressed are MINE One" - Rep. Susan Molinari
no else can have them Romans 6:23, 1Cor 4-8, John 3:16
Phaedrus
In article <331E94...@informatik.uni-essen.de>,
Roland Reichel <rei...@informatik.uni-essen.de> wrote:
>(what is the negative
>of surplus, english is not my first language?)
Congress. :-)
--
\o\ If you're interested in books/stories with transformation themes, \o\
/o/ try <URL:http://www.halcyon.com/phaedrus/translist/translist.html>. /o/
\o\ New list entries always appreciated. FC1.21:FC(W/C)p6arw A- C->++ D>++ \o\
/o/ H+ M>+ P R T++++ W** Z+ Sm RLCT a cmn++++$ d e++ f+++ h- i++wf p-- sm# /o/
Richards G
On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, Esore wrote:
> In article <5g04o0$6...@crl11.crl.com>, dtr...@crl.com (James Gassaway) wrote:
> >j_we...@escape.com (Jay Weedon) writes:
> >
> >>On 6 Mar 1997 23:31:41 -0800, dtr...@crl.com (James Gassaway) wrote:
> >
> >>>j_we...@escape.com (Jay Weedon) writes:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Slightly off-topic: This ordering thing has puzzled me for years. If
> >>>>you bring up the Cities list with F1, what IS the ordering of the
> >>>>list? It's some kind of IQ test that I seem to fail every time.
> >>>
> >>>>Jay.
> >>>
> >>>The cities are listed in the order in which they were founded.
> >
> >>Regardless of which civ founded them?
> >
> >Yes, regardless of founding civ.
> >
> >
>
> A nice feature for CIV III might be an option on the order in which to list
> your cities. It's really difficult when you have about a million cities
> trying to find the one you're looking for in order to issue a "Go To" command
> to a unit.
>
> esore
>
>
Try pressing the initial letter of the city name a few times. The cursor
will jump forward to the next city beginning with that letter.
Richards G
> (what is the negative
> of surplus, english is not my first language?), you will notice
> sometimes that you have overall enough money but some city improvement
> has been sold.
> For example: You end a turn with 100 gold, Civ sells something for 100
> gold and when you
> are to move your units again you notice you have 210 gold, so what was
> the selling good for?
>
> All this is concluded from game behavior, so i might as well be wrong.
>
> Have fun
>
> Roland Reichel
>
>
Will somebody please e-mail Sid Meier to sort this out !!
Madman
RA LEE wrote:
>
> A Civ III change that I would like to see is the ability to build ship
> canals. It's really anoying when ships later in the game have to
> sail right around the conitinent because a civilization that has the cure
> for cancer can't build the Suez, Panama or even Kiel canals.
>
> Richard.
That would be nice, but I'd like to see them go back to the Civ1
interface.
When Civ was only a couple megs, it lived on my hard drive. Civ 2 was
so big
that I couldn't afford the space on my Microsloth partition. The game
became
airborne when I found the "win95 only" sticker. I lost Civ in a drive
crash,
and found that the orrigional disks were corrupted. I can't find the
manual,
not that I needed it...I played it enough to memorize the codes.
I'm waiting for the FreeCiv full release. I -just- checked it's
homepage,
(http://www.daimi.aau.dk/~allan/freeciv.html). The Multiplayer version
is out
and they're now working mainly on the AI for the single player version.
Sorry, but it's a unix/X11 game (linux included). :P
--
Inexperience can be overcome. | Madman: n.
Ignorance can be enlightened. | 1) Intelectually independant
But Prejudice will destroy you. | 2) dh...@wlc.com
| 3) The one who wrote this message
Richards G
On 11 Mar 1997, Gunk-a-loo wrote:
> esore,
>
> You should be able to just press the first letter of the city that you want
> to go too. Just keep pressing that letter, it will scroll through all cities
> that begin with that letter. Hope this helps. Great Game!
>
> Gunkaloo
>
>
>
> : A nice feature for CIV III might be an option on the order in which to list
> : your cities. It's really difficult when you have about a million cities
> : trying to find the one you're looking for in order to issue a "Go To" command
> : to a unit.
>
> : esore
>
>
CIV2 DOES THIS ALREADY !!!
How many times do I have to say this ???
RA LEE
Thai Ton
In article <5g59hv$k...@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, u...@mundoe.maths.mu.OZ.AU says...
>So for example, if you destroy Moscow and thn immediately afterwards
>found Bazookaville, you'll notice Bazookaville unexpectedly high up on your
>list, even if it was your 254th city.
I don't know if anyone had this problem or whether a patch would've solve
it. I played on a large continent scenario. I conquered the world but I
wanted to settle every last bit of land I could. So, as I was nearing
complete settlement, I noticed that my newly founded cities could not or
would not support any addition units whether they be military or freight.
They would produce the units as "NONE" in city support. This didn't
bother me initially militarily since I had no enemies and it didn't subtract
from the production, but when I get to the point of trade, damn if I can't
get it to do it correctly. Since I had like 200 cities and about 2X that
in units, is there a limit in the number of military units the game can
coordinate?
Godfrey Degamo
I hope they add a highlight-land-within-3-squares-from-cursor feature. This
will reduce the number of non-optimal city sites caused by miscounting
the city radius or badly 'eye-balling' it.
It would also help in enemy/friendly unit locations. For instance,
you can determine how far to move your unit from its home city in a
democratic government.
-Godfrey Degamo,
go...@jimmy.harvard.edu
Hosaki Nitsu
R.A...@bradford.ac.uk (RA LEE) Was guite Verbose about;
>Richard.
Perhaps I have a different version,but on my machine the 3 canals you
refer to already exist at the start of the game. They're not shown as
canals, but passage is automatic.
At other areas,typically archipelagos, simply build a city there.
Ships can enter the city from one side and exit the other.
*
Let me see, fords are made in Mexico,
Cadillacs in Canada, Plymouths in Japan,
and Hondas in Ohio,,...Buy American"
I'm confused!!!!
Hosaki Nitsu,last Kamikazi pilot
Michael Valdivielso
I only have Civ I, never played Civ II, so I am not sure how they have
changed negotiations with the computer players, but I would like to see
less paranoid computer players. I understand the CPs in Civ I were made
to be backstabbing and war like so they could keep up with human players,
but there was many a time where I was willing to keep the peace (because
I wanted peace, or wanted them as a buffer state, etc) yet a few turns
later, *STAB*. In fact, the MOO 1 CPs seem less paranoid, then the Civ I
CPs. If there was a way to make a peace neither side could break, maybe
for a number of years picked by both sides. In MOO 1, when I play it, I
remember saying to myself..'oh..wait, if I colonize this planet I will
upset so-and-so' while in Civ I, I'll be attacked and not have a clue
why. Were the French feeling pressured, being pushed from another
direction, were they just planning to attack me all along? Sometimes a
change in government gives me a early warning that something is happening
to the other civilizations, that their having problems or plan to go to
war, but how can I trust Civ I players when I need to keep a army
watching them? If I have to keep troops on the payroll, it might as well
be as an invading force, at least I can take care of the problem sooner
than later!
I think in CIV III, if the CPs were smarter, more willing to keep the
peace and use their resources else where, they would make it more
interesting. A smarter CP is going to be more dangerous, than one who
attacks you all the time to make up for a low IQ. I don't mind surprise
attacks, if their truly a surprise.
Mike V.
Hosaki Nitsu
bar...@netcom.com (Michael Valdivielso) Was guite Verbose about;
Let me understand this;you want the AI to keep the peace until YOU are
ready to break it!...Then you would be posting about how simple the
game was, and how it wasn't much of a challenge.
You admit not ever having played Civ2, but want to tell everyone how
to design civ3.Try civ2 1st. You may be astonished to know the
designers did change it. Now other civs react to you based on how
powerful you are, and on your reputation.I've had an Indian civ. stay
allied with me for over 600 years, coming to my aid, and me to
theirs.I truly regretted having to destroy them in the end :}
"The Akagi didn't sink! We dismantled it to
make 160,000 Toyotas!"
Hosaki Nitsu,last Kamikazi pilot
Scott
I'm playing MAX on two computers with a null modem cable right now, however
about once a minute the game will freeze on both ends for at least 10
seconds or more. I play Heroes II, RA, JA:DG, WarCraft II and Quake on
these same two computers with a null modem cable, and they all run
perfectly, so I feel it must be the game's fault. My question is, does
anyone know if the patch will help this at all? I've read some peoples
articles saying the patch caused their game to crash repeatedly. Can
someone please tell me a little more about the patch and their experiences
with it?
Thanks for your help.
Scott
Victor Healey
In article <3337c6b9...@news.zippo.com> posted on
Fri, 14 Mar 1997 21:48:41 GMT,
Jay Weedon who is at mailto:j_we...@escape.com says...
> A simple alternative is to edit your rules.txt file, so that doing a terrain
> transform on grassland (or whatever) produces ocean.
>
Have you tried that?
Wouldn't the engineer drown when he completed his project?
This would be a real bummer if the automatic setting was
chosen by player and the computer and it sent five to ten
engineers to make that transformation and they all drown
when complete!
--
Victor Healey Ki4je
Marietta Ga.
Victor Healey
In article <5gev3l$7...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com> posted on
Sat, 15 Mar 1997 21:55:17 GMT,
Hosaki Nitsu who is at mailto:hos...@ix.netcom.com says...
> I've had an Indian civ. stay
> allied with me for over 600 years, coming to my aid, and me to
> theirs.I truly regretted having to destroy them in the end :}
You heartless back stabbing cad! ;>)
--
Victor Healey Ki4je
Zechariah Lim
Hosaki Nitsu <hos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<5gd8vq$n...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>...
> R.A...@bradford.ac.uk (RA LEE) Was guite Verbose about;
>
> >A Civ III change that I would like to see is the ability to build ship
> >canals. It's really anoying when ships later in the game have to
> >sail right around the conitinent because a civilization that has the
cure
> >for cancer can't build the Suez, Panama or even Kiel canals.
Well hey....one thing i gripe about the Civs is that when you achieve
Future Tech...you can't do anything else....how about using Future Tech
points to buy improvements in units or reduce the priice or reduce the
resources needed to build it???
like,say using future tech points to buy speed improvemnets or Attack
improvements or shit like that.
AND.....why not have Civ III extend from Earth to Star Trek or
something...it would become one mega game man.....
CrazyMax
Some things I'd like to see in Civ 3:
- much slower tech advancement (I edit rules.txt to simulate this, but for
some reason I still have to reset the tech paradigm via the cheat menu).
- give naval units a ZOC, like they had in Civ 1 (goddamned CP's are *always*
landing troops in my territory and I can't stop them! And note that you
can't add a ZOC to naval units via rules.txt).
- a self-checking GUI interface for the editing of rules.txt (so that you
know your changes won't result in a crash prior to the crash actually
occurring - and because I'm lazy).
- the ability to specify percentages of terrain types on random worlds (e.g.,
you could specify 0 desert and no desert would appear).
- random events, for those of us who really like to get pummeled.
- smarter AI, smarter AI, smarter AI....
Max
"never argue with a fool. Bystanders won't know the difference".
- Billie Mae
Twin Ion Engine
This is another flaw in Civ. There should be another setting that says if you
can maintaim peace for a thousand years or something and get elected a.la. Moo
with some sort of a United Earth as a winning condition.
WiL :)
E-male :- tblw@valu*serve.com (without the *)
Visit my X-wing vs TIE-Fighter Club at
http://www.valuserve.com/~tblw/XvT/XvTClub.htm
especially Singaporeans and surrounding neighbours!
Falk Hueffner
On 14 Mar 1997 22:03:20 GMT, go...@jimmy.harvard.edu (Godfrey Degamo)
wrote:
>
>I hope they add a highlight-land-within-3-squares-from-cursor feature. This
>will reduce the number of non-optimal city sites caused by miscounting
>the city radius or badly 'eye-balling' it.
>
>It would also help in enemy/friendly unit locations. For instance,
>you can determine how far to move your unit from its home city in a
>democratic government.
It is included in the latest patch for civII. Press shift-G to activate
it.
--
Falk Hueffner, University of Tuebingen, Germany
e-mail: falk.h...@student.uni-tuebingen.de
Only a life lived for others is not worth living.
- Albert Einstein
Falk Hueffner
On 14 Mar 1997 19:21:51 GMT, A4...@msg.ti.com (Thai Ton) wrote:
>I don't know if anyone had this problem or whether a patch would've solve
>it. I played on a large continent scenario. I conquered the world but I
>wanted to settle every last bit of land I could. So, as I was nearing
>complete settlement, I noticed that my newly founded cities could not or
>would not support any addition units whether they be military or freight.
>They would produce the units as "NONE" in city support. This didn't
>bother me initially militarily since I had no enemies and it didn't subtract
>from the production, but when I get to the point of trade, damn if I can't
>get it to do it correctly. Since I had like 200 cities and about 2X that
>in units, is there a limit in the number of military units the game can
>coordinate?
This was a problem in early versions of civII. Do you have the latest
patch?
Henri H. Arsenault
One thinhg I would like to see is a list of cities that have a given
advance. For example, if I want to send a settler to a city that has
Supermarkets in order to create farming, I have to remember which cities
have the advance, or look at every city. That can be difficult on a large
map.Or if I need to find out where the heck is that nuclear bomb?
henri
Thai Ton
In article <5gbu3a$8...@columbia.acc.brad.ac.uk>, R.A...@bradford.ac.uk
says...
>
>
>A Civ III change that I would like to see is the ability to build ship
>canals. It's really anoying when ships later in the game have to
>sail right around the conitinent because a civilization that has the cure
>for cancer can't build the Suez, Panama or even Kiel canals.
>
Better yet, allow for terraforming or building over water. They're
doing it right now with waterfronts. Heck, isn't Hong Kong or somebody
building an international airport on a floating platform?
Frode Johnsen
Dont forget radiations shields and automated factories :)
That would RULE in civ III
--
Hilsen
Frode Johnsen
Ralph Betza
Here's what I would like to see in CIV III:
(a) Give me the choice of an overhead map. I hate the
isometric view.
(b) When i send a unit on a 50-square railroad trip, make it
arrive soon, even on a low-end machine.
(c) I want simpler graphics that can be drawn more quickly, so
the game has time for more important things like figuring out
good moves for the AI.
(d) I don't mind if the computer takes 10 or 15 minutes to
figure out a good move (when the map is crowded). After all,
it just took me at least as long to move all my units, and I
can use a break.
(e) A "goto" command that works.
(f) I want the computer to play smart instead of getting huge
advantages that make it impossible to do anything interesting.
(g) All the facilities everybody else has suggested for better
UI and easier management.
(h) Relocation: units produced at this city will start life
with an automatic "goto" command.
(i) Automated settlers that actually work and do something
useful. Note that this would make the computer play better,
too!
Hosaki Nitsu
gno...@pcwnet.com (Ralph Betza) Was guite Verbose about;
>Here's what I would like to see in CIV III:
>(a) Give me the choice of an overhead map. I hate the
>isometric view.
WHY?
>(b) When i send a unit on a 50-square railroad trip, make it
>arrive soon, even on a low-end machine.
Agreed
>(c) I want simpler graphics that can be drawn more quickly, so
>the game has time for more important things like figuring out
>good moves for the AI.
It doesn't work that way, you'ld have poor graphics along with a dumb
AI, and be complaining about watching poor graphics while the AI makes
poor choices.
>(d) I don't mind if the computer takes 10 or 15 minutes to
>figure out a good move (when the map is crowded). After all,
>it just took me at least as long to move all my units, and I
>can use a break.
If you can beat the AI on Emporer or Deity without watching their
moves, remind me not to play you heads up :}
>(e) A "goto" command that works.
Totally agree!
>(f) I want the computer to play smart instead of getting huge
>advantages that make it impossible to do anything interesting.
It sounds like you want to play head to head! not against the
'predictable 'computer.
>(g) All the facilities everybody else has suggested for better
>UI and easier management.
Well... maybe not ALL!
>(h) Relocation: units produced at this city will start life
>with an automatic "goto" command.
Great idea!
>(i) Automated settlers that actually work and do something
>useful. Note that this would make the computer play better,
>too!
Can't say, if I wanted to watch the computer play the computer I
wouldn't have bought Civ2, Do you actually use the "automated"
anything?
****
" Sure Admiral, send all the carriers to Midway
without support! We sank all the US warships at Pearl!"
Hosaki Nitsu,last Kamikazi pilot
Braxin
How about doing anything to streamline the ever-so-tedious matter of
caravans/freight ? Even putting them on GOTO will often have the units
skittering off the railroad into a swamp, or having a seizure and not
knowing where to go. And that's on one continent. It is boring and
painstaking beyond compare to try to get a robust trade network set up on
an archipeligo-type setup.
Gary E. Bloom
In article <5gs9pe$9...@server-b.cs.interbusiness.it>,
chia...@dgt.shiny.antispam.it (MSC) wrote:
> Another suggestion for Civ3: an option to totally destroy enemy
> cities. Don't you hate having to manage all those little conquered
> cities? What a burden. Maybe they could make it so your reputation
> goes down for doing it, killing all those innocent people, but I
> wouldn't mind :)
> How about slavery? It would be cool to use the conquered civilization
> to do extra work for free. This happened in the real world after all.
I believe Meier made a point of leaving out slavery from Colonization
because he found the concept too reprehensible to include in a game. He
was criticized by CGW's Johnny Wilson (in an editorial) for that decision.
> BTW, has anything been mentioned by Sid Meier about making Civ3?
Neither Meier, designer of Civ1, nor Brian Reynolds, architect of Civ2,
still work for Microprose; they have their own company, Firaxis. Their
strategy games will be published by Electronic Arts under the Origin label.
Regards, Gary
MSC
Another suggestion for Civ3: an option to totally destroy enemy
cities. Don't you hate having to manage all those little conquered
cities? What a burden. Maybe they could make it so your reputation
goes down for doing it, killing all those innocent people, but I
wouldn't mind :)
How about slavery? It would be cool to use the conquered civilization
to do extra work for free. This happened in the real world after all.
BTW, has anything been mentioned by Sid Meier about making Civ3?
*******************************************************************
pgp user id Marco S. Chiono <chia...@dgt.shiny.it>
PGP encrypted messages welcome for public key email any keyserver
remove "antispam" to reply by e-mail
******************************************************************
Michael Valdivielso
Frode Johnsen (frod...@ulrik.uio.no) wrote:
: Dont forget radiations shields and automated factories :)
: --
: Hilsen
: Frode Johnsen
Why don't they add Battlemechs and hovercraft too? :)
Joking.
Mike V.
Somebody said something about slavery also. That would make it very
interesting. Would other nations get mad at you because you enslaved a
city or would they just do the same thing right back at you.
Somebody else also said something about killing a city you just invaded
but don't want. Talk about 'living space'.
Victor Healey
In article <5gs9pe$9...@server-b.cs.interbusiness.it> posted
on Fri, 21 Mar 1997 19:23:14 GMT,
MSC who is at mailto:chia...@dgt.shiny.antispam.it says...
> Another suggestion for Civ3: an option to totally destroy enemy
> cities. Don't you hate having to manage all those little conquered
> cities?
>
Use a bunch of SPIES to kill the population down to one or
two citizens. Then attack the city with military units and
as soon as you kill off one or two of the defending military
units, the city vanishes without a trace. I figure for each
military unit killed off the computer must also erase a
civilian. No civilians = no city. You can't kill of the last
civilian with just a SPY.
If the city had any wonders, they are lost forever to
history.
Myself...
I merely take the city by bribery and put them to work
making more SPIES. I sell off all unneeded improvements as
fast as possible to finance more take overs. It is neat to
see even the most powerful enemy fold as my 'cancer spreads'
through out his domain.
Dan Abbott
Gary E. Bloom <g...@halcyon.com> wrote
> chia...@dgt.shiny.antispam.it (MSC) wrote:
> > How about slavery? It would be cool to use the conquered civilization
> > to do extra work for free. This happened in the real world after all.
>
> because he found the concept too reprehensible to include in a game. He
> was criticized by CGW's Johnny Wilson (in an editorial) for that
decision.
*any* city you could be the slave unit, much cheaper than a settler, one
population loss, and could either irrigate, build roads, etc. or you could
move it to another city and turn him into a build bonus, e.g. building are
built n% faster/slave. However, the existence of libraries increases the
possibility for either a revolt (2 citizens die) or a revolution (city
joins nearest rival civ).
The moral objection doesn't hold much rate, for a game that has the option
"bloodlust."
--
Good day!
-Dan Abbott
abb...@dakota.net
Jay Weedon
four...@bellsouth.net (Victor Healey) wrote:
>In article <5gs9pe$9...@server-b.cs.interbusiness.it> posted
>on Fri, 21 Mar 1997 19:23:14 GMT,
>MSC who is at mailto:chia...@dgt.shiny.antispam.it says...
>> Another suggestion for Civ3: an option to totally destroy enemy
>> cities. Don't you hate having to manage all those little conquered
>> cities?
>>
>In CIV 2 this isn't a problem if you....
>
>Use a bunch of SPIES to kill the population down to one or
>two citizens. Then attack the city with military units and
>as soon as you kill off one or two of the defending military
>units, the city vanishes without a trace. I figure for each
>military unit killed off the computer must also erase a
>civilian. No civilians = no city. You can't kill of the last
>civilian with just a SPY.
Fine unless the city has walls, in which case successful military
attacks will not reduce city size. Send in another spy to dismantle
'em first.
Jay Weedon.
Mark Duffett
Thai Ton wrote:
>
>
> Better yet, allow for terraforming or building over water. They're
> doing it right now with waterfronts. Heck, isn't Hong Kong or somebody
> building an international airport on a floating platform?
I'm not sure this would be realistic. Even in the largest possible game,
assuming an Earth-sized planet implies each square is about 200x150 km or
thereabouts. You're talking about something like, say, building over the
entire North Sea, when it's taken Holland centuries to reclaim about 2% of
it.
Mark
Ed Odom
I'd like to have the ability to build longer bridges or underwater
tunnels which could cross say one water square. This would only
be available at a rather high technology level, would require
a reasonable amount of game time to accomplish, and might even
require more than one engineer unit plus some type of ship to
assist.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ed Odom | |
| SAS/GIS Development | I don't know jokes. I just watch |
| SAS Institute Inc. | the government and report the facts. |
| Cary, North Carolina | -- Will Rogers |
| sas...@unx.sas.com | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Russell T. Higgins
How about something like when everyone gets a certain advance say Computers
then Networking. That would allow you to mess with another cities
production or research or maybe even steal some secret. Or let it be
instant spy or something?
Higgo
Esore
I'd love an easy way to plug in new leader photos. It bugs the heck out of me
when I'm doing a scenario and I'm doing some diplomatic deal with, let's say,
Jeff Davis of the South, and I have to look at a picture of Stalin or
something.
esore
Daniel Ban
On Thu, 10 Apr 1997 00:46:30 GMT, es...@netcom.com (Esore) wrote:
How about adding "Economy" along with Government. For example, early
on you would be Nomadic or Agrarian. Later on you could research
Mercantile, Industrial Capitalism, Communism, (or whatever economy
types you want to use). Economy would influence your trade, food, and
shield production, (and maybe city size) while government type would
control tax rates, happiness, unit support, etc. The many
combinations would create many more potential structures for your
societies.
Just a thought, comments appreciated. :)
Esore
>How about adding "Economy" along with Government. For example, early
>on you would be Nomadic or Agrarian. Later on you could research
>Mercantile, Industrial Capitalism, Communism, (or whatever economy
>types you want to use). Economy would influence your trade, food, and
>shield production, (and maybe city size) while government type would
>control tax rates, happiness, unit support, etc. The many
>combinations would create many more potential structures for your
>societies.
That's a great idea. I would add that "Economy" might be used to set your
research tree. For example, if you opt for a capitalist economy, there can
almost be no way you can go back to research the stuff needed for a communist
government.
esore
Haukioja Timo
In <334c718f...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> dan...@ix.netcom.com writes:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 1997 00:46:30 GMT, es...@netcom.com (Esore) wrote:
>
> How about adding "Economy" along with Government. For example, early
> on you would be Nomadic or Agrarian. Later on you could research
> Mercantile, Industrial Capitalism, Communism, (or whatever economy
> types you want to use). Economy would influence your trade, food, and
> shield production, (and maybe city size) while government type would
> control tax rates, happiness, unit support, etc. The many
> combinations would create many more potential structures for your
> societies.
>
> Just a thought, comments appreciated. :)
>
Excellent idea. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to have
an economically strong despotism, for example.
One other thing I really, really, really would like to see is
borders, and the ability to claim a piece of land if it is
close enough to one of your cities. I'd also like it if these
borders actually meant something (violating territory should be
almost equal to declaring war).
- Timo
Andrew Goldstein
Esore wrote:
>
> >How about adding "Economy" along with Government. For example, early
> >on you would be Nomadic or Agrarian. Later on you could research
> >Mercantile, Industrial Capitalism, Communism, (or whatever economy
> >types you want to use). Economy would influence your trade, food, and
> >shield production, (and maybe city size) while government type would
> >control tax rates, happiness, unit support, etc. The many
> >combinations would create many more potential structures for your
> >societies.
>
> research tree. For example, if you opt for a capitalist economy, there can
> almost be no way you can go back to research the stuff needed for a communist
> government.
>
> esore
The economy suggestion is an excellent one. However, I don't understand
why one couldn't switch from a capalistic economy to a communistic
ecomony. Cuba did that in 1950, it was forced onto Central Europe by
the USSR after WWII. A lot of communes exist in the US that are
basically communistic in nature. Don't confuse communism with
authoritarian. Ones an economic system...the other is a goverment
system.
In Civ III, government types should be Despositism, Monarchy, Oligarchy,
Republic, Democratic and Theoligist. Government type should affect your
REPUTATION (and maybe trade?). Economic should be as mentioned above as
Nomadic or Agrarian, Mercantile, Capitalism, Socialism (sp?) and
Communism which affect GOLD and SHIELD production. Perhaps introducing
RELIGION would affect one's science/happiness. A progression could be
mystic, polythiest, monothiest, multi-religions? or perhaps more of a
tolerance slider instead? A lot of real world events are deeply
intertwined with religion (for better or worse). Opinions welcomed.
Andrew
Mike Hartman
my 2c:
1. Engineer ability to create short canals across one square for ship
travel.
2. An anti-aircraft unit. Annoying to have a stack of fortified units
laid waste by bombers and only possible 'defense' is to respond by
sending fighters _after_ the fact.
3. Fix the capture-a-city-computer-caves-in bug. Give it some AI to
determine if it can take it back; I've had many times where the capturing
units were so weak that the newly created CP partisans could've taken
the city right back without any trouble.
4. Make it more difficult to bribe cities. Simply too easy, and how
often does this occur in reality? Take into account buildings, wonders,
and esp. military units in the city, rather than just the size.
Make it easier to bribe units - why are their bribes even close to what
a city costs? I bought a 12 size city with 6 modern military units in
it for only 5 times the cost of a that same civ's fortified ski patrol.
5. Fix the spy-train (allowing a military unit to ignore enemy ZOC by
moving onto a spy). This gets too silly in the railroad era.
6. Put some serious thought into the difficulty levels by improving
the computer AI rather than crippling the player. I personally
think the 'happiness' model is too involving and detracts from the
game; too much emphasis on getting certain Wonders.
7. More tech advances! Fun fun fun... how about adding 'minor'
advances, like Jet engines (flyers gain 2 movement), Canals (see
above), Cloning (allows Sheep units), etc. that don't take as long
to research or could be researched on the side?
8. Carriers, and sea combat in general. I really think sea combat
should treat a stack of units as though they are fortified, ie only
one unit lost per attack. Carriers are pretty vulnerable otherwise.
I've also seen the computer stack two battleships atop each other
(why?!?) and sank them with only one battleship.
9. More configurability for the user! Civ II was great, but it'd
be even more fun to tailor units as much as we want (for instance,
I could turn off the spies' bribe city ability and be happy!)
10. Why is it I can airlift an Armor division across the world and
still be able to use it this turn, but a Fighter must take 4-5
turns (=4/5 years!) city-hopping to go the same distance? Why is
it an Armored division can race across an entire continent on a
railroad and still be able to attack, when an aircraft must city-
hop across the same continent? Aircraft should be able to 'airlift'
between Airports, and the railroad model is simply busted - go to
1/6 or 1/12 movement; 0 is too cheap.
11. Programmable units. I'd like to have fighters automatically do
simple repeated flight patterns if asked, ala Warcraft. Telling
engineers to build a road from point X to Y. That sort of thing.
Just a few off the top of my head. Oh, and shouldn't City Walls
get outdated, by, oh, before 1800?
Great game in any case!
Engel
spies might do it while you are not at war with that nation ...
CHRISTOPH
Mark Towler
snip
> How about being able to *steal* a trade caravan with one of your units,
> spies might do it while you are not at war with that nation ...
>
> CHRISTOPH
Better yet, how about smarter barbarians? I'd like to be able to PRODUCE
barbarians and inflict them on my enemies. As well, how about a new unit -
bandits. You build them and send them after your enemy's caravans, smaller
cities, settlers, etc. It could be even more fun if you have little or no
control over them - every once in a while they attack YOUR stuff. Maybe they
should have the same detection rules as submarines (bandits are usually hard
to track, historically) and should have a fast movement (3?). To make things
even more fun, you could have the option to pay barbarians to turn them into
bandits for you. You should also be able to provide them with units, etc on
the sly. Give thema ship and you have pirates. Give them a cannon and you
get NASTY bandits. They should be very expensive to maintain, but it would
bring in an element of diplomacy often seen in real life...
Opinions?
M
John Magne Trane
>In Civ III, government types should be Despositism, Monarchy, Oligarchy,
>Republic, Democratic and Theoligist. Government type should affect your
>REPUTATION (and maybe trade?).
With Theologist, should it better the rep with those of the same religion,
and worsen it with those with other rels / secular government?
Or is a civilization seen as one with a unique religion? Like Islam vs
Christianity etc?
>Economic should be as mentioned above as
>Nomadic or Agrarian, Mercantile, Capitalism, Socialism (sp?) and
>Communism which affect GOLD and SHIELD production. Perhaps introducing
>RELIGION would affect one's science/happiness. A progression could be
>mystic, polythiest, monothiest, multi-religions? or perhaps more of a
Before some diety calls, it's theist... ;)
>tolerance slider instead? A lot of real world events are deeply
>intertwined with religion (for better or worse). Opinions welcomed.
>
>Andrew
JMT
Graham Thurlwell
Mark Towler wrote:
>
> snip
> > How about being able to *steal* a trade caravan with one of your units,
> > spies might do it while you are not at war with that nation ...
> >
> > CHRISTOPH
That's a pretty good suggestion, and something I've suggested here in
the
past. I don't see what's wrong with copying the system in Colonization
where
the caravans etc always move on the routes, rather than vanishing when
the
route's established. Of course, it may get a little too busy... A huge
chunk
of my Colonization strategy was based on using privateers to capture the
CPs'
ships. That's why I played with lots of islands.
> Better yet, how about smarter barbarians? I'd like to be able to PRODUCE
> barbarians and inflict them on my enemies.
You nasty person you ;-) Could be intersting...
> As well, how about a new unit -
> bandits. You build them and send them after your enemy's caravans, smaller
> cities, settlers, etc. It could be even more fun if you have little or no
> control over them - every once in a while they attack YOUR stuff. Maybe they
> should have the same detection rules as submarines (bandits are usually hard
> to track, historically) and should have a fast movement (3?).
They could work in the same manner as the privateers in Colonization -
their
actions have no effect on your reputation. The CPs know you have them,
but
you can deny their operations.
Civ' advance / feature - Letters of Marque (SP?) This was used in real
life
in the days when life was more interesting. Almost exactly the same as
pirates,
they were given special papers by their respective governments giving
them
permission to operate. There were certain conditions attached, such as a
cut
in the proceeds for the licensing authority, and the privateer was not
allowed
to attack friendly shipping. Francis Drake is an example.
> To make things
> even more fun, you could have the option to pay barbarians to turn them into
> bandits for you. You should also be able to provide them with units, etc on
> the sly. Give thema ship and you have pirates. Give them a cannon and you
> get NASTY bandits. They should be very expensive to maintain, but it would
> bring in an element of diplomacy often seen in real life...
Nice idea, though you'd still have to have the possibility they decide
to turn
on you, you'd have only limited control.
I was thinking we could have an extension of the Espionage functions,
and
introduce 'black operations' as practiced by those stalwart defenders of
the
free world, the CIA. Give your units 'black operations unit' status, so
you
can remain in full control, but be able to deny everthing. There should
be the
chance that everything blows up in your face like the Bay of Pigs, it'd
leave
a nasty diplomatic mess :-) The units could be given a black mark on
their
shields (a black diagonal stripe?) to indicate their status. Make them
like the
submarines - hard to spot.
Another idea could be terrorism - as an advance. some scope there...
Johnny Lamar Rhyne
Oligarchy,
>> Republic, Democratic and Theoligist. Government type should affect
your
above as
>> Nomadic or Agrarian, Mercantile, Capitalism, Socialism (sp?) and
>> Communism which affect GOLD and SHIELD production. Perhaps
introducing
>> RELIGION would affect one's science/happiness. A progression could
be
>> mystic, polythiest, monothiest, multi-religions? or perhaps more of
a
>> intertwined with religion (for better or worse). Opinions welcomed.
>>
>> Andrew
units,
>spies might do it while you are not at war with that nation ...
>
I've always thought that one thing that couldn't hurt would be the
pirates from colonzation. I was nice to be able to raid enemy ships and
being able to get away with it.
>CHRISTOPH
--
Mr. H.R. Bradshaw(Deceased)
Head Minister, Ministry of Silly Walks
*Is your life in a rut? Then head down
to your local silly walks recruiter today.*
Join now and we will send you a free Shrubbery.
Hosaki Nitsu
har...@dg-rtp.dg.com (Mike Hartman) I understood to say;
>my 2c:
>1. Engineer ability to create short canals across one square for ship
>travel.
great idea
>2. An anti-aircraft unit. Annoying to have a stack of fortified units
>laid waste by bombers and only possible 'defense' is to respond by
>sending fighters _after_ the fact.
again , truly needed
>3. Fix the capture-a-city-computer-caves-in bug. Give it some AI to
>determine if it can take it back; I've had many times where the capturing
>units were so weak that the newly created CP partisans could've taken
>the city right back without any trouble.
I totally agree
>4. Make it more difficult to bribe cities. Simply too easy, and how
>often does this occur in reality?
actually, quite often, especially during the era of city states in
Italy and Germany, Does the name Timor ring a bell[Tamerlane]
Take into account buildings, wonders,
>and esp. military units in the city, rather than just the size.
Agreed
>Make it easier to bribe units - why are their bribes even close to what
>a city costs? I bought a 12 size city with 6 modern military units in
>it for only 5 times the cost of a that same civ's fortified ski patrol.
A Duke or Baron can be bribed for far less than the total cost of his
Duchy etc. I think this is somewhat realistic.How much did Japan have
to pay for Manchuoko[Manchuria] for example?
>5. Fix the spy-train (allowing a military unit to ignore enemy ZOC by
>moving onto a spy). This gets too silly in the railroad era.
Again, not really.consider the spy as obtaining really good
maps[intelligence] of the area.Consider the battle of the Bulge for
example. ZOC had no bearing on the Germans.
>6. Put some serious thought into the difficulty levels by improving
>the computer AI rather than crippling the player. I personally
>think the 'happiness' model is too involving and detracts from the
>game; too much emphasis on getting certain Wonders.
I play to build a civilization, not a military. In this regard the
game works fine. If you want to simply kill all the others, I can see
how this would irk you. That's why the game's so great, it can be
played many different ways.
>7. More tech advances! Fun fun fun... how about adding 'minor'
>advances, like Jet engines (flyers gain 2 movement), Canals (see
>above), Cloning (allows Sheep units), etc. that don't take as long
>to research or could be researched on the side?
SHEEP?
>8. Carriers, and sea combat in general. I really think sea combat
>should treat a stack of units as though they are fortified, ie only
>one unit lost per attack. Carriers are pretty vulnerable otherwise.
>I've also seen the computer stack two battleships atop each other
>(why?!?) and sank them with only one battleship.
I have to agree, besides, have you ever seen the AI use carriers?
>9. More configurability for the user! Civ II was great, but it'd
>be even more fun to tailor units as much as we want (for instance,
>I could turn off the spies' bribe city ability and be happy!)
Go to many of the web pages, they have programs for changing just
about everything.
>10. Why is it I can airlift an Armor division across the world and
>still be able to use it this turn, but a Fighter must take 4-5
>turns (=4/5 years!) city-hopping to go the same distance? Why is
>it an Armored division can race across an entire continent on a
>railroad and still be able to attack, when an aircraft must city-
>hop across the same continent?
a tank is a self contained unit[at least for a time] and can roll off
a railcar and attack. Aircraft cannot, they need a huge lgistical
train to prepare for, then support them. I agree that you should get
more movement when simply 'ferrying aircraft though.
Aircraft should be able to 'airlift'
>between Airports, and the railroad model is simply busted - go to
>1/6 or 1/12 movement; 0 is too cheap.
Your previous point was it shouldnt take over a year to move a plane.
Why should it take over a year to take a train across the continent?
>11. Programmable units. I'd like to have fighters automatically do
>simple repeated flight patterns if asked, ala Warcraft. Telling
>engineers to build a road from point X to Y. That sort of thing.
I totally agree, wish you could actually tell a unit to 'go-to' and it
wouldn't get lost 50% of the time on long moves.
> Just a few off the top of my head. Oh, and shouldn't City Walls
>get outdated, by, oh, before 1800?
Uh, ...the American Civil war, The Russo-Japanese war, Liege, Namur,
Sevastopol,[The Redan]Mukden, Port
Arthur,Anzio,Calabria,Maffeking,Aqaba,Nanking, even today;Kabul
> Great game in any case!
and some great ideas. I look forward to hearing more.
****
" You don't like fish-heads and rice?
OK, what DO you like with your fish-heads?"
Hosaki Nitsu,last Kamikazi pilot
Andy McFadden
In article <5ij8hd$r...@wellspring.us.dg.com>,
Mike Hartman <mhar...@clariion.com.REMOVE> wrote:
>5. Fix the spy-train (allowing a military unit to ignore enemy ZOC by
>moving onto a spy). This gets too silly in the railroad era.
Yes, this is rather silly. Some amount of restriction needs to imposed
here.
>6. Put some serious thought into the difficulty levels by improving
>the computer AI rather than crippling the player. I personally
>think the 'happiness' model is too involving and detracts from the
>game; too much emphasis on getting certain Wonders.
Improving the AI is hard. Things that seem simple will often impact
more complex elements... it's hard to keep a proper balance.
>7. More tech advances! Fun fun fun... how about adding 'minor'
>advances, like Jet engines (flyers gain 2 movement), Canals (see
>above), Cloning (allows Sheep units), etc. that don't take as long
>to research or could be researched on the side?
I'm dying to know: what would a Sheep unit do? :-)
I'd like to see more strategy in the advancement tree. Rather than
allowing everyone to research everything, allow a civ to have a
particular focus. They can only reasearch certain things; other
advances can't be stolen or given. (Maybe they can still be researched
but cost considerably more?)
You could choose an economic, military, or production focus. This would
make the different civ types far more distinct, though there's a very
good chance that one would dominate the rest. Maybe I've just been
playing Stars! too much...
>10. Why is it I can airlift an Armor division across the world and
>still be able to use it this turn, but a Fighter must take 4-5
>turns (=4/5 years!) city-hopping to go the same distance? Why is
>it an Armored division can race across an entire continent on a
>railroad and still be able to attack, when an aircraft must city-
>hop across the same continent? Aircraft should be able to 'airlift'
>between Airports, and the railroad model is simply busted - go to
>1/6 or 1/12 movement; 0 is too cheap.
Don't get too caught up with reality, it's overrated. A game should be
fun first, realistic second.
>11. Programmable units. I'd like to have fighters automatically do
>simple repeated flight patterns if asked, ala Warcraft. Telling
>engineers to build a road from point X to Y. That sort of thing.
This would be nice. Gets a little tricky if you want to have "work gangs"
building a road though.
> Just a few off the top of my head. Oh, and shouldn't City Walls
>get outdated, by, oh, before 1800?
Nah, they just have to be rebuilt to reflect the new reality. Actually,
if they build them like they built the Great Wall of China, they're
probably still good until artillery shows up...
--
Send UCE to consum...@ftc.gov (Spam Bait)
Send mail to fad...@netcom.com (Andy McFadden)
Fight Internet Spam - http://www.vix.com/spam/
Tom Carman
har...@dg-rtp.dg.com (Mike Hartman) wrote:
>my 2c:
>
>1. Engineer ability to create short canals across one square for ship
>travel.
Modify RULES.TXT so you can mine Forest into Jungle, Jungle into
Swamp, and Swamp into Ocean. For landfills ala Holland, Ocean can be
irrigated or mined into Swamp. You can use Settlers for this as well
as Engineers.
>2. An anti-aircraft unit. Annoying to have a stack of fortified units
>laid waste by bombers and only possible 'defense' is to respond by
>sending fighters _after_ the fact.
Create a custom anti-aircraft unit, or modify Howitzer with, for
instance, the "2x defense against aircraft" and "able to attack
aircraft" flags.
Peter Austwick
In article <5irehs$g...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, Hosaki Nitsu
<hos...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>har...@dg-rtp.dg.com (Mike Hartman) I understood to say;
>>9. More configurability for the user! Civ II was great, but it'd
>>be even more fun to tailor units as much as we want (for instance,
>>I could turn off the spies' bribe city ability and be happy!)
>Go to many of the web pages, they have programs for changing just
>about everything.
> Great game in any case!
>and some great ideas. I look forward to hearing more.
--I wonder if there is a web page that would help me?
I think the Civ 2 game elements and the programming are superb but for me
the game objectives are a let down. Is there a strategy game in there
somewhere?
Following are the bare bones of a (flawed) strategy game I play using the
customizing facilities.
At 1750 AD I turn off the Apollo Wonder to avoid the space race and I
turn on the world view making all units visible. I ally the three smallest
civs with the human civ; the other three are allied with each other and
enemies of everyone else. Every 25 moves populations are recounted and allies
and enemies reallocated. Human led units are used for defence only; they must
never cause civilian casualties by attacking cities. Allied units must not
be created but those already existing can be moved anywhere in the world
using the cheat menu. Allied units are the only units that can attack cities.
To win each ally must be bigger than every enemy at 1950 AD when this part of
the game ends. I also set objectives for the human led civ.
The AI cooperates quite well. Although it would prefer to sink its teeth
into the human led civ it will attack anything if really angry. Allied
settlers will usually build a city if dumped in a suitable place. If an
invader captures, sorry, liberates a city two things might happen. The
combatants might make peace, which allows a useful period for consolidation;
or the invaded country becomes a hornets' nest to eject the invader. Fun to
watch.If nothing much is likely to happen I turn off the world view to save
time.
Obviously you have to plan ahead to some extent. You mustn't damage your
enemies too much in any but the last phase or you are left with a lame duck
ally. Anybody got some better strategical ideas.
Anyway one thing I would like in Civ 3 is a drop down menu whereby you ask
Ally A to liberate City X. Whereupon if the objective is reasonable Ally A
sends off a (visible) force to do the job.
Peter Austwick
Mark Towler
In article <faddenE8...@netcom.com>, fad...@netcom.com (Andy McFadden)
wrote:
> In article <5ij8hd$r...@wellspring.us.dg.com>,
> Mike Hartman <mhar...@clariion.com.REMOVE> wrote:
> >5. Fix the spy-train (allowing a military unit to ignore enemy ZOC by
> >moving onto a spy). This gets too silly in the railroad era.
>
> Yes, this is rather silly. Some amount of restriction needs to imposed
> here.
>
Oh, I don't know. A good spy can sucessfully sneak a regiment into an
enemy-controlled zone using disguises, falsified papers, bribes, etc.
History is full of examples.
> >6. Put some serious thought into the difficulty levels by improving
> >the computer AI rather than crippling the player. I personally
> >think the 'happiness' model is too involving and detracts from the
> >game; too much emphasis on getting certain Wonders.
>
> Improving the AI is hard. Things that seem simple will often impact
> more complex elements... it's hard to keep a proper balance.
>
Agreed, the higher difficulty levels only seem to make it harder to keep
your people happy. Still, that's an integral part of the game. I'd like to
see smarter tactics and more agressive behaviour from the AI.
> >7. More tech advances! Fun fun fun... how about adding 'minor'
> >advances, like Jet engines (flyers gain 2 movement), Canals (see
> >above), Cloning (allows Sheep units), etc. that don't take as long
> >to research or could be researched on the side?
>
> I'm dying to know: what would a Sheep unit do? :-)
>
Park it on any irrigated square in the city and it productes 2 production
(wool) and 4 food (mutton). But you don't need cloning - just animal
domestication that should be fairly basic. Why can't we have cattle herds?
Why can't we steal these herds from our enemys? Why can't we develop carrier
pidgeons early? (I'm not sure what they would do...give a diplomatic
advantage? Keep the people happy with the development of newspapers? Give
all our units a slight tactical advantage due to improved communications?).
We should also get more in the way of high-tech social advances. Developing
art, for example would keep people happier in every city that has a gallery.
Television would IMMEDIATELY pacify your population by 2 per city. Video
games should be developed with computers to improve happiness. Throw in the
internet to double research in every city.
For military use, how about using cloning to produce SuperSoldiers? Rather
than an individual unit, you could attach this advantage to any unit. For
example, Marines are an 8/5/1. Super marines take 30% longer to build, but
have a 10/6/2 and always heal fully between turns. You could reduce the
power of this by making citizens unhappy in any city they are in (people
tend to be fairly leery of clones) and by making 1 in 5 cloning bathes fail
in the production stage. How about androids and robots? How about ranged
combat? Artillery shoud be able to strike at units up to 2 squares away
(with reduced effect, of course) but they should not be killable during this
sort of attack. How about Laser batteries as a unit? Same 2 square range,
but much more damage. They need power, so they must stay within 1 square of
a city. Speakign of lasers, how about adding the command "arson" to the spy
menu. Why can't I send someone in to bur down my enemy's cities? It would
automatically destroy one building at random, 2 if the city had no aqueduct.
Again, there are a lot of historical precedents.
But the biggest advantage would be an autopilot feature as discussed above.
Master of Magic (kind of fantasy civ if you're not familiar with it) uses a
directional sort of road building technigue. It isn't perfect, but you can
get a bunch of engeneers to build a lot of road while you ignore them. SAme
goes for aircraft patrols. Anotehr idea - a new city advantage: mid-air
refueling base. Any air craft flying wihtin five spaces of the city is
automatically refuled and has it's movement refreshed. This would allow you
to fly non-stop around the world.
Whew. Got a bit carried away there...
_____________________________________
These are my opinions, not those of anyone else.
Unsolicited email sent to this address will be stored for ten days at a fee
of $50,000 (US)/day. Sending email indicates acceptance of this fee.
Gunk-a-loo
I agree 0 movement cost is way to cheap. 1/10th is good.
Mike Hartman (har...@dg-rtp.dg.com) wrote:
: my 2c:
: 1. Engineer ability to create short canals across one square for ship
: travel.
: 2. An anti-aircraft unit. Annoying to have a stack of fortified units
: laid waste by bombers and only possible 'defense' is to respond by
: sending fighters _after_ the fact.
: 3. Fix the capture-a-city-computer-caves-in bug. Give it some AI to
: determine if it can take it back; I've had many times where the capturing
: units were so weak that the newly created CP partisans could've taken
: the city right back without any trouble.
: 4. Make it more difficult to bribe cities. Simply too easy, and how
: often does this occur in reality? Take into account buildings, wonders,
: and esp. military units in the city, rather than just the size.
: Make it easier to bribe units - why are their bribes even close to what
: a city costs? I bought a 12 size city with 6 modern military units in
: it for only 5 times the cost of a that same civ's fortified ski patrol.
: 5. Fix the spy-train (allowing a military unit to ignore enemy ZOC by
: moving onto a spy). This gets too silly in the railroad era.
: 6. Put some serious thought into the difficulty levels by improving
: the computer AI rather than crippling the player. I personally
: think the 'happiness' model is too involving and detracts from the
: game; too much emphasis on getting certain Wonders.
: 7. More tech advances! Fun fun fun... how about adding 'minor'
: advances, like Jet engines (flyers gain 2 movement), Canals (see
: above), Cloning (allows Sheep units), etc. that don't take as long
: to research or could be researched on the side?
: 8. Carriers, and sea combat in general. I really think sea combat
: should treat a stack of units as though they are fortified, ie only
: one unit lost per attack. Carriers are pretty vulnerable otherwise.
: I've also seen the computer stack two battleships atop each other
: (why?!?) and sank them with only one battleship.
: 9. More configurability for the user! Civ II was great, but it'd
: be even more fun to tailor units as much as we want (for instance,
: I could turn off the spies' bribe city ability and be happy!)
: 10. Why is it I can airlift an Armor division across the world and
: still be able to use it this turn, but a Fighter must take 4-5
: turns (=4/5 years!) city-hopping to go the same distance? Why is
: it an Armored division can race across an entire continent on a
: railroad and still be able to attack, when an aircraft must city-
: hop across the same continent? Aircraft should be able to 'airlift'
: between Airports, and the railroad model is simply busted - go to
: 1/6 or 1/12 movement; 0 is too cheap.
: 11. Programmable units. I'd like to have fighters automatically do
: simple repeated flight patterns if asked, ala Warcraft. Telling
: engineers to build a road from point X to Y. That sort of thing.
: Just a few off the top of my head. Oh, and shouldn't City Walls
: get outdated, by, oh, before 1800?
: Great game in any case!
Stephen Priest
Andrew Goldstein wrote:
> > That's a great idea. I would add that "Economy" might be used to set your
> > research tree. For example, if you opt for a capitalist economy, there can
> > almost be no way you can go back to research the stuff needed for a communist
> > government.
> >
> > esore
>
> The economy suggestion is an excellent one. However, I don't understand
> why one couldn't switch from a capalistic economy to a communistic
> ecomony. Cuba did that in 1950, it was forced onto Central Europe by
> the USSR after WWII. A lot of communes exist in the US that are
> basically communistic in nature. Don't confuse communism with
> authoritarian. Ones an economic system...the other is a goverment
> system.
>
> In Civ III, government types should be Despositism, Monarchy, Oligarchy,
> Republic, Democratic and Theoligist. Government type should affect your
> REPUTATION (and maybe trade?). Economic should be as mentioned above as
> Nomadic or Agrarian, Mercantile, Capitalism, Socialism (sp?) and
> Communism which affect GOLD and SHIELD production. Perhaps introducing
> RELIGION would affect one's science/happiness. A progression could be
> mystic, polythiest, monothiest, multi-religions? or perhaps more of a
> tolerance slider instead? A lot of real world events are deeply
> intertwined with religion (for better or worse). Opinions welcomed.
>
> Andrew
I think it should be more difficult to change governments in general.
It's quite handy to switch back and forth between Democracy and
Fundamentalism as needed, a little too handy. The revolution option
should only be enabled immediatlely after a new form of government is
researched, and thereafter only in certain circumstances, such as losing
some cities in a war. Or how about being able to start a revolution, but
the computer randomly chooses the outcome--combined with a restriction
about only being able to have revolutions every X number of turns. Also,
Despotism and Monarchy should become obsolete in the later stages of the
game.
Along a different line, what about rebellious colonies? When you reach
the Industrial Revolution, cities on different continents from the
capital would have some chance of revolting and becoming a seperate civ
(assuming there's a slot open for it). You go to all that trouble to
expand your empire and get hit with a nasty screen reading "English
colonists rebel! George Washington proclaimed President of the
Americans!" The "incite revolt" option would create this scenario, where
the new civ is allied with sponsor nation (US/Panama vs. Colombia). That
way you could use your wealth to weaken your opponents, but not get to
enlarge at their expense (without the damage to your rep that would
ensue if you promptly cancelled your alliance with the fledgling civ and
conquered it).
Steve
Haukioja Timo
In <335464...@wic.tdh.state.tx.us> Stephen writes:
>
> I think it should be more difficult to change governments in general.
> It's quite handy to switch back and forth between Democracy and
> Fundamentalism as needed, a little too handy. The revolution option
> should only be enabled immediatlely after a new form of government is
> researched, and thereafter only in certain circumstances, such as losing
> some cities in a war. Or how about being able to start a revolution, but
> the computer randomly chooses the outcome--combined with a restriction
> about only being able to have revolutions every X number of turns. Also,
> Despotism and Monarchy should become obsolete in the later stages of the
> game.
I don't agree with the random government suggestion, but you do
have a good point here. Revolutions shouldn't be allowed to happen
every turn, although I would still like to have the option of
starting one without any outside influence. However, I would like
the population to have their word as well -- if you've invented one
or more of the "modern" government forms but are still in Monarchy
or Despotism, you would gradually get more and more unrest in your cities,
along with messages like "Sire, our people are growing restless.
They desire more freedom. Isn't it time we modernized our government?"
from the attitude advisor.
>
> Along a different line, what about rebellious colonies? When you reach
> the Industrial Revolution, cities on different continents from the
> capital would have some chance of revolting and becoming a seperate civ
> (assuming there's a slot open for it). You go to all that trouble to
> expand your empire and get hit with a nasty screen reading "English
> colonists rebel! George Washington proclaimed President of the
> Americans!"
Yes, a good idea -- provided there is some way to avoid this
possibility, e.g modernized forms of government, city improvements
(Town Hall?) or the like (or perhaps just plain force; three
loyal musketeers per city would keep the population from
rebelling).
- Timo
Mike Hartman
Mark Towler (mark_...@nt.com) wrote:
: In article <faddenE8...@netcom.com>, fad...@netcom.com (Andy McFadden)
: wrote:
: > In article <5ij8hd$r...@wellspring.us.dg.com>,
: > Mike Hartman <mhar...@clariion.com.REMOVE> wrote:
: > >5. Fix the spy-train (allowing a military unit to ignore enemy ZOC by
: > >moving onto a spy). This gets too silly in the railroad era.
: >
: > Yes, this is rather silly. Some amount of restriction needs to imposed
: > here.
: >
: Oh, I don't know. A good spy can sucessfully sneak a regiment into an
: enemy-controlled zone using disguises, falsified papers, bribes, etc.
: History is full of examples.
Allowing a unit to move one or two spaces into/thru enemy ZOC with spy
help is realistic enough and I have no problem with that. In the railroad
era, however, it means a single spy can sneak an infinite number of divisions
of tanks, howitzers, and mech. infantry throughout an entire continent
(given the way the CP AI tends to railroadize a whole continent) and right
up to the CP's capitol, ignoring a dozen city/fortifications along the way.
There should be some limit as to how far a unit can penetrate.
Somebody also mentioned the airborne refueling for airplanes - where their
movement is 'reset' to full upon entering a friendly city radius (perhaps
with a Refuel command?). This would be a perfect and fairly realistic
solution, and would end the 5 year fighter-to-battlefront wait I gnash my
teeth at.
: > >7. More tech advances! Fun fun fun... how about adding 'minor'
: > >advances, like Jet engines (flyers gain 2 movement), Canals (see
: > >above), Cloning (allows Sheep units), etc. that don't take as long
: > >to research or could be researched on the side?
: >
: > I'm dying to know: what would a Sheep unit do? :-)
Due to popular demand:
Sheep Unit (available after Cloning and Germ Warfare)
Attack: 2 Hit Points: 1 Movement: 2
Defense: 1 Firepower: 1 Build Cost: 20
Ignores Enemy ZOC
Ignores City Walls when used in conjunction with 'bombardment' units
(catapult, cannon, artiller, howitzer, bombers, battleship).
Bombers and Battleships can carry up to two Sheep units.
Destroys one population in target city from Mad Sheep Disease, unit
is captured.
Veteran sheep destroy two and have chance of evading capture (1%).
Becomes obsolete when Cure for Mad Sheep Disease Wonder is built.
Ian
j...@acsu.buffalo.edu (Gunk-a-loo) wrote:
>: 6. Put some serious thought into the difficulty levels by improving
>: the computer AI rather than crippling the player. I personally
>: think the 'happiness' model is too involving and detracts from the
>: game; too much emphasis on getting certain Wonders.
Oh yeah... I always HATED the happiness in Civ 1/2 (actually one of the big
reasons both games weren't played all that much, apart from relatively
unrealistic combat). I played Moo2, which still has morale and taxation but
differently, and it was VERY refreshing... everything dealt with in terms of
production. Increasing taxation decreases production directly, but does not
mean you have to worry about half your empire revolting. Morale is modified
by techs/buildings, directly improving production. I like the Moo2 model
better - it's still not realistic in that there is NO chance of a revolt,
but it is good for gameplay because there are still consequences of taxation
and low morale (your production is less, which is actually a pretty strong
consequence), but your citizens are not taking to the streets in open
rebellion (personally I think cities are much too quick to rebel in Civ, as
compared to real cities in comparable civilizations).
>: 7. More tech advances! Fun fun fun... how about adding 'minor'
>: advances, like Jet engines (flyers gain 2 movement), Canals (see
>: above), Cloning (allows Sheep units), etc. that don't take as long
>: to research or could be researched on the side?
Yes, there just isn't enough variety, especially in the modern world. Just
simulating a the 20th century, 1900-2000, is not possible. Once you get
"Tank", you have tanks, period... there's nothing to tell the difference
between a pre-WW2 Panzer I and a modern M1A1 Abrams. Civ2 is actually fairly
realistic in depicting the ancient world, but a lot more work needs to be
done in the _modern_ world. Technology starts to become MUCH more important
to both realism and fun warfare when you get to the industrial and
post-industrial eras, and Civ2 starts to suffer.
Also, certain modern weapons could use a lot more realism. Submarines should
NOT be able to be killed by any old ship (Battleships, and most cruisers,
had very limited ASW capability). They should as usual be able to defend,
but it would be MUCH more realistic if Battleships and Cruisers were unable
to _initiate_ combat against submarines. (Playing a WW2 scenario as the
Germans, I was dismayed when my entire U-Boat force was wiped out in a few
turns due to the fact that any old ship could, and did, successfully attack
them).
>: 8. Carriers, and sea combat in general. I really think sea combat
>: should treat a stack of units as though they are fortified, ie only
>: one unit lost per attack. Carriers are pretty vulnerable otherwise.
Oh yes, that is a MASSIVE annoyance. In the same WW2 scenario, I was
disgusted by the fact that fleets were basically useless and difficult to
coordinate, because a single enemy battleship could toast a massive stack.
Personally I think that Civ2 should copy its copiers (which copied Master of
Orion) - a simple tactical combat system similar to the ones in MOM or MOO2
would be VERY nice - and just like those games, you could have the option of
"strategic resolution" for people who like Civ2 the way it is.
>: 10. Why is it I can airlift an Armor division across the world and
>: still be able to use it this turn, but a Fighter must take 4-5
>: turns (=4/5 years!) city-hopping to go the same distance? Why is
>: it an Armored division can race across an entire continent on a
>: railroad and still be able to attack, when an aircraft must city-
>: hop across the same continent? Aircraft should be able to 'airlift'
>: between Airports, and the railroad model is simply busted - go to
>: 1/6 or 1/12 movement; 0 is too cheap.
Yes, it is too cheap. Same WW2 simulation - the Soviets were able to bring
their entire army to the Eastern Front as soon as I attacked, despite the
fact that realistically, when railroads get really long, you don't get
instantaneous travel.
I am VERY in favor of a really small, but nonzero, railroad modifier.
Something like 1/10 or less - enough so that it makes little or no
difference for short hops, but prevents armies from travelling all the way
across a railroaded world in a single turn.
>: 11. Programmable units. I'd like to have fighters automatically do
>: simple repeated flight patterns if asked, ala Warcraft. Telling
>: engineers to build a road from point X to Y. That sort of thing.
Yes, this is found in Master of Magic - you click on what path you want the
engineers to follow, and they do. Quite convenient.
zd...@aol.com
Any chance we may EVER see this one, since Sid Meier has gone? Does MP own the copyright so Sid can't do it? And since MP doesn't have the genius, we'll never get an upgraded Colonization?
Please? Pretty please?
zd...@aol.com
Just watched PATTON, again. Made me wonder about how the games we love are played.
Does anybody know of a game that involves REAL strategy. I mean, real, conceptual, big-picture kind of strategy?
When I was a kid, RISK was my favorite game. It involved a lot of real strategy, with an element of luck, which does figure into quite a bit of warfare, (although granted not as much as in RISK.<g>)
But most of the cp games I've played are more tactical than strategic.
I'd rather be a general than a lieutenant.
Anyone know of one?
Johnny Lamar Rhyne
In <19970417073...@ladder01.news.aol.com> zd...@aol.com
writes:
It's not a computer game, but Axis & Aliies is a lot like RISK. Very
Good.
Henri H. Arsenault
> Just watched PATTON, again. Made me wonder about how the games we love
are played.
>
> Does anybody know of a game that involves REAL strategy. I mean, real,
conceptual, big-picture kind of strategy?
>
Clash of Steel and Third Reich are grand strategy wargames. A bit more
tactical but still strategical are Stalingrad and Operation Crusader, which
cover wide areas of operation (hundreds of Km).
Henri
Peter Austwick
In article <19970417073...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
zd...@aol.com writes
>Just watched PATTON, again. Made me wonder about how the games we love are
>played.
>
>Does anybody know of a game that involves REAL strategy. I mean, real,
>conceptual, big-picture kind of strategy?
>
>When I was a kid, RISK was my favorite game. It involved a lot of real
>strategy, with an element of luck, which does figure into quite a bit of
>warfare, (although granted not as much as in RISK.<g>)
> But most of the cp games I've played are more tactical than strategic.
>
>I'd rather be a general than a lieutenant.
>
>Anyone know of one?
Zdbop you are a man after my own heart.
I still think Civ 3 could be the strategy game of all time. See the (not
brilliant - silly even) strategy game using the cheat menu which I
outlined recently in this thread.
At the moment although the Civ 2 tactical elememts are absolutely
brilliant the strategy seems to be to build your empire as big as
possible while the computer tries to knock it down. It would be really
nice if at least one level was a sort of chess with a hundred pieces.
--
Peter Austwick
Ghost
In article <5j4l5t$i...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>, crh...@ix.netcom.com(Johnny Lamar Rhyne) wrote:
>In <19970417073...@ladder01.news.aol.com> zd...@aol.com
>writes:
>>
>>Just watched PATTON, again. Made me wonder about how the games we
>love are played.
>>
>>Does anybody know of a game that involves REAL strategy. I mean,
>real, conceptual, big-picture kind of strategy?
>>
>>When I was a kid, RISK was my favorite game. It involved a lot of
>real strategy, with an element of luck, which does figure into quite a
>bit of warfare, (although granted not as much as in RISK.<g>)
>> But most of the cp games I've played are more tactical than
>strategic.
>>
>>I'd rather be a general than a lieutenant.
>>
>>Anyone know of one?
>
>Good.
Also another Board game that is good is Shogun(recently re-released as Swords
and Samurais or something like that). It is also similar to Risk. Now if we
could just get someone to make a computer version of it and Axis & Allies.
mall
Johnny Lamar Rhyne wrote:
>
> In <19970417073...@ladder01.news.aol.com> zd...@aol.com
> writes:
> >
> >Just watched PATTON, again. Made me wonder about how the games we
> love are played.
> >
> >Does anybody know of a game that involves REAL strategy. I mean,
> real, conceptual, big-picture kind of strategy?
> >
> >When I was a kid, RISK was my favorite game. It involved a lot of
> real strategy, with an element of luck, which does figure into quite a
> bit of warfare, (although granted not as much as in RISK.<g>)
> > But most of the cp games I've played are more tactical than
> strategic.
> >
> >I'd rather be a general than a lieutenant.
> >
> >Anyone know of one?
>
> It's not a computer game, but Axis & Aliies is a lot like RISK. Very
> Good.
Yes! Very good! I would love to see the game for computer online
gaming. My only objection would be the need for computer generated dice
rolls... :')
Ken
If you want a good, REAL strategy game, check out Third Reich, in either
its board game or PC incarnation. It's very complex and demanding, but
ultimately very satisfying...just like real strategy.
Ken Rutsky
Louis Sivo
Stephen Priest (spr...@wic.tdh.state.tx.us) wrote:
<snip>
> Along a different line, what about rebellious colonies? When you reach
> the Industrial Revolution, cities on different continents from the
> capital would have some chance of revolting and becoming a seperate civ
> (assuming there's a slot open for it). You go to all that trouble to
> expand your empire and get hit with a nasty screen reading "English
> colonists rebel! George Washington proclaimed President of the
> the new civ is allied with sponsor nation (US/Panama vs. Colombia). That
> way you could use your wealth to weaken your opponents, but not get to
> enlarge at their expense (without the damage to your rep that would
> ensue if you promptly cancelled your alliance with the fledgling civ and
> conquered it).
I like this! How about, to help prevent this revolt, if you don't tax that
city they are more likely to stick with you. Then after X number of turns
you can treat them like your own cities with out this fear of revolt.
--
Louis Sivo
Hewlett-Packard Company
Americas Geographic Operations Voice: 408-343-7848
Technology Solutions Integration Fax: 408-343-7864
19320 Pruneridge Avenue, M/S 49B-2 Internet: lou...@nafohq.hp.com
Cupertino, CA 95014-0707
Louis Sivo
To add to all the great ideas I'm reading here. (Sorry if I'm repeating,
I tried not to.)
- Allow chemical warfare.
The unit (missile?) once exploded could look like a cloud.
+ It would have a strength of X at the start and would last 3 turns.
+ After the initial explosion it would move 1 or 2 squares randomly
(simulates movement by the wind.) This would make it dangerous to use
near your own units because it could blow back on them.
+ After each turn it would lose a third of its strength.
+ Allow chemical warfare units that could withstand the attack. (Little
guys in suits.)
- Allow biological warfare.
Same as above except:
+ Causes an international incident.
+ Last 5 turns.
+ Strength various randomly. (Simulates mutation.)
+ Every once in a while (really rarely) it could last 30 turns and become
really strong. If it hits a city it would kill off the citizens by a few
at a time.
+ Sometimes could split into two clouds.
- Random events.
+ Meteor hits on the planet. Could leave a crator. Would be like a pillage
on a normal developed terran square. If it hit a city it could randomly
destory some of its improvements, and kill some citizens.
If your civilization builds "the anti-meteor wonder" you would be warned.
The computer would give you a 90% accurate view of where it would hit.
If it was heading towards your civilization you could try and stop it.
If this attempt works you would gain in the eyes of the world. If it is
headed at someone else you could ignore it, but if you decided to be good
and destroy it anyway then you would gain even more favor.
+ Coastal cities hit by hurricans. It could turn some of your land to
swamp. This could be real irritating now that I think of it. Maybe have
only certain area where this could happen. Then if you chose to build
there at least you've been warned.
- New city improvements:
+ Launcher. This would be for launching your space ship pieces into space.
So if you have 5 cities creating modules they either each need a laucher
on they have to ship them to a city with one and it would take 5 turns to
launch the 5 different modules.
This would allow you to use your spy to destroy the enemies launchers and
slow them down. (Not that you can't destroy the modules now as they are
being built.)
+ Cloning
All soldier units are built slightly faster than without cloning.
If you have too many "Cloning units" you face a revolt and civil war in
those cities?
- New Units:
+ Spy Satellites
Build this unit and then you could give it a point on the map to watch,
and it would update your world map with every visible unit (except subs)
in the area. The Unit could be like a missile in that you use it and then
lose it.
+ Hot air balloon.
To be used around the time of the ironclads. With this unit you can see
all units within 5 squares.
+ Airships? (Blimps)
+ Allow one to build a packaged unit.
- A sub with 3 missiles.
- An aircraft carrier with 5 jets.
- Etc....
+ More future units.
- Other:
+ Make movement on railroads cost 1/10 of a movement point. Then add a new
improvement for engineers to build, the maglev train. This would have the
movement cost of 1/25.
Overall, I'd like to see more, more, more. Allow for people to find their
own style among the units and wonders.
--
Louis Sivo
lou...@nafohq.hp.com
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not necessarily represent
those of Hewlett-Packard.
FrntRngr
A lot of the suggestions here appeared in Destiny by Interactive Magic,
but I feel that game failed for several reasons:
The largest failing IMHO was terrible choices in detail abstraction and
time scaling. One had too much to deal with in city management ,and way
too little detail in combat. Time abstraction was another problem; the
synchronization between research and production was poor. Examples that
occurred when I played Destiny included starting to build iron age troops
armed with swords, and by the time they were built, having developed the
technology to build muskets. Or
having only wooden hulled triremes, but haveing developed electric
lighting.
Another failing of Destiny was a lack of any feeling that the other
civilizations were
really a part of the game. Civ I/II really got this right. When Stalin or
whoever popped up on the diplomacy screen with threats, you took it
personally. You got to
actually like your computer allies and be solicitous of them.
A Civ II game should combine
the strengths Destiny had : complexity of research tree, complexity of
resources and city building types, different governments, religion
aspects, enhanced diplomacy options, economy and government not as linked
as Civ I/II
with the strengths of Civ I/II : playability, overall good time scaling
and abstraction,
overall good combat and unit system, more "lively" feel to the diplomacy.
One thing I'd like to see in Civ III would be more depth to the effect of
government on war. Like in general a Democracy has restrictions on war
making ability, but if the victim of aggression by a Totalitarian state,
it should on the contrary be allowed to pull out all the stops until the
Totalitarian state is totally defeated. Can you inagine the Senate
stopping Roosevelt from continuing WW2
right after the battle of Midway had been won ? This is how Civ I/II
handle it.
MM. Wright
Hosaki Nitsu (hos...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: har...@dg-rtp.dg.com (Mike Hartman) I understood to say;
:
: >travel.
Why only one square? There are many canals thousands of miles long in real
life!
And ships should be able to sail up rivers and canals. Of course their
military capabilities would be reduced reflecting their vulnerability
inland.
And also bridge/tunnel across one sea square as in the channel tunnel
(England
- France for Americans!), the Sweeden - Denmark rail link and those
tunnels connecting the main Japanese islands...
Also raise land out of see, as the Dutch have done...but should require an
entire mountain to be reduced down to supply the dirt!
: >2. An anti-aircraft unit. Annoying to have a stack of fortified units
: >laid waste by bombers and only possible 'defense' is to respond by
: >sending fighters _after_ the fact.
: again , truly needed
Absolutely
: >3. Fix the capture-a-city-computer-caves-in bug. Give it some AI to
: >determine if it can take it back; I've had many times where the capturing
: >units were so weak that the newly created CP partisans could've taken
: >the city right back without any trouble.
: I totally agree
I'd like to see civilisations snap and go beserk when they are betrayed a
certain number of times - forgetting all except attacking YOU!
: >4. Make it more difficult to bribe cities. Simply too easy, and how
: >often does this occur in reality?
: actually, quite often, especially during the era of city states in
: Italy and Germany, Does the name Timor ring a bell[Tamerlane]
Hmm, yeh, but not in the industrial age.
: Take into account buildings, wonders,
: >and esp. military units in the city, rather than just the size.
: Agreed
: >Make it easier to bribe units - why are their bribes even close to what
: >a city costs? I bought a 12 size city with 6 modern military units in
: >it for only 5 times the cost of a that same civ's fortified ski patrol.
: A Duke or Baron can be bribed for far less than the total cost of his
: Duchy etc. I think this is somewhat realistic.How much did Japan have
: to pay for Manchuoko[Manchuria] for example?
I think I agree with the first point. A unit thats been fortified in a
jungle for 600years would be far easier to bribe than Los Angeles!
: >5. Fix the spy-train (allowing a military unit to ignore enemy ZOC by
: >moving onto a spy). This gets too silly in the railroad era.
: Again, not really.consider the spy as obtaining really good
: maps[intelligence] of the area.Consider the battle of the Bulge for
: example. ZOC had no bearing on the Germans.
Yeh, but they couldn't sneak through their entire force of 8,000,000
soldiers and tanks and move them up to Paris! Some restriction is needed
: >6. Put some serious thought into the difficulty levels by improving
: >the computer AI rather than crippling the player. I personally
: >think the 'happiness' model is too involving and detracts from the
: >game; too much emphasis on getting certain Wonders.
: I play to build a civilization, not a military. In this regard the
: game works fine. If you want to simply kill all the others, I can see
: how this would irk you. That's why the game's so great, it can be
: played many different ways.
: >7. More tech advances! Fun fun fun... how about adding 'minor'
: >advances, like Jet engines (flyers gain 2 movement), Canals (see
: >above), Cloning (allows Sheep units), etc. that don't take as long
: >to research or could be researched on the side?
: SHEEP?
Cloning and cybernetics which would allow cyborgs-stronger than normal
infantry. Laser turrets to take out nearby moving missiles and aircraft.
Spy satellites to see a select piece of the world once a turn. Armoured
convoys to get that freight into warzones (a-la humanitarian aid!). Repair
units to go out into the field and fix damaged units. The ability for
spies to see what is in a stack of units. The ability for spies to bribe a
stack of units (At a greatly incresed cost of course) aswell as
individuals.
: >8. Carriers, and sea combat in general. I really think sea
combat
: >should treat a stack of units as though they are fortified, ie only
: >one unit lost per attack. Carriers are pretty vulnerable otherwise.
: >I've also seen the computer stack two battleships atop each other
: >(why?!?) and sank them with only one battleship.
: I have to agree, besides, have you ever seen the AI use carriers?
I agree too, that would at last make for great sea battles!
: >9. More configurability for the user! Civ II was great, but it'd
: >be even more fun to tailor units as much as we want (for instance,
: >I could turn off the spies' bribe city ability and be happy!)
: Go to many of the web pages, they have programs for changing just
: about everything.
: >10. Why is it I can airlift an Armor division across the world and
: >still be able to use it this turn, but a Fighter must take 4-5
: >turns (=4/5 years!) city-hopping to go the same distance? Why is
: >it an Armored division can race across an entire continent on a
: >railroad and still be able to attack, when an aircraft must city-
: >hop across the same continent?
: a tank is a self contained unit[at least for a time] and can roll off
: a railcar and attack. Aircraft cannot, they need a huge lgistical
: train to prepare for, then support them. I agree that you should get
: more movement when simply 'ferrying aircraft though.
: Aircraft should be able to 'airlift'
: >between Airports, and the railroad model is simply busted - go to
: >1/6 or 1/12 movement; 0 is too cheap.
: Your previous point was it shouldnt take over a year to move a plane.
: Why should it take over a year to take a train across the continent?
I would like to see a notional movement value for military units on rail
too.
: >11. Programmable units. I'd like to have fighters automatically do
: >simple repeated flight patterns if asked, ala Warcraft. Telling
: >engineers to build a road from point X to Y. That sort of thing.
: I totally agree, wish you could actually tell a unit to 'go-to' and it
: wouldn't get lost 50% of the time on long moves.
Absolutely...
: > Just a few off the top of my head. Oh, and shouldn't City Walls
: >get outdated, by, oh, before 1800?
: Uh, ...the American Civil war, The Russo-Japanese war, Liege, Namur,
: Sevastopol,[The Redan]Mukden, Port
: Arthur,Anzio,Calabria,Maffeking,Aqaba,Nanking, even today;Kabul
:
: > Great game in any case!
: and some great ideas. I look forward to hearing more.
: ****
: " You don't like fish-heads and rice?
: OK, what DO you like with your fish-heads?"
: Hosaki Nitsu,last Kamikazi pilot
And I'd like two more concepts introduced (at least!). One would be morale
of units: Obslete units (like musketeers in the tank age) should have
their morale crack at the sight of cruise missiles and disband randomly.
Units left fortified on mountains etc for centuries would have their
morale sapped slowly until they've had enough etc...expand the idea.
The other concept that HAS to be introduced is that of national boundries!
Can you imagine the fun that will be arguing over that bit of river etc.
This will also solve the problem of other cities using your city land and
vice-versa. Less civilised governments should be able to barter borders
with gold etc aswell as invading, while democrace etc will have to use
military force to change borders!
It might be interesting to introduce the concept of drugs aswell. An
unfriendly government could increase unhappiness in enemy cities by
creating drug supply routes. Maybe only possible under despotism.
AND we must have back those government dependant advisors! I love the
modern age despotism advisors - with their dark glasses and dodgy looks!
And the old communists! A great touch in civ1, but left out of civ2
Keep it up...
Mark