Suggestions for Civilization III (page IV)

If you want to add new suggestions, please mail them to Allard H.S. Höfelt.

This is page 4 of 4.
Click here for page 1 2 3

Because of the recent revival of interest for Civilization III following the announcement of the co-working of Hasbro and Firaxis, I have decided to re-open this site that was previously shut down. It is now 100% functional once again after several months of passiveness, and you can add your own suggestions to the list by mailing them to a.h.s.hofelt@student.tn.tudelft.nl.
Please type "Civilization III suggestions" for the subject.

29/5/99:
Stephen Clark

• Bombardment type units (artillery class and capital ships) should have a ranged capability; that of attacking from 2 or 3 spaces away. (It's ridiculous that entrenched infantry should be able to seriously damage a battleship.) Only ranged units coulod defend against attacks by other ranged units. This would require that artillery class defence values be massively upgraded (this is realistic; artillery is just as much use in defence as attack). However, ranged units, for obvious reasons, should not be able to destroy defensive units, just weaken them. Also, ranged units should suffer a large negative defence modifier if attacked by non-ranged units while by themselves.
  
• It should be possible (and distinctly advisable) to move and attack with multiple units at the same time, whether using the 'detailed battle' option or not. If not using this option, modifiers would be given for each extra attacking and defensive unit present in the battle. Also, all units involved in the battle should suffer loss in more or less equal proportions. This would avoid the '13 destroyers sunk by cruiser' scenario as the cruiser would be sunk while the destroyers would all suffer a small loss. A withdrawal option would also be nice; this would enhance the advantages of mobile as opposed to relatively static units (e.g. a tank attacked by infantry type units could withdraw, but not vice versa.) In mixed forces, only mobile units could withdraw while static units would be annihilated.
  
• There should be the concept of evasion in naval warfare. At the moment, a battleship can hunt down and sink destroyers. In real warfare, destroyers can easily outrun a battleship and avoid combat.
  
• More units should be introduced in the different eras. Taking naval units as an example, in the modern era there are 5 ships (Battleship, Cruiser, Destroyer, Transport, Carrier) while in the 'Napoleonic' era there are only 2, among the myriads they could have chosen. (Brig, Frigate, 4th rate, 3rd rate, 2nd rate etc.)There is , of course, much more scope for expansion in the modern era ( Light and heavy cruisers, battlecruisers, jeep carriers etc.) Also, ships of the 'Napoleonic' class, which historically held sway for more than a century, are now often just bypassed by inventing Steam engine (and Ironclads.) Defence and offence values should also be balanced for naval units (currently, frigate and caravel battles are always won by the attacker, even if the defender has veteran status.)
  
• Radar should be introducedas a prime factor. Before the invention of radar, only adjacent enemy units would be able to be seen on land (this would also make arial reconnaisance much more important as it was historically in WW1), while in naval warfare there would be only a small chance of seeing adjacent enemy ships with non-scouting units (scouting units would be light cruiser and destroyer in the modern era, frigate and brig in the Napoleonic.) With the inclusion of evasion, this would make these small ships very useful (at the moment, destroyers are almost useless.) Also, before radar, fighters in cities would only have a small chance of scrambling to defend against enemy bombers.
  
• Aerial warfare desperately needs clearing up. Just to remind everyone, at the moment:
  1. Bombers can be destroyed by fortified infantry/mech inf. ( It's rather ridiculous to imagine that a rifle or machine gun can down a bomber at 20,000 feet.)
  2. Bombers prevent all units in the same space being attacked by anything except fighters
  3. Land units can protect bombers against attack by enemy fighters
  4. Bombers cannot be escorted by fighters
  5. Bombers are completely useless against battleships and aircraft
  carriers that are not in port. (if anyone doubts that this flies in the face of history, research the Pacific War 1942-45, and also the sinking of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse 1941.)
  6. Bombers cannot fly over enemy cities or units without attacking them and ending their turn.
  7. Bombers must fly around in the sky waiting to be shot down by enemy fighters after bombing.
  8. When fighters scramble to protect a city from bombers they are often destroyed. (this means that in Civ2 it's good tactics to try and attack cities with enemy fighters with your bombers!)
• To clear this up, I suggest the following:
  1. There are now two types of bombers, light bombers and heavy bombers. Heavy bombers are high level saturation bombing aircraft, while light bombers are low level ground attack aircraft.
  2. Fighters and bombers can both attack once in a turn, and must both return to base every turn.
  3. Light bombers have increased attack against enemy ships
  4. Bombers always use their defence value when attacking fighters
  5. To balance the increased bomber attack against ships, fighters can now scramble from aircraft carriers.
  6. When heavy bombers attack land units, a different type of combat is used. Heavy bombers attack all units in a space and inflict some damage on all units present, so heavy bombers are more effective against large stacks of units. Heavy bombers do not usually suffer loss when attacking. However, unless used in large numbers, they only eliminate weak units. Their primary purpose is to 'soften up' defensive positions ready for attack by land forces. When attacking cities, heavy bombers have a 1 percent change of destroying each city improvement present in the city. Heavy bombers inflict population reduction on a city whether or not city walls are present. Heavy bombers have a greater range than light bombers.
  7. Light bombers can choose one particular unit in a stack to attack. Unlike heavy bombers, they are vulnerable to ground fire. A light bomber fights a one on one battle with its chosen target and then returns to base. Light bombers have increased attack against tanks, mech inf. and artillery. Light bombers have a greater range than fighters.
  8. To balance against the increased powers of bombers, fighters can now scramble to defend against any bombers that fly within 3 spaces of them, whether they are on airbases, carriers or in cities. If radar has been invented this is automatic, otherwise there is only a small chance of success. The defnding player chooses whether or not to defend against each moving group. Each fighter can only scramble once a turn.
  9. Bombers may be escorted by fighters when moving in groups. For simplicity, fighters are assumed not to attack ground forces when escorting bombers. If defending fighters scramble, escorting fighters fight defending fighters for a limited number of rounds using multiple unit rules. If all escorting fighters are destroyed, the bombers are attacked. When defending fighters scramble, the attacking force may decide to 'run for home.' This halves the number of combat rounds; however, once this option is taken, the bombers cannot attack land units this turn. Note that as bombers have a greater range than fighters they may not be able to be escorted for their whole flight.
  10. When fighters attack ground units they behave like light bombers. However, they do not recieve bonuses against tanks, mech.inf and artillery, and are more vulnerable to fround fire.
  11. The AA gun, a new unit, defends against any enemy planes that attack the space that it is in. It has *2 defence against heavy bombers, and *3 against light bombers and fighters. Before planes attack a space, all AA guns fire on them for 2 rounds of combat with no retaliation. AA guns can also defend against land units if attacked. (German '88s!) AEGIS cruisers have the same function except they fire for 4 rounds
  12. Planes have the option to overfly enemy units and cities. However, any AA guns or AEGIS cruisers present in the space may fire on them as above.
  13. The SAM battery has the same effect as AA guns except it fires for 6 rounds. SAM batteries have no effect agianst land units.
  14. Stealth fighters and bombers are immune to all ground fire, AA guns. AEGIS cruisers and SAM batteries, and ordainary fighters, but are vulnerable to stealth fighters. Both stealth fighters and bombers attack like light bombers. Stealth bombers may, when attacking a city, instead of behaving as normal, destroy a selected city improvement.
• Lastly, no unit should be allowed to enter the city radius of a power they are at peace with (such entry is considered a declaration of war with appropriate loss of reputation.) This also applies to air units. Also, refusing to declare war on an enemy who attacks your ally should incur a loss of reputation and the automatic loss of the alliance, and doing so should not be penalised.

  Obviously the inclusion of the above will severely unblalance the game towards militarism so there should also be enhancement of the domestic political/economic front, as many others have suggested.

7/9/99:
André Moura

Greetings.

    My name is André Moura, from Brazil, and I like so much the
Civilization. I wish to congratulate you for this open forum for us.
Thanks! (I'm sending this message to this addres because you other
e-mail in the page of Civ III is not working).
    Let's go :

• Why the hell Civ removed the REPLAY?????? It MUST come back to show us HOW we've played in the game comparing to the computer. It is a pleasure to see our empire surpass the other empires, isn't it?
• I agree with others about improving diplomacy.
• War is not the central theme (I mean : how to fight) of Civilization but it has some drawbacks and I suggest this :
      - Air units should fly over other units without the "obligation" to attack it.
      - There must be an unit called "air transport".
• There must be other civilizations like Arabians, Incas, Eskimos, Aborigins (from Australia), Abyssinians, Pigmys, Tupi-Guaranis (Indian people from Brazil and neighborhood) and some anothers.
• Religion is not only "the opium of people" like said Karl Marx. Religion should be introuduced in the concept of the game not only to calm down the population but also to improve economic, moralistic and alike, aspects of the game. Exemple : under "Paganism" people is more contemplative so they think more and work less. On the other hand, under "Monotheism" people is more worker than thinker because the priests think for them.
      Or this new concept should be introduced on other way. For exemple, in the year 40 A.D. (Civ does not have the year 33) in the empire next to Palestine shuold be a warning (like when we are the first to discover Philosophy) "A man called Jesus died and found a new religion. His concepts are...". After some years, people would be discontent because
  their beliefs are not reconized by the State. So it's time to declare Cristianism oficial religion. Until then, people become discontent or the productiveness downs without making people unhappy. But once done so, the moral of the troops and civilians rise up. Like the Roman Empire of the East that survived more than its counterpart of the West. The
  same shoul apply to Islamism, Confucionism, Budism etcetera.
• Cities shoud be "removable" or "mergeble". It occurs when we capture an enemy city close to us. Then we should able to "emigrate" the population or transformate the two cities to a "Megalopolis".
• Cities must have an "captation" way to explore mines and other resources not viewed on the city screen.
• Wonders : there is a World out there, why take only the Western Wonders? There are Taj Mahal, Agia Sophia Cathedral, Al Azhar Mosque, and imaterial concepts like, End of Slavery, Globalization and similars. For example : Agia Sophia Cathedral should improve the moral and taxes under Cristianism while Al Azhar Mosque should improve research and happines under Islamism.
• Future teconologies : after 5 ou 10 future teconologies, Civ should "understand" that a new step of development has accomplished. So, the units would be more stronger, the people more content and the cities more expandable.
• By the way, Ferdinand Magellan (Fernão de Magalhães) was Portuguese and NOT Spanish! Civ should "pay for his sin" putting Portuguese as a new civilization.
  
      Thank you very much and forgive my English errors because English is
  not my mother language.

15/10/99:
Lars Granlöf

• In Civ three, there should be possible to make fishing abilities better. First in the beginning food from water just should give food one square from the coastline. When the player reach Harbour fishing from every square in the city radius should give food. Ability to build fishboats who could go to good fishbanks and catch extra food to the city could be a possibility. When the player have come further in the game it should be possible to build big fishboats to get lot of fish all around the world. Why not steel fish from other player's cities radius. When the game started to reach the time when pollution starts. Why not in the sea to. Possible for Engineering's to work out seas should be possible to, on boats of course. Why not have pirates out on the sea also who capture boats both fish boats and transportboats. Let them appear as often as the ordinary barbarians at land. There also should be possible for players to border enemy ships, like the spy can bribe units at land.
• More natural catastrophes should happen in the game to. 4000 thousand years without a Vulcan or an earthquake, it isn't a paradise we love to play in.

23/10/99:
Baran Oztan

• Turkey which has changed the world history a lot should be added to the chosing a player list like it was in Call to Power.
• Moving in railroads should decrease military units strenght. For example by armor you can move from Vienna to Paris and again it moves 3. I like turn based games but this game should be sth like lords of the realms 2. When attacked nations should respond at that time not when their turn comes

27/10/99:
Michael Ulicny
Dear friends of Civ II,

• as I'm also playing bordgames the points most unrealistic with Civ II units for me is the lack of a size value (JCat61E@aol.com mentioned it for transport purposes) and air units operating on the same grid level as ground and sea units. Not only that you can ferry two tank units with a trireme, you also can fortify 275 mech. infantry units in one mountain hex (sorry) square or load the same number of planes onto a carrier. ? Not that realistic, eh? Introducing a size value for units would effect stacking
• All terrain types & air. All terrain types (including ocean) have different stacking values. So there is a limited number of units in one square.
• Fortifications, airbases, cities roads, railways and rivers should reduce the stacking value as you can't place your chariots in water or bring too much artillery in firing position between houses. Air units on ground also need space.
• Even in air there should be a limitation (why should there be so much air-traffic-controllers around the world?).
• transport:   sea, land, air. Nothing totally new on the waves. Instead of the number of land units to carry each naval unit has a value for stacking land units. In addition the aircraft-carriers will have a limit for flying units.
• Rocket units (new unit type!) should not be able to fly from city to city but be transported by 'truck' or ship (e.g. submarine).
• A new air transport unit can lift ground units from city to city and make drops with paratroop units. After having suffered losses in battle the size value should decrease (e.g. if the size value is 4 the steps might be ¾=3, ½=2 and ¼=1), as should the firepower.
• No automatic rebuilding of damaged units (in cities only, maybe costing shields)! This brings up the need to unite (and divide) units.
• A second level of operation for air and fired rocket units would make it much easier to pass by enemy ground and sea units. This doesn't mean a different image of the game board.
• Also, as mentioned by others, a retreat option, grouping units for attack and defence, defensive fire (fighters, AA, SAM) and selecting city improvements as targets for cruise missiles would bring more reality to the 'war-game'.
• Dear friends please don't forget:
  Civ II was designed to simulate a long term development and not a single war or campaign. Abstraction leads to less reality. So if you cover 6000 years in human development you have to pay the prize by being less accurate in details. So if you want specific tactical manoeuvres (e.g. flanking out a defence position, ambushes) you might no be in the right game.

31/10/99:
Pary Dominique

• It would be a good idea that each civilization would have their own units, science and town. The game would be more interessant because there would have a real differance between french, english, germans, indians....

12/11/99:
Eric O'Dell Oakley
Quite a few novel ideas were developed in SMAC that should be included in CIvilization III:

• Borders- This was really a great idea.  They clearly demarcate what resources are within each civilization's sphere of influence, and how far that area extends.  It should also be possible to negotiate for more territory by purchase, conquest, or territorial trade.
• Alliances- In Civ II, allied players had no movement restrictions is conjuction with their allies.  However, allied units could not enter and defend an allied city, or occupy the same space as an allied unit.  SMAC remedied this, with good results.  The potential for proxy war by moving a unit into allied territory and handing it over is was terrrific.  While one could give away units in Civ II, often times the recipient would turn them down ("We have no need for your inferior equipment...") or shut down negotiations before all the units could be given.  How about a city improvement called "Allied Base", for example, which makes the allied AI take more interest in the defense or aid of the host city?  It could be diversified as well (ground, naval, air) and have the properties for the allied AI of barracks, port facilities, an airport.
• Resources that exist beyond a city radius should be accessable by a supply crawler or some sort of terrain improvement that "ships" the goods to a selected city.  Territory with numerous resourcs should consequently be worth more in negotiations...
• More government types- These should be set up in terms of the "social engineering" in SMAC.  For example, one could select "Police State"  but further diversify by designating "Nationalist" or "Socialist".  How about Constitutional Monarchy, Commonwealth, Fascism, Confederation, etc?
• Neutral States that function for trade purposes would be nice, as trade between warring nations should be cut to a tiny fraction of its peacetime volume (if it exists at all). The Neutral States could be beneficial in such a way that their neutrality is truly respected and very few nations go to war with them. The violation of a state's neutrality could also be a serious blow to the reputation of the offending nation.
• More than seven civilizations per game would be nice.  A good taget number would be more like sixteen (and thirty-two would be great if possible).

14/11/99:
Rodney

• First of all, it should have a distinct boundry of the zone of control. Thous making violation of a ZOC a legitamit reason to declare war without affecting your rep. The present ZOC rule is really, really frustrating when the AI just builds a city inside your ZOC. The borders should be staked by a radius of the most outlaying cities, and can be expanded by friendly troops fortified outside the original city radius.
• I think nationalism is important, you just don't occupy a city and they are automaticly subverted to your rule (unless they are mighty discontented with their previous rulers). You may oppress them with a special death squad city improvment (if your bent on world conquest the despotic way), but i think there should be possible to get a struggle of independence in your face. Not just that overthrowing for a turn rebellions, but sabotage and guerilla warfare in the midst of your empire.
• The espionage and diplomacy options has got an enormous potenial to improve the game all over. It's really a lot more to be done there than just cease fire/peace/ally as diplomatic stance between the civs.
• Of course, more civs!  and why are the americans a civ, and not the arabs? I think that in a game of Civilization there should be the historical civs from the ancient era to the medivæl. Not modern nation states that has become great by colonization or imperialism. Instead of english, you have the celts and the saxons.
• A thing that bugs me is why there isn't a landtransport. After moving 20 units across half a continent, you get exhausted.
• All in all, i don't think that civIII should be so much different from what it is. Perhaps some drastic changes on the visual would do, but the consept is pretty fucking briliant as it is. I play command and conquer if i want the live battle-action-tactics stuph.

17/11/99:
Alan L. Leask

• I would like to see the use of transport planes to move troops by air.  You can now do it by sea why not by air??

This is page 4 of 4.
Click here for page 1 2 3

OTHER CIV III SITES:
Please mail me if you know or own an other Civ III site.

Apolyton's Civ III page
Apolyton's Civ III forums
Donald C. Dimitroff's Civ III Suggestion page