Suggestions for Civilization III (page III)

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

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 ahofelt@hotmail.com.
Please type "Civilization III suggestions" for the subject.

10/7/98:
Andrew Rembis

I have many suggestions, but here are some which are feasible:

• have special (elite) units such as US Navy SEALs(only US), or SAS(British and Australian), and they should have special characteristics, such as the ability to be carried onboard subs and other nontransport ships, and the ability (especially for SEALs) to swim into and objective from sea. this would enhance the gameplay on many levels. They should also be able to attack, but also to use some of the spy options, as special forces are able to sabotage units and cities.
  This is the main component where I feel that civ2 is lacking and these new units could reflect the actual capabilities of these units.
• I have read that others said to include actual battles in the gameplay, I think this would be fun, but it would take much more space and disks. It would be like having multiple games in one, which sounds quite appealing to me, but I don't know how it would sound to the company that was making this program.
• The idea of having bases would also increase reality, since there are many military installations that can house units which cannot exist in civ2. Naval bases would be the primary example of this. Bases should also be expandable, such as having a naval base which has an airfield added to it.
• The addition of constructable obstacles, such as those used in ww2 to hinder amphibious assaults. This would add a defensibility to shore positions. These obstacles could be destroyed by SEALs or UDTs.
• The idea of stacked units being killed in one shot is just wrong. It should be eliminated and replaced by a defensive bonus for stacked units. For example if a fleet is attacked at sea, does one ship defend the whole unit, or do they pool their resources? The latter of course. This allows a better defensibility for individuals. Otherwise, the world's navy wouldn't use an old concept known as battle groups.
• Leaders should be included in the game as units, and they should be able to tour the civilization, adding to citizen's happiness with visits to cities. This would also add to the real possibility of assassinations. However, if you include assassinations, then you must include a secret service type protector unit.
• Units should be able to be named. This would let players keep better track of their units. I have become quite frustrated on occasions when I tried to follow specific units.
• Long term goals should be another option, such as long movement orders, repairs, and other boring tasks

These are just a few suggestions and I will send more as I find the time.

29/7/98:
Sam Rivier
My name is Sam Rivier-a civ2 addict.

• I also enjoy a large range of computer games-but mostly 3d combat games and I think a patch should be available to do your own combat or have optional combat scenes available-I mean real battle scenes-maybe some clips out of saving private ryan would help-and that wouldn't cost any extra animation costs.

But all that's kinda far fetched, but here's what I'd like to see:

• MORE GOVERNMENT! I think that optional traits of your government should be available to be selected in order to change your appearance to other nations and people but they are all selected off a base government. I think a new government should be added-imperialism and/or militarism.
  Imperialism would allow more resources to be gained on a city level and increase happiness, but if the supreme ruler angers the people of a certain province, the chances of rebellion are very high.
  Militarism would be based on a military government where larger militias are formed within each city (more partisans) and military service is a requirement unless a fair payment to the government is made-annual income will be increased-all infantry units will drop to half price, and any other military unit will be 4/5 of the price-corruption is high though, and bonuses that come out of domestic improvements (higher happiness, less corruption) will be halved. Science will not change, and tax maximums will be low and so will luxury max's. Other aspects will be left to the programmers-but those are two very critical governments and played a major role in ww1
• MORE ESPIONAGE OPTIONS-
  Spies can sabotage defenses or plant mainframe viruses if computers is discovered therefor decreasing shield production by 50%.
  Marines can swim one square into water but cannot stay from shore-80% chance of drowning if 2 or more spaces from land.
  Special forces or rangers-fierce fighters with movement of 2, but have a low firepower-can recruit partisans from enemy cities-ambush-espionage-sabotages only.
  Navy SEALs-can make paradrops, swim the same way as marines, hitch rides from any warship excluding submarines, ambush
• NEW FRONTIERS-the milky way's the limit-spy satellites, war satellites that can fire missiles that must be individually purchased plus space launch charges-races to set up mining colonies on the moon and mars-.
• INSIGNIFICANT TERRAIN IMPROVEMENTS-including forts which claim a city area of space and mark new land-can be turned into cities with a certain number of shields mined from the area-remote mining that can extend the city area to the terrain with the remote mining but must be connected by roads in some way-can also be used for farming
• CONQUERING TECHNIQUES-option of taking a city or destroying it-making deals with other nations about money, land, and other things-also exchanging land or money for knowledge or money or land-threats of total bombardment by entire nuclear and biological arsenal-if they are intimidated enough, they'll agree without question or if the requests are reasonable enough if they are not too intimidated or if the requests are too much, they'll ask for proof of enough weaponry to do something like that-if you don't have an arsenal of ten weapons or more, the threatened people immediately seize the opportunity to attack as much as they can that turn. If they are as advanced as you or more so, you cannot threaten them or they can threaten you-your decision is up to you and your senate (if any).
• Obviously we need multiplayer options
• MILITARY ADVISORS-they can help you plan an assault that you can program and if they like it enough, you get +1 attack for each unit if they regard it as suicidal, they make suggestions to rethink it or let them think of one for you-if you go with a psycho plan that they hate, you are -1 attack for each unit that they hate

these are just a few suggestions to increase gameplay power. Others include seccesions to the throne depending on each government to have a new leader every designated years-also a constitution wonder should be available in which corruption decreases and you fill in some blanks to create the right nation for you. Ei-presidential term limit ___
peoples rights--- (every right given decreases corruption but those that are taken increase productivity and income).

Thanks for reading this...

31/7/98:
Douglas Zorn

• Maybe the cities can become more complex. Instead of being one square on the map, the city should encompass 4 or 5 adjacent squares. These parts could be defended independently (street by street, house by house fighting) and you can build improvements in different parts that still affect the entire city. Example: New York consists of 5 sections. In the west section the player built his SAM sight. While unconquered, that section's improvements affect all of NY, so defenders in all the sections benefit from the SAM, but if the west section should fall then the SAM would be useless for the rest of the city. I just don't like that fact that cities fall without resistance. There should be block by block fighting.
• The battle tactics should be more involved. For instance, if a unit is flanked it's defense should be decreased. I hate attacking an enemy from behind and the game treats it like normal. Secondly, air attacks vs. ground units, should have a large disadvantage for the ground unit. In Civ II WWII scenario, fighters often hard a hard time defeating armor, but in WWII how many times do you think a P-51 came close to losing to a Tiger (not often).
• Forests and Jungles should limit visibility.
• I like the idea of seasons...we should be aloud to use those Russian Winters to our advantage.
• Maybe there could be a morale/psychological aspect to units. For instance, if you just watched an entire army get steamed rolled by an opponent, shouldn't your fighting ability be impaired a little.

31/7/98:
Craig Moreau

• I think that you should be able to build large walls. Hmmm. Here is how I will put it. the great wall for a wonder. You build it in one city. It should be visible on the map I think. Like after you get it you can bring it out one the map, and place it. I also think that if you have the united nations you should be able to stop other wars. Not just wars that include you but wars with the computer and the computer. I do 100% agree with -The diplomatic/espionage options are a little in short supply. How about assassination of the leaders?- And I do think that a leader living from the creation of the earth to 2020 is a little strange. Maybe you can keep playing but once and a while you get assasinated or thrown out. Then you change your name or something. I think that barbarians should have diplomatic abilities also. I also agree with the idea of having the wars have names.
• War in Civ II-Needs to be fixed:
  • First of all. When one enemy attacks your ally and you declare war on the enemy it is reasonable with democracy. But when you capture a city the senate ends the war if the enemy asks to grant an audience. I think that if you attack an enemy that attacked your ally the war should only be over until the enemy stops the attack on your ally.
  • This is hard to say so try to use the other half of your brain. Rome is being occupied by one French soldier (French took Rome). Then a Danish :) tank takes over Rome, so now the Danish own it. The Danish were allied with the Romans and that is why they declared war at the French. But it seems mean and unfair if you are the Romans. Your ally has your city. I think that if you liberate an allied city you have a choice of keeping the city which will brake you alliance with the ally. Or you can give it back to the original owner. You should also be able to send your troops into allied cities to help defend them or to keep cover of bombers that would attack an open spot.
• Other stuff:
  • You should be able to purchase cities from friends.
  • Once you have a bomber you should haft to make bombs to put in it. Like 500 lb bombs, or a-bombs.
  • When attacking you should be able to choose that after you bomb a city and kill a troop occupying it you should be able to choose if you want to attack civilians. So that the population falls in the city.

3/8/98:
Rodrigo Q

Hi
I want your attention to this one idea I think is a deep step forward in CIV:

• In civ (I and II) the important seems to be how to build a civilization with a number of EXTERNAL factors working against you, namely barbarians, the landscape y mainly other civs. Internal problems are really few and more easy to solve. That is a city desorder and an unbalanced budget (any other?). In real civilizations there were (and are) several INTERNAL FORCES that keep your nation away from an easy development. In civ there's no-one at home making your task a difficult one. Take these in acount (and notice that some of them have been mentioned by some of you in this collection of suggestions):
• Religion: Almost all important empires had other religion believers different from those of the majority of the nation or different from the "official religion" under their control. This people were not peaceful at all and were a constant problem for rulers. Even mutual comfrontation between citizens for religious matters were a cause of desorders. For example the jewish in Palestine under the rule of the romans, or the christians and the muslims in Spain. On the other hand you have the Churches. The high command of organized religions have always pushed the leaders of civs to take actions against their own people or against other nations. Take for example the crusades, where Europe and the midle east fought for centuries for the holy land... an action always supported and encouraged by the popes.
• Race: I read some suggestions about slavery on this page and I agree with the girl who says that CIV2 is not an american game. Salvery and the race problem are both old issues in human history. The American Civil War is the most recent and remembered case (or is it the nazi-jewish?) and it can show you how important it could be. Defenetly a CIV3 must take in acount both the benefits and the costs of having slaves making a relevant decision to adopt it or abolish it. In both cases is very important for the game to model the internal problems arising from the existence of different races in the same comunity.
• Politics: Also something mentioned in other suggestions. The politics games our leaders play in real life for the control of "the office" and the deals made between them to make possible some policies or actions abroad are too important to be out of the game. This is other internal power, other problem at home you should have to deal with if a CIV3 is to be released. There should be the chance to bargain with the congress, with political leaders and parties and even bribe them.
• Rebels: Another usual internal problem in the history of civilizations was the arising of a rebel armed leader looking for the control of the whole nation. The central government used to lost control of entire provinces taken by this rebels who used the goods and productions of cities to build more military units for the rebelion. A good ruler always has the right level of control over his/her cities in order to avoid these upgrowings. The problem is as old as civilizations themselves and present as the 20th century. Take for example Stalin in Russa, Pancho Villa in Mexico, Mao Tse Tung in China and Fidel Castro in Cuba.
• Nationalism: Civilizations not always have control of cities that "feel" nationals to them. A trivial example are the cities recently taken. In CIV you take a city and without a problem you start producing with it. In real life these such cities are more a problem than a part of the production mechanism. In general, the empires typicaly control areas where other groups of small nations live. These groups usually are seeking for independence and are good friends of the major nation' enemies. Some examples of this internal problem are the irish in northern Ireland today, the native americans under the rule of spanish and english,William Wallace in England and the nations of eastern Europe under the control of the Soviet Union.
• Colonies: Another internal problem was the control of colonies. Sometimes, and depending on the policies toward them by the mother country, they were loyal, but we now that in general they looked for their independence. It's a shame that CIV doesn´t model this at all. Knowing that this internal conflict led to the birth of dozens nations only in America, is a must for CIV3 to take it in.

I didn´t want to specify any game rule for all this things but to take your attention to something I think was very important in the development of civs, and that is the internal powers that are always present and playing against you as a ruler. I'd really like you to write me on what you think about this idea.... bye for now.

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