Civ4 Suggestions

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

I have some suggestions for Civ4.
One, I still envision a game with at least a 100 civs. I know, speed becomes
an issue, but with processor speeds inching up to 5 Ghz+ and memory now
measured in GB instead of MB, it's becoming more feasible. Civ I had six,
Civ2 had 12 (I think, can't remember), Civ3 has 17.
Two, bring back food and worker caravans. I know, alot of people viewed the
worker caravans as a legal "Cheat" since you could crank them out of any
wealth-producing city and send them over to rush build wonders. The food
caravan would also make things more realistic later in the game when Pop. 30
cities start having starvation issues. This way, smaller cities could bring
in more food. Sure, it evens out in the end, but still a good idea.
Three, the AI needs to be more intelligent. Period.
Four, make worker automation more specific. Maybe "stack" orders (road and
irrigate this square, then mine and road this square, etc etc) or "rail
entire radius", stuff like that.
Five, more detail in the city view. This is more of an aestethic thing.
Like, if you have battleships and fighter jets in the city, show them in the
view, floating in the harbor, lined up at an airfield, etc. Related to that,
I'd like to see more animations and wonder vids.

Juts some ideas from a casual gamer
24 answers Last reply
More about civ4 suggestions
  1. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "PowerSlave2112" <ps@ilu.tn> wrote in message
    news:1JVHd.27181$dt3.2793687@twister.southeast.rr.com...
    >I have some suggestions for Civ4.
    > One, I still envision a game with at least a 100 civs. I know, speed
    > becomes
    > an issue, but with processor speeds inching up to 5 Ghz+ and memory now
    > measured in GB instead of MB, it's becoming more feasible. Civ I had six,
    > Civ2 had 12 (I think, can't remember), Civ3 has 17.
    > Two, bring back food and worker caravans. I know, alot of people viewed
    > the
    > worker caravans as a legal "Cheat" since you could crank them out of any
    > wealth-producing city and send them over to rush build wonders. The food
    > caravan would also make things more realistic later in the game when Pop.
    > 30
    > cities start having starvation issues. This way, smaller cities could
    > bring
    > in more food. Sure, it evens out in the end, but still a good idea.
    > Three, the AI needs to be more intelligent. Period.
    > Four, make worker automation more specific. Maybe "stack" orders (road and
    > irrigate this square, then mine and road this square, etc etc) or "rail
    > entire radius", stuff like that.
    > Five, more detail in the city view. This is more of an aestethic thing.
    > Like, if you have battleships and fighter jets in the city, show them in
    > the
    > view, floating in the harbor, lined up at an airfield, etc. Related to
    > that,
    > I'd like to see more animations and wonder vids.
    >
    > Juts some ideas from a casual gamer
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Some good ideas here.

    What about bringing back engineers and the "terraforming" options.
    I want the ability to change them desert tiles into grassland!
  2. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "Fishman ><(((°>" <nospam@butfish.com> wrote in message
    news:8pXHd.2404$E.1675@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
    >
    > "PowerSlave2112" <ps@ilu.tn> wrote in message
    > news:1JVHd.27181$dt3.2793687@twister.southeast.rr.com...
    > >I have some suggestions for Civ4.
    > > One, I still envision a game with at least a 100 civs. I know, speed
    > > becomes
    > > an issue, but with processor speeds inching up to 5 Ghz+ and memory now
    > > measured in GB instead of MB, it's becoming more feasible. Civ I had
    six,
    > > Civ2 had 12 (I think, can't remember), Civ3 has 17.
    > > Two, bring back food and worker caravans. I know, alot of people viewed
    > > the
    > > worker caravans as a legal "Cheat" since you could crank them out of any
    > > wealth-producing city and send them over to rush build wonders. The food
    > > caravan would also make things more realistic later in the game when
    Pop.
    > > 30
    > > cities start having starvation issues. This way, smaller cities could
    > > bring
    > > in more food. Sure, it evens out in the end, but still a good idea.
    > > Three, the AI needs to be more intelligent. Period.
    > > Four, make worker automation more specific. Maybe "stack" orders (road
    and
    > > irrigate this square, then mine and road this square, etc etc) or "rail
    > > entire radius", stuff like that.
    > > Five, more detail in the city view. This is more of an aestethic thing.
    > > Like, if you have battleships and fighter jets in the city, show them in
    > > the
    > > view, floating in the harbor, lined up at an airfield, etc. Related to
    > > that,
    > > I'd like to see more animations and wonder vids.
    > >
    > > Juts some ideas from a casual gamer
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > Some good ideas here.
    >
    > What about bringing back engineers and the "terraforming" options.
    > I want the ability to change them desert tiles into grassland!
    >
    >

    I'd like to be able to upgrade from irrigation to farmland again...
    Shoot, I'd like to be able to mine and farm the same tile. Think about it
    for a minute. I've seen plenty of oil wells surrounded by corn fields. I'm
    sure there have been mined resources with fields of produce above the
    tunnels also...
  3. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    In alt.games.civ3 on Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Fishman ><(((°> wrote :
    >
    >
    >What about bringing back engineers and the "terraforming" options.
    >I want the ability to change them desert tiles into grassland!
    >
    I really missed that in Civ3.
    --
    Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett
  4. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    In alt.games.civ3 on Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Tzar Sasha wrote :
    >
    >I'd like to be able to upgrade from irrigation to farmland again...
    >Shoot, I'd like to be able to mine and farm the same tile. Think about it
    >for a minute. I've seen plenty of oil wells surrounded by corn fields. I'm
    >sure there have been mined resources with fields of produce above the
    >tunnels also...

    Yes - ISTM there's no reason why an underground mine should affect
    surface agriculture.
    --
    Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett
  5. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "Paul Hyett" <pah@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:xpQKO9CTvK8BFwah@activist.demon.co.uk...
    > In alt.games.civ3 on Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Tzar Sasha wrote :
    >>

    I'd like them to add the ability to fill or dig out land squares to change
    to/from water. May be a little far-fetched, but it would make for
    interesting strategy if you could close off waterways.

    And this is a nitpick, but I'd like to see lazy-programmer limitations
    removed, like number limits on cities. It's not *that* much harder to make a
    table growable at runtime. I've got a ton of memory in my machine, and
    there's no reason that I can see for arbitrary limits like this.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "PowerSlave2112" <ps@ilu.tn> wrote in message
    news:1JVHd.27181$dt3.2793687@twister.southeast.rr.com...
    >I have some suggestions for Civ4.
    > One, I still envision a game with at least a 100 civs. I know, speed
    > becomes
    > an issue, but with processor speeds inching up to 5 Ghz+ and memory now
    > measured in GB instead of MB, it's becoming more feasible. Civ I had six,
    > Civ2 had 12 (I think, can't remember), Civ3 has 17.
    > Two, bring back food and worker caravans. I know, alot of people viewed
    > the
    > worker caravans as a legal "Cheat" since you could crank them out of any
    > wealth-producing city and send them over to rush build wonders. The food
    > caravan would also make things more realistic later in the game when Pop.
    > 30
    > cities start having starvation issues. This way, smaller cities could
    > bring
    > in more food. Sure, it evens out in the end, but still a good idea.
    > Three, the AI needs to be more intelligent. Period.
    > Four, make worker automation more specific. Maybe "stack" orders (road and
    > irrigate this square, then mine and road this square, etc etc) or "rail
    > entire radius", stuff like that.
    > Five, more detail in the city view. This is more of an aestethic thing.
    > Like, if you have battleships and fighter jets in the city, show them in
    > the
    > view, floating in the harbor, lined up at an airfield, etc. Related to
    > that,
    > I'd like to see more animations and wonder vids.
    >
    > Juts some ideas from a casual gamer

    Yes I really miss caravans. Having to explore the world looking for those
    cities for great trade was a joy for me.
    I do not like excessive map swapping and in civ 3 there seems little point.
    There is seldom and reason to leave your part of the world and if a vital
    resource is miles away can you really go and conquer and hold an area
    against an advanced civ?

    I would like civ 4 to have a Rome total war feel to the world - it must be
    possible by now, with the whole world available to be zoomed in onto a 3D
    close up.

    ATB
    The Chris
  7. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:39:10 +1100, "Garrie Irons"
    <girons@optusnet.deletethis.andthis.com.au> wrote:

    >"Jeffery S. Jones" <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in message
    >news:k145v0pktvcmtfhv3i4nejt77595pvjbot@4ax.com...
    >> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:46:12 GMT, "Fishman ><\(\(\(°>"
    >> <nospam@butfish.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> >"PowerSlave2112" <ps@ilu.tn> wrote in message
    >> >news:1JVHd.27181$dt3.2793687@twister.southeast.rr.com...
    >> >>I have some suggestions for Civ4.
    ><<SNIP LOTS>>
    >> >> Five, more detail in the city view. This is more of an aestethic thing.
    >> >> Like, if you have battleships and fighter jets in the city, show them
    >in
    >> >> the
    >> >> view, floating in the harbor, lined up at an airfield, etc. Related to
    >> >> that,
    >> >> I'd like to see more animations and wonder vids.
    >>
    >>
    >> Using all 3D to do the game graphics might allow this sort of thing
    >> easier. Playing with 2D graphics means having the artists create tons
    >> of pictures for each of these, and checking them for every possible
    >> variant. A 3D engine makes this kind of eye candy stuff easier.
    >>
    >This would sound like one of the few reasons to go to real 3D to me.

    Me too. I figure that going to 3D is more a matter of the
    technology being easier to develop for than anything else.

    >> Movies take work to make, and take up disk space. Civ3 could easily
    >> have had wonders vids, and animated advisors, heralds, diplomatics and
    >> so on. But it would have cost another CD -- and the hard drive space
    >> to install it, and the time to make it.
    >Try distributing on DVD not CD. "Entry level" systems now are P4 1-2GB RAM
    >60+GB HDD with at least DVD/CDRW drive (if not DVD-RW)

    Games are just starting to come out on DVD now, but CD versions
    still need to be offered. Not all older computers fast enough to run
    the games have DVD drives yet.

    I know, they are quite cheap. At the time that Civ3 came out,
    though, PC games on DVD weren't yet popular. Now, they might be able
    to do it, and when Civ4 comes out, I think it might be reasonable to
    go to a DVD-only distribution.


    >> >Some good ideas here.
    >> >
    >> >What about bringing back engineers and the "terraforming" options.
    >> >I want the ability to change them desert tiles into grassland!
    >>
    >> Doesn't happen in the real world, so far. Civ2's terraforming was
    >> too powerful -- or too low in tech for what it did. It also is a
    >> micromanaging nightmare, as was farmland.
    >I think the increase in production that comes with railways doesn't quite go
    >far enough.
    >IMO items like supermarkets should automatically turn irrigated land into
    >farmland
    >(and yes, that would make supermarkets cost more)
    >items like "shopping mall" could do something similar for commerce?

    Such things make sense. Programming-wise, making improvements which
    give +1 of whatever in all squares which produce some -- same like the
    Colossus with commerce -- would be easy.

    Making a visual effect on the map would be a little more work, but
    probably unreasonably so, as a way to indicate such effects.

    Doing this via city improvements would avoid worker micromanagement
    issues.
    --
    *-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
    ** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
    *Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>
  8. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "Paul Hyett" <pah@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:xpQKO9CTvK8BFwah@activist.demon.co.uk...
    > In alt.games.civ3 on Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Tzar Sasha wrote :
    > >
    > >I'd like to be able to upgrade from irrigation to farmland again...
    > >Shoot, I'd like to be able to mine and farm the same tile. Think about
    it
    > >for a minute. I've seen plenty of oil wells surrounded by corn fields.
    I'm
    > >sure there have been mined resources with fields of produce above the
    > >tunnels also...
    >
    > Yes - ISTM there's no reason why an underground mine should affect
    > surface agriculture.
    > --
    How about 2 things -
    1. underground mines aren't so efficient as a big ugly hole in the ground
    2. subsidence.

    Don't know about USA but you can try either the illawarra or hunter valleys
    in NSW, Australia for how badly underground mines (which impact "just a
    little bit" on water tables) mess up REALLY GOOD farmland.

    Garrie
    (no - i'm not a greenie)
    > Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett
    >
    >
    >
  9. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    In alt.games.civ3 on Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Garrie Irons wrote :
    >>
    >> Yes - ISTM there's no reason why an underground mine should affect
    >> surface agriculture.
    >> --
    >How about 2 things -
    >1. underground mines aren't so efficient as a big ugly hole in the ground
    >2. subsidence.

    OK, but doesn't each Civ square represent hundreds of square miles?
    Plenty of room for both mining & agriculture, I'd have said.
    --
    Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett
  10. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Jeffery S. Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in message
    sakav0hnlokg9h5vc22smfso361ci79t8p@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:39:10 +1100, "Garrie Irons"
    > <girons@optusnet.deletethis.andthis.com.au> wrote:
    >
    > >"Jeffery S. Jones" <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in message
    > >news:k145v0pktvcmtfhv3i4nejt77595pvjbot@4ax.com...
    > >> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:46:12 GMT, "Fishman ><\(\(\(°>"
    > >> <nospam@butfish.com> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >
    > >> >"PowerSlave2112" <ps@ilu.tn> wrote in message
    > >> >news:1JVHd.27181$dt3.2793687@twister.southeast.rr.com...
    > >> >>I have some suggestions for Civ4.
    > ><<SNIP LOTS>>
    > >> >> Five, more detail in the city view. This is more of an aestethic
    thing.
    > >> >> Like, if you have battleships and fighter jets in the city, show
    them
    > >in
    > >> >> the
    > >> >> view, floating in the harbor, lined up at an airfield, etc. Related
    to
    > >> >> that,
    > >> >> I'd like to see more animations and wonder vids.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Using all 3D to do the game graphics might allow this sort of thing
    > >> easier. Playing with 2D graphics means having the artists create tons
    > >> of pictures for each of these, and checking them for every possible
    > >> variant. A 3D engine makes this kind of eye candy stuff easier.
    > >>
    > >This would sound like one of the few reasons to go to real 3D to me.
    >
    > Me too. I figure that going to 3D is more a matter of the
    > technology being easier to develop for than anything else.
    >
    > >> Movies take work to make, and take up disk space. Civ3 could easily
    > >> have had wonders vids, and animated advisors, heralds, diplomatics and
    > >> so on. But it would have cost another CD -- and the hard drive space
    > >> to install it, and the time to make it.
    > >Try distributing on DVD not CD. "Entry level" systems now are P4 1-2GB
    RAM
    > >60+GB HDD with at least DVD/CDRW drive (if not DVD-RW)
    >
    > Games are just starting to come out on DVD now, but CD versions
    > still need to be offered. Not all older computers fast enough to run
    > the games have DVD drives yet.
    >
    > I know, they are quite cheap. At the time that Civ3 came out,
    > though, PC games on DVD weren't yet popular. Now, they might be able
    > to do it, and when Civ4 comes out, I think it might be reasonable to
    > go to a DVD-only distribution.
    >
    >
    > >> >Some good ideas here.
    > >> >
    > >> >What about bringing back engineers and the "terraforming" options.
    > >> >I want the ability to change them desert tiles into grassland!
    > >>
    > >> Doesn't happen in the real world, so far. Civ2's terraforming was
    > >> too powerful -- or too low in tech for what it did. It also is a
    > >> micromanaging nightmare, as was farmland.
    > >I think the increase in production that comes with railways doesn't quite
    go
    > >far enough.
    > >IMO items like supermarkets should automatically turn irrigated land into
    > >farmland
    > >(and yes, that would make supermarkets cost more)
    > >items like "shopping mall" could do something similar for commerce?
    >
    > Such things make sense. Programming-wise, making improvements which
    > give +1 of whatever in all squares which produce some -- same like the
    > Colossus with commerce -- would be easy.
    >
    > Making a visual effect on the map would be a little more work, but
    > probably unreasonably so, as a way to indicate such effects.
    >
    > Doing this via city improvements would avoid worker micromanagement
    > issues.

    OTOH, workers do need to have something to do in modern times (other that
    just sitting around waiting for pollution to show up).

    Alfredo
  11. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    >"PowerSlave2112" <ps@ilu.tn> wrote in message
    >news:1JVHd.27181$dt3.2793687@twister.southeast.rr.com...
    >>I have some suggestions for Civ4.

    Having just started on Civ3 after a long lay-off from Civ2, I was
    confused-to-dismayed at the difficulty of distinguishing units from the
    background - there's a l-i-t-t-l-e too much detail in the scenery, methinx.

    I'd like a clearer display in the City Management screens - slightly larger
    typeface and slightly heavier.

    (BTW, my eyesight's fine.)

    Why cannot I tell a unit to GoTo a city via the keyboard? Having to find
    the destination on-screen (when I *know* it needs the unit I'm working) to
    click on it is over-fussy.

    Why, once I've seen a tile from the top of a mountain, does it go dull when
    I move off the mountain? If I've seen the territory, I've seen the
    territory - am I supposed to half-forget it?

    I expect I'll come back for more the more I play, so you have *that* to look
    forward to...

    Yoooors,

    Iain.
    ------------------------------------------------------------

    This post did not necessarily reflect my opinions. So there.
    Pull the pins out to reply direct.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:39:12 GMT, Fat Bloke
    <fatblokeonbikepins@pinsjohnstone-wheelers.co.uk> wrote:

    >Why, once I've seen a tile from the top of a mountain, does it go dull when
    >I move off the mountain? If I've seen the territory, I've seen the
    >territory - am I supposed to half-forget it?


    Likewise, when you pass an opponent where you see him in one square,
    why not remember where he was when you complete your turn?


    Buck
    --
    For what it's worth.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Fat Bloke <fatblokeonbikepins@pinsjohnstone-wheelers.co.uk> wrote in
    news:a8pdv0ldogi66fgv4pr56c0kq8br48gj02@4ax.com:

    > >"PowerSlave2112" <ps@ilu.tn> wrote in message
    > >news:1JVHd.27181$dt3.2793687@twister.southeast.rr.com...
    > >>I have some suggestions for Civ4.
    >
    > Having just started on Civ3 after a long lay-off from Civ2, I was
    > confused-to-dismayed at the difficulty of distinguishing units
    > from the background - there's a l-i-t-t-l-e too much detail in the
    > scenery, methinx.
    >
    > I'd like a clearer display in the City Management screens -
    > slightly larger typeface and slightly heavier.
    >
    > (BTW, my eyesight's fine.)
    >
    > Why cannot I tell a unit to GoTo a city via the keyboard? Having
    > to find the destination on-screen (when I *know* it needs the unit
    > I'm working) to click on it is over-fussy.

    I don't know, that would be useful sometimes.

    > Why, once I've seen a tile from the top of a mountain, does it go
    > dull when I move off the mountain? If I've seen the territory,
    > I've seen the territory - am I supposed to half-forget it?

    It shows that you can no longer see the tile and whatever unit(s)
    may have moved into it.

    --
    ICQ: 8105495
    AIM: KeeperGFA
    EMail: thekeeper@canada.com
    "If we did the things we are capable of,
    we would astound ourselves." - Edison
  14. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:46:39 -0500, Buck <iam@this.site> wrote:

    >On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:39:12 GMT, Fat Bloke
    ><fatblokeonbikepins@pinsjohnstone-wheelers.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    >>Why, once I've seen a tile from the top of a mountain, does it go dull when
    >>I move off the mountain? If I've seen the territory, I've seen the
    >>territory - am I supposed to half-forget it?
    >
    >
    >Likewise, when you pass an opponent where you see him in one square,
    >why not remember where he was when you complete your turn?

    That would mean doing something like Empire's fog of war with regard
    to viewing units. Any units would remain on the map, faded -- greyed
    out or something -- once they are out of view.

    Unlike Empire, it wouldn't strictly be necessary to leave the
    "contacts" on display for more than a turn or so.

    Fog of war does confuse people not used to it. The "dull" squares
    are those out of sight, so you no longer can know what units are
    present. The fog is only lifted temporarily, when some unit is in
    place to see it.

    In both cases, the fog effect could be just a little more
    persistent, both to lift (so squares remain visible for the rest of
    the turn after scouting) and for units observed in passing (which
    currently in Civ3 simply disappear).

    In a related issue, units moving on automatic orders should wake up
    for units which pass by, not just those which are still in view on
    your turn. Ships moving on long "go there" moves totally ignore
    contacts with the enemy, unless the enemy is still in sight.

    Though without "ghost" images to let you know why the unit woke up,
    this could be confusing too.

    A last turn replay couldn't hurt either. But that would add to
    tracking more things, and risks adding bugs in order to implement it.
    OTOH -- a PBEM game really *needs* some sort of turn replay, so you
    know what might have happened the turn before.

    PBEM/Hotseat both could use that, really. You do get to see some AI
    moves, but not always all, if that AI's moves were observed by another
    human player.



    --
    *-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
    ** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
    *Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>
  15. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:39:12 GMT, Fat Bloke
    <fatblokeonbikepins@pinsjohnstone-wheelers.co.uk> wrote:

    > >"PowerSlave2112" <ps@ilu.tn> wrote in message
    > >news:1JVHd.27181$dt3.2793687@twister.southeast.rr.com...
    > >>I have some suggestions for Civ4.
    >
    >Having just started on Civ3 after a long lay-off from Civ2, I was
    >confused-to-dismayed at the difficulty of distinguishing units from the
    >background - there's a l-i-t-t-l-e too much detail in the scenery, methinx.

    Agreed. I just lost a few workers--I didn't realize there was a
    guerilla (how do you spell that??) amongst them.

    >Why, once I've seen a tile from the top of a mountain, does it go dull when
    >I move off the mountain? If I've seen the territory, I've seen the
    >territory - am I supposed to half-forget it?

    Dull means you don't have a current view of it. It should not
    dull it until the end of the turn. Stupid design.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 10:55:26 -0600, Jeffery S. Jones
    <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:

    > Unlike Empire, it wouldn't strictly be necessary to leave the
    >"contacts" on display for more than a turn or so.
    \

    I was thinking along the lines of them staying visible when you pass
    them but disappearing after you end your turn or before theirs begins.

    Like you, I wouldn't mind knowing why my troop woke up, but I don't
    think a ghost would be an easy task for the programmers. A pause
    option that allows me to see new troops would be nice. Player's
    option to keep the game running smoothly.

    It's just a thought, but I wouldn't want them to hold up releasing
    version 4 too long while they work it out. :)


    Buck
    --
    For what it's worth.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:39:12 GMT, Fat Bloke wrote:

    >Why cannot I tell a unit to GoTo a city via the keyboard? Having to find
    >the destination on-screen (when I *know* it needs the unit I'm working) to
    >click on it is over-fussy.

    You can.
    "Go to city" = Ctrl-Shift-G
    It brings up a list of your cities on the same continent as the unit.

    Andre
    --
    Winners don't lose frogs.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    <cut>

    > > Why, once I've seen a tile from the top of a mountain, does it go
    > > dull when I move off the mountain? If I've seen the territory,
    > > I've seen the territory - am I supposed to half-forget it?
    >
    > It shows that you can no longer see the tile and whatever unit(s)
    > may have moved into it.

    More generally, it serves to remind you that you do not know the current
    state of the tile. It might have been improved or pillaged, or occupied by
    an enemy unit, or a resource might have popped up, or been exhausted...

    Not totally useless, IMHO.

    Alfredo
  19. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:54:02 GMT, "Alfredo Tutino"
    <powernews@libero.it> wrote:

    ><cut>
    >
    >> > Why, once I've seen a tile from the top of a mountain, does it go
    >> > dull when I move off the mountain? If I've seen the territory,
    >> > I've seen the territory - am I supposed to half-forget it?
    >>
    >> It shows that you can no longer see the tile and whatever unit(s)
    >> may have moved into it.
    >
    >More generally, it serves to remind you that you do not know the current
    >state of the tile. It might have been improved or pillaged, or occupied by
    >an enemy unit, or a resource might have popped up, or been exhausted...
    >
    >Not totally useless, IMHO.

    The problem is that it fogs *BEFORE* it could change. It should
    fog at the end of your turn, not before.
  20. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:54:02 GMT, Alfredo Tutino <powernews@libero.it> wrote:
    ><cut>
    >
    >> > Why, once I've seen a tile from the top of a mountain, does it go
    >> > dull when I move off the mountain? If I've seen the territory,
    >> > I've seen the territory - am I supposed to half-forget it?
    >>
    >> It shows that you can no longer see the tile and whatever unit(s)
    >> may have moved into it.
    >
    > More generally, it serves to remind you that you do not know the current
    > state of the tile. It might have been improved or pillaged, or occupied by
    > an enemy unit, or a resource might have popped up, or been exhausted...
    > Not totally useless, IMHO.

    But, during your turn, none of those things will happen. Sure, go dim
    at the end of the turn, but don't hide those modern armor units just
    because I already drove past them.
  21. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    I miss the fact that you could see what the other civs were
    researching..in civ2 that is. Maybe they could bring that back.
    Andre
  22. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    >On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:39:12 GMT, Fat Bloke wrote:
    >
    >>Why cannot I tell a unit to GoTo a city via the keyboard? Having to find
    >>the destination on-screen (when I *know* it needs the unit I'm working) to
    >>click on it is over-fussy.
    >
    >You can.
    >"Go to city" = Ctrl-Shift-G
    >It brings up a list of your cities on the same continent as the unit.
    >
    >Andre
    Thanx for that, it's going to prove handy.
    Now, where does it say that in the official manual? I looked in Terrain
    (movement) in Movement, and only when I *knew* what I was looking for (thanx
    again) was I able to spy it quickly in Game Stuff. Boo-hoo.
    ------------------------------------------------------------

    This post did not necessarily reflect my opinions. So there.
    Pull the pins out to reply direct.
  23. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    < cut >

    > But, during your turn, none of those things will happen. Sure, go dim
    > at the end of the turn, but don't hide those modern armor units just
    > because I already drove past them.

    On this, you're unconditionally right - I must have misread your previous
    post.

    Alfredo.
  24. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 20:03:45 GMT, Fat Bloke wrote:

    > >On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:39:12 GMT, Fat Bloke wrote:
    > >
    > >>Why cannot I tell a unit to GoTo a city via the keyboard? Having to find
    > >>the destination on-screen (when I *know* it needs the unit I'm working) to
    > >>click on it is over-fussy.
    > >
    > >You can.
    > >"Go to city" = Ctrl-Shift-G
    > >It brings up a list of your cities on the same continent as the unit.
    > >
    > >Andre
    >Thanx for that, it's going to prove handy.
    >Now, where does it say that in the official manual? I looked in Terrain
    >(movement) in Movement, and only when I *knew* what I was looking for (thanx
    >again) was I able to spy it quickly in Game Stuff. Boo-hoo.

    You're welcome. You might want to get Civ3C3Cdata.pdf from
    http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=7359
    I found it to be very handy.
    (Though "Go to City" is still under "Game Stuff" :-) )

    Andre
    --
    Winners don't lose frogs.
Ask a new question

Read More

Video Games