|
Author
|
|
Topic: seaport and airports |  |
|
Stuff2
Warlord
Sep 1999
|
 |
posted October 16, 2000 10:52
  | 
 |
 |  |
I think that civ3 should include seaports, seaports will work just like airports, u can transport units between them in a very fast way (maybe not as fast as with airports but still faster than anything else considering the sea has been the fastest transportation during a huge time of human history). These seaport are not to confuse with those current 'naval port' they should appear much earlier in the game. Also non-military units (if they are included) should be able to transport between any country that has a peaceagreement with you. And military units should be able to transport between any ally.
Also, built army air-bases and army seaports (should be a oppertunity)should be given names so you can use them as any airport or seaport.
This means that if u have an airbase you can send units to that airbase. Still with the risk of having them shotdown with enemy fighters (or ships if it's between seaports). I think this idea will benefit realism, simplicity and gameplay. |
Evil Capitalist
King
sized bed and minibar in each room
Jul 2000
|
|
posted October 16, 2000 13:34
  |
|
| |
I agree- in some of the 18th/19th century scenarios I have written I rename the airport and have it as a sea prt (which can't be built) |
Adm.Naismith
Prince
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
|
 |
posted October 16, 2000 18:04
 |
|
| |
I'm more for a seaport built by settler/engineer as airbase (on a shore, of course) inside a city radius.This will let the player to add a port to a city just inland: I'm thinking of great cities with port but not exactly on the shore: London, Rome (in the past), etc. This idea can be another way to partially solve the canal problem (see the related thread). Port will repair ships, can be conquered by ground or sea units, same for defense.
I think it can add tactical and strategical possibility, also about city placement. I bet it is quite easy to implement too (AI use of it apart, maybe), so Firaxis don't need to spend too much developement time about it  ------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant |
Stuff2
Warlord
Sep 1999
|
|
posted October 17, 2000 09:27
|
|
| |
Actually, i ment that seaports could be both ways, either as a terrain improvement or as a city improvement. It would have the same benefits no matter what it was. The great thing about it is that once you have built a seaport on a distant continent you don't have to spend time building loads of transports. And also as you said to give inland cities connections with the ocean. |
Tim White
Chieftain
Kearns, Utah, USA
Oct 2000
|
|
posted October 23, 2000 19:15
|
|
| |
I like the idea. I think there should also be Army bases. These would be like fortresses, except that they would be like a mini city. They could build only a few things, like city walls, and a temple. Units would be stationed there, and when an enemy unit comes within its boundries, several (or all) of the units stationed there would move in for the kill. They would advance over time, the first ones would be, Wooden Forts, these could build only city walls, and a temple, and a barracks. And would be +100 to defence of all units stationed within. Then the next one would be, Stone Castles. These could build the same things, plus a marketplace. And they would be +150 t defence. Then, in modern times, they would be Military Bases. These could build all of the stuff from above, plus build a mini air strip (like air base, except not as big), and a naval base (if by the sea). These would be +200 to defence. | |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
