Civ3 Conquests, should this have been the orginal Civ3? - Page 2

Dis · November 11, 2003, 01:57

you know bugs in the opening screen? unless you count setting up the game as playing.

I've been playing the WW2 scenario- had to try that one first.

I started as the U.S. The pearl harbour attack by the Japanese ai was pretty weak. I lost no battleships, and only one was damaged. Air bombardment is still very weak in this game.

.

But I lost many of my green battleships battling the japanese navy. They have a formidable navy.

And I am impressed they too the Philappines so easily (and almost on time as well)

Though they razed Manila

. It'll be kind of hard to return to a city that doesn't exist

.

Though I'm still not sure how the victory points are attained. Anyone know? I sure hope Manila doesn't give victory points, because that city no longer exists. They also razed another city in the Philappines.

dexters · November 11, 2003, 04:01

I think you want to have a weak air bombardment given air bombardment has lethal land.

I already see an avenue of cheap human play where you just move stacks of bombers around blowing up cities and the move in with land forces afterwards. airbobmard is fine.

I certainly wished the effect of the pearl harbour bombing was more pronounced, but not at the expense of the larger gameplay balance.

General Ludd · November 11, 2003, 09:07

I don't think conquests is any better then the original Civ3, really. It's still fundementally flawed in my opinion - too much number crunching and nonsensical micromangaing, not enough civilization building. (ie. too much 'powergaming', not enough 'roleplaying')

Not to mention that the huge map still takes forever to process turns on...

duxup · November 11, 2003, 11:25

I think the first release of Civ 3 was plenty for a full game. My only complaint about that release would be:

The version of the game that came in the tin case was not worth its price.

The ending techs felt (and still feel) incomplete.

Still, it was plenty of game for release on its own.

No I don't think Civ3 with the other expansions should have been the first release.

TheArsenal · November 11, 2003, 12:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Osweld
I don't think conquests is any better then the original Civ3, really. It's still fundementally flawed in my opinion - too much number crunching and nonsensical micromangaing, not enough civilization building. (ie. too much 'powergaming', not enough 'roleplaying')

Not to mention that the huge map still takes forever to process turns on...

Micromanagement and number crunching is a matter of play style. I have no time or patience for the level crunching that some players here do, and I probably send my workers into automation far earlier than them as well. Yet I still manage to enjoy the game a great deal and play more to both win and enjoy, than to work the internal mechanization of the game to maximize a win.

To me, the ability to manage as little or as much as you choose, is one of the game's strengths.

Dis · November 11, 2003, 16:12

there are many automated features so you don't have to number crunch.

Of course you won't be able to play at the higher levels unless you micromanage everything.

But all civ games have been about micromanagement. Including civ2.

Alexander I · November 17, 2003, 14:54

Well, as an example, Civ2 had the perfect amount of micromangement. Enough to take care of business, but not so much that it became boring (i.e. CTP). Civ3 has followed Civ2's legacy.

GhengisFarb™ · November 17, 2003, 17:54

In answer to your question, yes this is Civilization III as was originally promised. You just had to pay $100 for it in three installments.

Editor still buggy as is the game and some of the scenarios still crash, but hey, its a FixAxis product.

Definitely worth the money though.

Alexander I · November 17, 2003, 18:12

Yes, despite its weaknesses, it is definitely worth it!

Myrddin · November 17, 2003, 18:31

Civ3 as originally promised?????

Can you find that promise anywhere?

Civ3 was published on time (well slightly early

), had few critical bugs and was never promised with multiplayer

2 years on it is still popular - what more do you want?

Alexander's Horse · November 17, 2003, 21:54

They always promise more than they deliver.

Peter Triggs · November 17, 2003, 22:40

Quote:

They always promise more than they deliver.

Sig material, AH.

Antrine · November 17, 2003, 22:50

Actually, if you waited as I did until two weeks ago to buy anything CIVIII, the whole thing was 70 bucks and that with the bonus CD. I read the forums and with all the negativity I patiently waited, ah such patience a true reward! And now in contrast to CIVII this baby is beautiful!!!

Antrine

Myrddin · November 18, 2003, 07:22

But what have you been doing for the last 2 years?

Tiberius · November 18, 2003, 07:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Antrine
Actually, if you waited as I did until two weeks ago to buy anything CIVIII, the whole thing was 70 bucks and that with the bonus CD. I read the forums and with all the negativity I patiently waited, ah such patience a true reward! And now in contrast to CIVII this baby is beautiful!!!

Antrine

Well, good for you! In the meantime we have played some wonderful games, including multiplayer (or just PBEM in my case) and democracy games and we helped with our comments and suggestions the developers to make the beautiful baby you enjoy so much

Tiberius · November 18, 2003, 07:38

As for the thread starter question:

1. From the PoV of what we were expecting: YES.

2. From the PoV of what could have been done two years ago to have the game we have today: NO.

Plotinus · November 18, 2003, 09:25

Right, Tiberius - the original question is basically meaningless, since it comes down to "Should this game have been better when it was originally released?" - which would be a non-question applied to anything.

Lewsir · November 18, 2003, 09:31

How about my alternative question - would you rather have Firaxis et al spend the next 6-9 months working on producing another expansion with more tweaks, bells and whistles for CIV 3 or (probably spend longer and) start from scratch on producing a CIV 4?

Tiberius · November 18, 2003, 09:43

I'd prefer a new expansion for 2 reasons:

1. it'd take less (1 year for a new XP, at least 2 years for a new game)

2. I have no idea how a civ4 would be different. I haven't heard so far any groundbreaking idea of how civ4 should be different from civ3. Sure, there are some good suggestions out there (improved UN, a more flexible editor with events and whatnot, civil wars, etc) but other than that ??! How would these ideas make a new game different from a civ 3.5 ?

If Firaxis would have some fantastic ideas on how to improve civ3 that can't be build in the current engine, then yes, I'd wait another year or two.

Lewsir · November 18, 2003, 11:49

I agree, and in fact your suggestion of a UN-type enhancement for CIV 4 sounds like the perfect basis for a new expansion of CIV 3, since it shouldn't be too complicated (easy for me to say). Perhaps improved diplomacy could be the core theme of the expansion. Maybe beef up espionage aspects as well.

If anyone from Firaxis is reading this, I would be curious what YOU guys are thinking about as next steps...

Tiberius · November 18, 2003, 12:53

If anyone from Firaxis is reading this, he/she won't tell a word, that I'm sure of

Lewsir · November 18, 2003, 13:00

Good point.

Antrine · November 18, 2003, 14:19

The subject of exchange brings up the very reason I did wait and not participate and kept to playing CIVII. Is this a Civilization Diplomacy Game or a Civilization War Game? Personally, I care not nor use much all these new trade, diplomacy with espionage intrigue. I make scenarios with so many resources (x20) that I and everyone else (AI’s) will have everything straight away. I am glad the barbarians were not outright nixed; it is the battle engine that I am mostly impressed with and large maps, large armies and hundreds upon hundreds of cities that can be built. Anyway, this game is many things at once, where it goes who knows. Keep enhancing ‘the Game Editor’ and who cares. We each will design our own. However, give me back the ‘cheat mode’, ‘events’, ‘movies’ and I would like to build a fantastically elaborate Palace. Many Thanks! Oh and ZOOM.
See you guys were a little asleep on your watch. [smiles].

Sincerely,
Antrine

Traelin · November 18, 2003, 16:33

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
I personally like the incremental approach, but there comes a point in any software project where the original design gets in the way of new ideas. It can get to the point where it is easier to start over than to try to jam something in.

IMO I am VERY, VERY happy with C3C, so I don't even care to speculate on whether or not vanilla should have been this or should have been that. I agree with your assessment, Warp.

With that being said, I think that Civ IV would have to be initiated to get some of the major overhauls that I have been crying for... e.g., updated diplomacy/UN, updated trade model, etc. It'll just be too much work to attempt to change these things and would be easier to start from scratch. Other Civ III code modules could probably be borrowed upon though, although I haven't seen the code to give an accurate assessment.

General Ludd · November 18, 2003, 18:25

Quote:

Originally posted by TheArsenal

Micromanagement and number crunching is a matter of play style. I have no time or patience for the level crunching that some players here do, and I probably send my workers into automation far earlier than them as well. Yet I still manage to enjoy the game a great deal and play more to both win and enjoy, than to work the internal mechanization of the game to maximize a win.

I supposed you are right, I played a game on a lower difficulty and had a bit more fun, since the computer wasn't power-gaming as much. I just wish they could of made the game challanging without giving the computer every advantage, or stoping the civs from actually behaving like countries and not players in a game. I guess I just don't like the atmosphere in it, really.

Give me a Paradox game over Civ3 anyday.