Civ3 vs other strategy games - Page 2

Barinthus · February 27, 2004, 15:05

I was just curious to your opinions of those games. I've heard mixed reviews. Guess they're not related to Civ III but again how would I know, I never played those

Sorry for the mini-threadjacking although.

asleepathewheel · February 27, 2004, 15:29

Quote:

Originally posted by DataAeolus
Any thoughts about Rise of Nations?

my pc didn't like it, even though the specs were way over the mins. It was fun until it teh frame rate was shot. I would recommend it if you like RTS and have a decent pc. There is a demo I think.

Quote:

Originally posted by DataAeolus
Diablo I and II?

fun games. Good multiplayer, but has drawbacks of multiplayer. Hack in slash, not much thinking involved. However, I would recommend for some mindless entertainment.

Dominae · February 27, 2004, 15:58

If you like Civ3, SMAC is definitely worth at least 10 hours of your time. There's just so much to see, learn and do in that game, and it all fits within a great theme. While I do believe that Civ3 is an improvement over Civ2 in almost every single way, it's not clear to me that Civ3 is a huge improvement over SMAC.

True, the AI is not as good as Civ3's, but it's not like you can beat the hardest difficulties right away. You need to play at least 10-12 full games to start beating Transcend regularly, which is about 200 hours of good gaming.

I'm not a big fan of the Heroes series: although fun once in a while when you're bored, it's more about eye candy than strategy. The replay value is very low.

If I were to start playing another TBS game seriously it would be GalCiv. I've tinkered with it a couple of times, but never really got into it. It looks really promising, although I'm slightly worried about the lack of enthusiasm in the GalCiv forum here at 'Poly (or anywhere else for that matter).

I'm not quite sure exactly what went wrong with Rise of Nations, but we all know now that it's quite poor. I feel vindicated because I was one of the ones that "called it" when the free trial version was released. Still, RoN is probably one of the best attempts at a RTS/TBS hybrid.

As for other RTS games, Warcraft 3 is still the best one out there IMO. The Replay feature is awesome in that it demonstrates how strategic the game can really be (i.e. it's not just about good micro).

Dominae

vmxa1 · February 27, 2004, 17:39

I cannot identify anything wrong with GalCiv, but it just did not strike me as a lot of fun. I played several games, but have not been able to get up the urge to play again. I have kept it updated, just in case.

I prefer to play another game of Moo2, rather than Galciv.

asleepathewheel · February 27, 2004, 18:08

I found galciv to be boring. I probably didn't give it enough of a chance, I think after the MoO3 debacle I gave things a quick hook if I wasn't "getting" them right away.

Barinthus · February 27, 2004, 19:04

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
However, I would recommend for some mindless entertainment.

I got Unreal Tournament for that

vmxa1 · February 27, 2004, 19:26

I saw the new UT on Techtv yesterday it is suppose to be the bomb.

okblacke · February 27, 2004, 19:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae
I'm not a big fan of the Heroes series: although fun once in a while when you're bored, it's more about eye candy than strategy. The replay value is very low.

I've played all the Heroes games off-and-on since they were released. I've probably spent more time with them than Civ. In fact, unlike just about any other strategy game I've played (real-time or turn-based), I find replaying missions for a better score to be enjoyable (to a degree). Most strategy games, I play through any scenario or campaign and then forget about them.

That is, I think, I disagree.

Quote:

If I were to start playing another TBS game seriously it would be GalCiv. I've tinkered with it a couple of times, but never really got into it. It looks really promising, although I'm slightly worried about the lack of enthusiasm in the GalCiv forum here at 'Poly (or anywhere else for that matter).

I've put in a few hours on it. I haven't figured out where the fun is yet. I liked playing Civ 3 on Warlord and Chieftain when I was starting out. So far, GC seems to be too easy at these levels to give shape to good strategy ideas for a competitive game.

Quote:

I'm not quite sure exactly what went wrong with Rise of Nations, but we all know now that it's quite poor. I feel vindicated because I was one of the ones that "called it" when the free trial version was released. Still, RoN is probably one of the best attempts at a RTS/TBS hybrid.

We all know this? All of us?

PC Gamer, GameSpot and GameSpy give it a "Best of 2003" awards, it was in the running for a dozen more. GameRankings lists it at 89%, with no score under 70%.

I haven't played it. But at worst I've heard it damned with faint praise. You'd be the first I've heard say it was "poor", though.

[ok]

furrykef · February 27, 2004, 19:57

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Test Of Time let you see where your space ship went a long time ago.

I thought Civ2:ToT and SMAC came out about the same time? (SMAC first, I think...)

Pretty interesting how the two interpretations of Alpha Centauri differ, since we're presumably talking about the same planet. Of course, it seems "Chiron" had a lot more thought put into it than "Centaurus" did.

- Kef

vmxa1 · February 27, 2004, 20:23

I have put in at least as much and probably more time into Homm games than Civ games. I always felt civ was a better game, but if I could only have one, I would go with Homm as it was more fun to me.

Dominae · February 27, 2004, 22:03

Quote:

Originally posted by okblacke
I've put in a few hours on it. I haven't figured out where the fun is yet. I liked playing Civ 3 on Warlord and Chieftain when I was starting out. So far, GC seems to be too easy at these levels to give shape to good strategy ideas for a competitive game.

Why not just play at the harder difficulty levels (with more "intelligent" alien races)? The AI in GalCiv is quite interesting compared to Civ3's: as the difficulty level increases, the AI actually gets smarter (i.e. it uses more advanced planning and strategy algorithms).

Quote:

PC Gamer, GameSpot and GameSpy give it a "Best of 2003" awards, it was in the running for a dozen more. GameRankings lists it at 89%, with no score under 70%.

I would like to believe those publications are not all about hype, but that's not really true; "Brian Reynolds' new game? Buy, buy, buy!".

The fact of the matter is even the most hardcore players of the game have commented how the online RoN community died a about 6-7 months after release. So either everyone is playing the game but no one is talking about it, or no one is playing the game and (therefore) no one is talking about it. The first makes more sense to me.

By the way, where is the RoN expansion?!

Dominae

Barinthus · February 27, 2004, 23:20

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
I saw the new UT on Techtv yesterday it is suppose to be the bomb.

Download the demo, it's really cool.

ErikM · February 28, 2004, 00:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae
I'm not a big fan of the Heroes series: although fun once in a while when you're bored, it's more about eye candy than strategy. The replay value is very low.

Campaigns/scenarios that come with a game are a bit too simple with a few exceptions. But there are 1000+ user-made scenarios and campaigns for HOMM (HOMM scenario editor is very easy to use), complete with ratings, reviews, etc, and some of them are outstanding. Best scenarios are very difficult and are more engaging than Civ games, if only because they require out-of-the-box thinking and remain competitive until the end - something where Civ falls short. "Eternal love" campaign, "Pride wars" trilogy, "Sander's Folly", "Reavers or the North", "Vengeance is mine", to name few famous user-made scenarios.

Wiglaf · February 28, 2004, 00:40

sid meier's gettysburg and antietam are great. get firaxis's XP compatability patch and you're fine. you can pause and issue orders, especially useful as the battle begins. I play it on prudent/indirect/3rd level difficulty, making an intelligent but fair opponent. its only big flaw is that it does not have the grander scale/ perspective of Civ3. you are basically thrust into a battle and must win it under the circumstances.

alpha centauri can become quite boring, this is definitely true (plus the fact that half the AI factions are dead from the start - morgan and miriam are the worst offenders). the game gives they unique bonuses, but not in tech, and tech is what gets you the big units.

Quote:

True, the AI is not as good as Civ3's, but it's not like you can beat the hardest difficulties right away. You need to play at least 10-12 full games to start beating Transcend regularly, which is about 200 hours of good gaming.

This is because the AI cheats rabidly at transcend. moreover, diplomacy becomes a little forced. "give me synth fibers or die." over. and over...

Dominae · February 28, 2004, 00:52

Quote:

Originally posted by ErikM
Campaigns/scenarios that come with a game are a bit too simple with a few exceptions. But there are 1000+ user-made scenarios and campaigns for HOMM (HOMM scenario editor is very easy to use), complete with ratings, reviews, etc, and some of them are outstanding.

I never knew about that. I'll have to check it out...

vmxa1 · February 28, 2004, 03:00

Watch out for some of the maps as they like to make them crazy.

I have run into a few that you step on a tile and trigger a stack with zounds of level 5 monsters in the first 20 turns of the game.

But i have DL 100's of maps from the old Astral Wizards site. I think they are at :

http://dynamic3.gamespy.com/~homm/in...ecambounet.htm

SpencerH · February 28, 2004, 08:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Wiglaf
sid meier's gettysburg and antietam are great. get firaxis's XP compatability patch and you're fine. you can pause and issue orders, especially useful as the battle begins. I play it on prudent/indirect/3rd level difficulty, making an intelligent but fair opponent. its only big flaw is that it does not have the grander scale/ perspective of Civ3. you are basically thrust into a battle and must win it under the circumstances.

I forgot about those, both are definitely worth playing. They're kinda the precursors for total war in terms of tactical battle simulation.

I didnt know there was an xp patch !

lockstep · February 28, 2004, 10:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae
The fact of the matter is even the most hardcore players of the game have commented how the online RoN community died a about 6-7 months after release. So either everyone is playing the game but no one is talking about it, or no one is playing the game and (therefore) no one is talking about it. The first makes more sense to me.

By the way, where is the RoN expansion?!

IIRC, a lot of online players dropped RoN in the first 6 months because there were lots of connectivity issues plus a rather poor matchmaking system. Both problems were greatly diminished with patch 1.03 which was released in November, but by then the online community was already very small, perhaps too small. We'll see if BHG is able to create another 'hype' (and attract new online players) with the X-pack ('Thrones and Patriots'), which should be released on April, 28th.

BTW, as RoN's gameplay and pace are similar to TBS (compared to that of other RTS games), and as RoN's AI seems to be rather good (at least I haven't read a criticism that resembles that of SMAC's AI), it may be unfair to judge the game as 'poor' only because of the small online community. I haven't played many RoN games until now (got interested in it only recently), but by now it seems that building up a good economy does require sound strategy, but not the heavy micromanagement I dislike about Civ3.

EDIT: While I can't comment on Warcraft 3's 'awesome' replay feature, I liked RoN's replay feature and recorded games from the beginning.

Dominae · February 28, 2004, 16:05

Quote:

Originally posted by lockstep
EDIT: While I can't comment on Warcraft 3's 'awesome' replay feature, I liked RoN's replay feature and recorded games from the beginning.

As far as I know, Warcraft 3 was the first game to incorporate this feature into its engine. I'm not surprised other games are following suit because it's such a great feature. If only something like this could be done for Civ3 (the end of game replay movie is not really on the same level)!

Dominae

okblacke · February 28, 2004, 17:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae
Why not just play at the harder difficulty levels (with more "intelligent" alien races)? The AI in GalCiv is quite interesting compared to Civ3's: as the difficulty level increases, the AI actually gets smarter (i.e. it uses more advanced planning and strategy algorithms).

I'm slowly getting there. While it's somewhat true with Civ games, it's especially true of space-games that it's hard to get one's bearings. After playing a few games on "beginner" and smaller maps, I boosted the intelligence to "sub-normal" and played on a huge map.

The huge map was a bad idea, though. Also a bad idea was going for a tech-transcendence victory. The last 150 turns were torture. I really didn't want to keep shuffling constructors around the unvierse, but when I stopped, the Arceans (ultimately the only other race left) started piling up influence.

So, I've played half a dozen games and I have a sense of the basic shape of the tech tree and the starbase/planet build tree. Military I'm still foggy on.

Quote:

I would like to believe those publications are not all about hype, but that's not really true; "Brian Reynolds' new game? Buy, buy, buy!".

I think as far as CGW went, the fact that it was Brian Reynolds worked against him. They agreed that he had made some interesting innovations but they were expecting a masterpiece.

Also, CGW and a lot of 'net sites have no problem changing their minds a few months later. (cf "Black and White" wihch went from editor's choice to coaster of the year.)

Quote:

The fact of the matter is even the most hardcore players of the game have commented how the online RoN community died a about 6-7 months after release. So either everyone is playing the game but no one is talking about it, or no one is playing the game and (therefore) no one is talking about it. The first makes more sense to me.

Bad multiplayer can kill an on-line community but that's not necessarily a reflection on the single-player experience.

Quote:

By the way, where is the RoN expansion?!

A missing expansion pack is a bad sign, tho, for sure.

[ok]

Xorbon · February 29, 2004, 01:31

If you'd like to try a good 'proto-RTS' game, play Dune 2.

(Well, it was good for its time.) Anyone know if they've ever made a Dune 3?

I do enjoy playing Age of Kings (with heavy use of the pause button

). But my experience playing RTS games isn't overly vast. Where does AoK rank among RTS's in terms of quality?

vmxa1 · February 29, 2004, 02:57

It was a big improvement of AoE, but was harder too manage so many units for me. The graphics were tops at the time.

They redid Dune2 and it stunk. If you mean the one from Westwood.

SpencerH · March 1, 2004, 09:36

I think you mean AoE was an improvement over AoK.

furrykef · March 1, 2004, 10:16

Quote:

Originally posted by SpencerH
I think you mean AoE was an improvement over AoK.

I don't know how the first game of a series can be an "improvement" over the second. It might be better (though I dunno anybody who prefers AoE over AoK), but even so it wouldn't be an "improvement".

- Kef

SpencerH · March 1, 2004, 10:40

Despite not using a question mark, my comment was a question.

In any case it was my mistake. For some reason (oncoming senility) I thought that age of empires was called 'age of kings' and that the newer version was 'age of empires' (actually called age of empires II).

Anyway, I played em all (no matter the name). They were all fun for a while.

vmxa1 · March 1, 2004, 13:18

Yes Kings was a better game in many respects, but I did not finish it. I did finish the first one (Age Of Empires).

Kings was just so beautifully done (for that time), but I ran out of gas.

StupidLlama · March 2, 2004, 23:43

My favorite game though not anymore was age of kings the conquerors. I played AoC for 2 years every night and during the summers I would play till 3 a.m. Finally I couldnt take anymore Hun rushing and smashed the cd out of madness lol. Im still having withdrawls from the game too. Civ 3 isnt my favorite game only because you can quit and start over but you have to build up your civ all over again. Which is why I cant wait to get a new comp just for RoN

binyo66 · March 8, 2004, 00:16

Could someone tell me what is smac?

I enjoy CivII, CivIII, Romance of Three Kingdoms from Koei, and used to enjoy games series such as Krynn's and Buck Rogers.

vmxa1 · March 8, 2004, 01:26

Sid Meier's Alpha Centuria.

It is the place you sent your spaceship to in CivII.

binyo66 · March 8, 2004, 02:18

OK, thank u vmxa1