The Facts About Civ 3

Alex 14 · June 3, 2001, 04:06

Here are the facts about Civ 3, in comparison with Civ 2:

Civ 2: 60 Units
Civ 3: 76 (unconfirmed)

Civ 2: 89 Advances
Civ 3: 82 (unconfirmed)

Civ 2: 36 City Improvments
Civ 3: ???

Civ 2: 28 Wonders
Civ 3: 12 (unconfirmed)

Civ 2: 7 Government Types
Civ 3: 7 (unconfirmed)

Civ 2: 32 Terrain Types
Civ 3: ???

Civ 2: 21 Civs
Civ 3: 16 (confirmed!)

Most of the information is actually currently correct, except Firaxis will proberly change it in the future.

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2001, 04:13

I heard 82 advances from the guy who bothered to count them on the video or something. Also, 16 civs are confirmed. Where did you hear about the units?

BeBro · June 3, 2001, 04:15

Yeah, the numberof units seems much too low, ToT had 80. And Civ3 needs already at least 16 unique units, if not more.

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2001, 04:25

Quote:

Originally posted by BeBro
Yeah, the numberof units seems much too low, ToT had 80. And Civ3 needs already at least 16 unique units, if not more.

True dat

Alex 14 · June 3, 2001, 06:56

I heard there will be 60 units from a review (ign i think), but i doubt this will include unique ones. Also you may notice that less stuff is avalible in civ 3 because it will be shorter than other civ games.

dainbramaged13 · June 3, 2001, 12:53

82 is confirmed by firaxis according to video (at least during the stage it was at when the video was shown. I would bet that the advances system is complete)
If you guys are right, that should make 60 reg. units and 16 unique = 76 total units (a respectable number. although i would prefer more, especially in the modern age, that is up to mod makers

)

King Richard · June 3, 2001, 13:31

I read in a preview that there will be 36 wonders of the world (I think it was the june issue of PC Gamer).

Ralf · June 3, 2001, 14:41

Quote:

Originally posted by King Richard
I read in a preview that there will be 36 wonders of the world (I think it was the june issue of PC Gamer).

Thankfully, only 12 of them is traditional major Wonders. The rest: 24 is "mini-wonders" available for every Civ, depending on playing-style. Marine mini-wonders only if you build many ships, and so on.

Gramphos · June 3, 2001, 15:11

I think I've read somewhere (this maybe should be in my signature) that one government will be removed (Fundamentalism), one added (Nationalism), and the rest unchanged. That makes it probably still 7 (not confirmed).

Colon™ · June 3, 2001, 15:29

"I heard there will be 60 units from a review (ign i think), but i doubt this will include unique ones. Also you may notice that less stuff is avalible in civ 3 because it will be shorter than other civ games."

Could you elaborate on that for me? (that civ3 will be shorter)

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2001, 18:00

Quote:

Originally posted by vgriph
I think I've read somewhere (this maybe should be in my signature) that one government will be removed (Fundamentalism), one added (Nationalism), and the rest unchanged. That makes it probably still 7 (not confirmed).

I think I heard this too, confirmed by a spokesperson for Firaxis.

Also: I mentioned this in another thread, but I'll do it again here. Some people have pointed out that Firaxis has implicitly admitted that each civ will have 1 unique unit, but: the Americans are confirmed as having the F-15 as a unique unit, and the Abrams tank is confirmed as a game unit. The Abrams tank is a 100% American tank, and I don't think that Firaxis will force it on every civ. Therefore: I would put forward that the Americans have at least 2 unique units, implying that every civ has multiple unique units.

dainbramaged13 · June 3, 2001, 19:07

I hope so!

Alex 14 · June 4, 2001, 02:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Colon
"I heard there will be 60 units from a review (ign i think), but i doubt this will include unique ones. Also you may notice that less stuff is avalible in civ 3 because it will be shorter than other civ games."

Could you elaborate on that for me? (that civ3 will be shorter)

Sure. Sid Meier Anounced that Civ 2 was not intense enough; effectivly meaning that civ 3 will be shorter, i may actually be wrong, because he said that about 6 months ago, besides there will only be 17 modern age advances. Ofcourse i don't mean a lot shorter, just not longer. About 50 turns shorter i believe.

SerapisIV · June 4, 2001, 08:26

Recent previews have said nothing about shortening the game, I seem to recall a preview saying that 600-650 turns are in the game (whichever it is, it was the same number as Civ2). I don't think that gamelength is going to be shortened. Making the game more intense just means that your decisions mean more and that each turn will probably take you more time as strategy and production decisions are more important in Civ3. I think that the number of researchable techs has little influence on the game, only effecting the more advanced users who regularly play at Emperor and Deity level with ease. A lot of the posters on this board recetly have claimed to be playing at moderate difficulty levels. I think with that in mind, increasing the number of techs wouldn't change the game much, for the majority of players that is, not the elite.

Sava · June 4, 2001, 08:48

16 Civ's is retarded... the more the merrier!!!

I'm also very disappointed that the game will not go past the modern age.... soooo gay.

SerapisIV · June 4, 2001, 09:35

Quote:

Originally posted by SoulAssassin
16 Civ's is retarded... the more the merrier!!!

I'm also very disappointed that the game will not go past the modern age.... soooo gay.

While I agree on the 16 civs problem, I understand why, assuming that the included civs have a high quality, they require a hell of alot of effort for so few artists who also have to design the terrain, units, adivsors, menus, interface, etc. Thats a hell of a lot of work. If adding more civs means not seeing Civ3 till Summer 2002, it's not worth it to me. Diminishing returns

About the lack of future tech...there've been quite a few threads on this, most I think disagree with you, but I haven't been able to find an archived poll on the subject.

Kc7mxo · June 4, 2001, 09:51

Damn. I hope you're wrong about unique units, cause its a massivly stupid idea. In a game covering some 6000 years giving people special units that none of them will be able to use at tem same time will unbalance the game.

So, the Americans would get two modern special units? I imagine the romans get legions, and if they crush the americans, well guess the americans should have advanced faster so they could get their jets, huh? The more I read, the more Civ 3 looks like AOE. I didn't like AOE.

Oh well. More money in my pocket.

Grumbold · June 4, 2001, 10:48

Intensity and duration are not incompatible provided there is some interesting activity going on regularly. Civ II played on a huge map could go for ages with nothing happening except the routine orders necessary to continue steady development. That was more because it was possible to stay at arms length from all other civilisations and do your own thing than the number of turns passing. From the screenshots seen so far I am more inclined to believe that they have shrunk the map size so that 60 city empires will not be able to exist unless the opposition has already been crushed.

Alex 14 · June 5, 2001, 01:37

600-650 turns would be very cool

. I disagree with civ 3 having less in game civs though, Firaxis have mastered the civs perfectly, you can easily create your own, so i don't see it as a major concern. I agree with not putting in unique units, if all of the civs got their special unit at the same time, then thats fine, but not otherwise

.

bagdar · June 5, 2001, 02:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
Damn. I hope you're wrong about unique units, cause its a massivly stupid idea. In a game covering some 6000 years giving people special units that none of them will be able to use at tem same time will unbalance the game.

I agree with you. Jets may be stronger than legions,

but that hardly compensates for the time when everyone had special units and you didn't. Perhaps there are more than one sp.units for each civ. So it seems that modern civs with military dominance will be so in Civ III in the modern times... (If they make it to the modern times, that is) Do I like this? No! This sounds stupid in both respects.

Suggestion: Have one ancient and one modern sp. unit for each civ. Thanks.

Question: Could someone please list the advantages of a special unit? I think I've missed this point. Like, say I have a Samurai (that's a sp. unit right?) and attack your normal defensive unit. What happens? How is it different from my attacking it with a non-special unit?

TechWins · June 5, 2001, 02:57

This facts sound very unappealing to me.

Theben · June 5, 2001, 03:09

Actually the mini-wonders might be the solution to the current problem of CSU's. If civs that build "many ships" are offered "marine mini-wonders", then they will indeed have "unique units" based on their history and experience. Let's hope this is the case...

Kc7mxo · June 5, 2001, 03:30

Hah. Not bloody likely. Instead the developers will crow about the unique and "historical" special units that the probably 7 included civs will have. Look, I don't play civ for a historical game, if i did i certainly wouldn't let us americans be included as anything. We've existed as a nation and a culture for abrely two hundred years! Good grief.

its just a game anyway. and the more i read the more i think its just a game i won't play.

Theben · June 5, 2001, 04:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
Hah. Not bloody likely. Instead the developers will crow about the unique and "historical" special units that the probably 7 included civs will have. Look, I don't play civ for a historical game, if i did i certainly wouldn't let us americans be included as anything. We've existed as a nation and a culture for abrely two hundred years! Good grief.

its just a game anyway. and the more i read the more i think its just a game i won't play.

What I meant was that, coupled with the ability to turn the damn CSU's off, the mini-wonders could act as "bonuses" for the direction your civ has been heading. Depending on what they actually do, and how you get them. I haven't seen any info on their supposed use, just that they're "available to everyone".

Alex 14 · June 5, 2001, 23:55

Does anyone have any ideas about new terrain types, and how they will act as a defence ect.?

C. Gerhardt · June 6, 2001, 00:34

To Alex 14:

There will be no significant changes in terrain types. They only added a vision bonus for hills and mountains.

To SerapisIV:

quote: The game wont be finished before the summer of 2002!

I read an article the morning saying CivIII will be in the stores NEXT WINTER!!! They just didnt say where!

If you can reed Dutch, look at www.planet.nl

Alex 14 · June 6, 2001, 16:48

A vision bonus whould be excellent, but I don't think it is possible to build on mountins?

Lung · June 7, 2001, 01:18

Quote:

Originally posted by SoulAssassin
I'm also very disappointed that the game will not go past the modern age.... soooo gay.

I admit that the 3000AD concept in CTP was a bit ridiculous, but it seems absurd to play the bloody game for a month, only to find the game stop dead just when you reach the threshold of modern technology!!

Surely the chance to go at least one step farther than makind has ever gone is very tempting, to say the least!?!!

I proposed 2100 AD (2150 would do), just so you could use the Genome Project or have a super infantry or something than falls within the realms of current human comprehension?!! How about a bit of forward thinking??

Adm.Naismith · June 7, 2001, 02:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
Look, I don't play civ for a historical game, if i did i certainly wouldn't let us americans be included as anything. We've existed as a nation and a culture for abrely two hundred years! Good grief.

You are right, and that's the same reason because I don't want to have Italian as Civ while of course Roman are a must (and I'm italian, while my genealogical root probably aren't Roman at all

).

But of course proper old Civs evolved into modern nations, and today USA are relevant.
I always tried to propose a way to save both point of view: let every Civ change name every time a major game event change its power, e.g. after a main annexion of many cities, or a split of the original empire. Of course it shouldn't happen every next turn, or you'll be bothered endlessy, and any human player should be free to keep the name unchanged for her/his civ.

OTOH, you can now change Roman into Italian as time goes by, or have a USA after a split (secession) from English empire.

Is "catching two birds with a stone" the proper sentence in english, about this proposal?

Alex 14 · June 7, 2001, 04:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Lung

I admit that the 3000AD concept in CTP was a bit ridiculous, but it seems absurd to play the bloody game for a month, only to find the game stop dead just when you reach the threshold of modern technology!!

Surely the chance to go at least one step farther than makind has ever gone is very tempting, to say the least!?!!

I proposed 2100 AD (2150 would do), just so you could use the Genome Project or have a super infantry or something than falls within the realms of current human comprehension?!! How about a bit of forward thinking??

Unfortinantly, Firaxis have anounced that the game will have only 17 modern techs. However it will be quite easy to build more onto the game for developers.

. Plus there will be scenarios, i reckon Firaxis created it pretty well.