How is Civ 3 shaping up?

[The Rusty Gamer]

How do you think Civ 3 is shaping up?

What version number should it really be called?

[King Richard]

Since I didn't know that civ3 was even in production in march this year, I must say I'm pretty happy with the new things we're promised! A lot of problems from civ2 has been fixed/improved and all the new things are excellent! I would say it's beyond my wildest dreams! But in case of civilization; any news is good news. -I'm an addict...

[Sean]

So far it seems that the Civ III 'optimists' are in the majority

Don't tell the 'pesimists'

Seriously, it is good to see that people generally think we are onto a winner here, even if some of our personal features didn't make it into the game.

[TechWins]

I think it's going to be a great game. If the dimplomacy and AI live up to it's expectations. Although, it just seems as if something is missing. I'm not sure what would put the game over the top but it needs something. Maybe Firaxis already has this "something" developed and hasn't released anything about it or they have their idea about it and haven't implemented it. All in all it needs something a little bit more to make this game truely monumental, either way the game will still be fantastic.

[MrFun]

I voted Civ 2.8-2.9 -- I'm just not all lovey dovey as you top, top optimists are.

Seriously though, one of my main concerns is with the AI. Sure, sure -- all these features are great for us human players to tinker with. But will the AI opponents utilize these features competently? I HOPE SO!!!

By the way, I'm still recovering from the trauma of the Call to Power II disasterous, catastrophic, devastating, destructive, life-shattering, heart-breaking, tragic, fiasco.

I'm applying to the U.S. Federal government's branch office for disaster aid while I await Civilization III.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by MrFun
Seriously though, one of my main concerns is with the AI. Sure, sure -- all these features are great for us human players to tinker with. But will the AI opponents utilize these features competently? I HOPE SO!!!

Hmm! I voted "Civ 3", based from the information released so far.

But, I wholeheartedly admit: "will the AI opponents utilize these features competently?". Im NOT asking for a "pass a Turing-test" experience, here - I just want to be assured that they high-prioritys every possible design-solution and clever shortcut there is, that possibly can help achieving the overall important goal: a significantly stronger strategical AI. This, together with a deeper and more extended AI & game-customizability, of course.

One stumblingblock have always been how wars/war-armaments are handled, since this traditionally have been an area there Civ-veterans have "mopped the floor" with the AI-civs. I am here very pleased to se how they managed to tie war-armaments, trade-economy & resource-availability together in a combined whole, giving the AI alternative ways to thwart HP-armaments - and also, alternative ways of conduct war against the HP, other then just send out AI combat-units. Good!!!

By the way, I'm still recovering from the trauma of the Call to Power II disasterous, catastrophic, devastating, destructive, life-shattering, heart-breaking, tragic, fiasco.

I never bought the game, but I must admit: for a short few weeks before the actual release, I was somewhat caught up with the optimistic posts over at the CTP-2 section of this forum. By contrast to above quote, you should take the time reading below replies in below link that was posted only a few days after the original release. Reading these posts and comparing with the replies that was posted only 2-3 weeks later an onwards, was an real eye-opener for me.
It really is crucially important to priority a stronger AI in Civ-3, and design the game is such a ways that better AI-response becomes possible. The interlinks between war, economy & resource is one nice reassuring step in that direction.

The IGN review is an outrage (unbiased opinion)

[Gramphos]

Civ I was better then Civ II, no matter what you say.

[Gramphos]

And to add to what I posted I think Civ III will be better then Civ I

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by vgriph
Civ I was better then Civ II, no matter what you say.

I say your opinion doesn't matter either

More seriously, I think Civ III has some really good innovations but I am not prepared to commit myself to how good a game it will be until I have played it. Good AI and tight gameplay will matter more than all the features in the world.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hehe... I'm the only one that voted Civ3 Plus...

I mean: resources, diplomacy, trade for needed materials... DAMN! This is much better than I thought possible! The resource system was like a dream to me, I never thought it'd be put into a Civ game... wow!

[rah]

Didn't vote, because it seems silly this early.

1. I hope that didn't spend all their time on the graphics and ignored the AI. Eye candy I don't need, a strong AI is critical.

2. While I like a lot of things they're doing, I hope they didn't listen to and try to incorporate anything more than 2% or 3% of all the ideas listed in these threads. Anything more and I'm sure the game would be totally unplayable.

3. I hope they maintain the fine balance between designing a game that the unconcerned masses can enjoy but is still interesting to the Die hard players after 50 games.

RAH
The first time I played CTPII, I liked it. It took to game two to realize all the shortcomings and just how bad the AI was.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Sean
So far it seems that the Civ III 'optimists' are in the majority

Don't tell the 'pesimists'

Maybe so, but the pessimists have ben extremely vocal in the forums.

[Quantum]

Originally posted by Grumbold


... I think Civ III has some really good innovations but I am not prepared to commit myself to how good a game it will be until I have played it. Good AI and tight gameplay will matter more than all the features in the world.

I think Grumbold has come up with a really good innovation - only vote AFTER playing the game. I am excited about Civ III based on what we know so far but I'm not voting until I've played it either.

[Theben]

I guess I'm a low-end optimist. Maybe just overly cautious. I voted 2.5-.7.

The rather minimal address given to combat concerns me, considering how many suggestions were made for it. A more integrated stacked army would've made a lot more sense and IMHO helped out the AI a great deal. It would have allowed units to cover the weaknesses, exploit the strengths, of units stacked with them. Dunno, maybe that'll still happen, but I'm not optimistic there.

And nothing is being done to fix railroads!?! Cripes, that was being batted around in pre-List days!!

[Hasdrubal]

CivIII sure does have the looks, whether it will have the brains remains to be seen.

But with Firaxis' continually stressing their devotion to gameplay, I've got a good feeling that they will do it right.

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by Grumbold
I say your opinion doesn't matter either

Maybe not, but the thing the matter is that Civ I had more cool features then Civ II, as a cool review, newspaper headlines and other cool stuff.

[The Rusty Gamer]

Read column#172 at http://apolyton.net/misc/column/172_civ3.shtml.

Then vote if you haven't already.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Gramphos
Maybe not, but the thing the matter is that Civ I had more cool features then Civ II, as a cool review, newspaper headlines and other cool stuff.

Having played both civ and civ2 for a considerable period of time, I would say that is total crap. Civ was a damn sight less user friendly and intuitive, diplomacy was minimalistic and had far fewer techs, improvements, etc.

Nostalgically speaking, civ had some things I liked in hindsight, the backdrops to the leaders, stuff like that. Although civ2 didn't have these per se, they were just done in a different way. Civ2 was the superior game, just because of the refinements made to it. Civ was a game that needed updating, and it was. Civ2 is the same now, needs updating, invigorating. Too many people demand a total overhaul of the game, but that was never done for civ2. Most of the changes were cosmetic, user interface, or peripheral (ie, not the core of the game functioning but other important features; combat system, more techs, wonders, improvements). I think it is shaping up well; they aren't too radically changing the thing, it is still the same game mechanics underneath but polished up further and the gameplay more refined. They are adding to one real important part, interaction, whether in terms of diplomacy or trade, something that lacked in civ1 and civ2. So yeah, I think they are making damn fine progress IMO.

[The Rusty Gamer]

In light of more recent information about Civ 3, I just thought I'd bump this poll to the top again in case anyone hasn't voted yet.