All Your Views You've Ever Had About Civ3

TechWins · July 29, 2001, 18:09

What are some of things that you feel about Civ3? What should've been implemented into Civ3 (based on what you know), what would like Civ3 to be like, what do you think Civ3 will be like (based on what you know and don't know), how do you think the public should have been treated in the creating of Civ3, etc...?

Wiglaf · July 29, 2001, 18:38

I personally think civ3 should be delayed unit 2002, maybe 2003. It just hasn't seemed ground breaking from day one, something the sequel to the best TBS game ever should definitely be. The public was treated very poorly. The only people who hear about updates to the game are Apolyton members, not the millions of casual gamers out there.

A mid 2003 or late 2002 release would add time to develop a serious AI at least capable of beating the best of civ2 players, as well as added time for a massive PR campaign. Tons of difficulty levels, and more detailed graphics wouldn't hurt either...

Simpleton · July 29, 2001, 23:10

I don't think they'll ever get the AI right. Civ1 the AI was weak. Civ2 the AI was weak. SMAC the AI was weak. Don't even get me started on the CTP series (worst AI ever) Various programming teams have had 10 years since the Civ series started to try to create a great AI and none has. My point is they could delay the game 3, 4 or 10 years but AI would still struggle. Games like the CIV's are too complex for today's AI builds and substandard computing power. Given that Civ3 is more complex than every Civ before it the absolute best we can hope for is that the AI is as competent as it was in Civ2.

TechWins · July 30, 2001, 00:49

Quote:

I personally think civ3 should be delayed unit 2002, maybe 2003.

I think if Firaxis feels that they can get the game out in 2001 with the game being just as good as it would be with a 2002 release then I'm all for it. If they don't feel that way then the game needs to be delayed until when ever the game is complete.

Quote:

The public was treated very poorly. The only people who hear about updates to the game are Apolyton members, not the millions of casual gamers out there.

When was the last time even Apolytoners heard an update? Answer to my question, Friday, May 11, 2001 was the last time we got an official update. I do agree that info. needs to be relayed to even the casual gamers. They need to do more than what they have in giving info. They need to give the true Civ3 followers an ample amount of info. and the casual gamers bits and pieces of info. They could give the true Civ3 followers plenty of info. by providing info. at their official site, giving info. to Civ3 forumers, and disscussing Civ3 with Civ3 forumers every now and then. They could also hold a live chat at their site maybe every month or so that would answer some of the questions we have. Firaxis has to realize none of the true Civ3 followers are really looking for a big surprise when playing the game. To supply bits and pieces of info. to the casual gamers Firaxis could send some self made previews of the game every now and then to top gaming sites (gamespot.com, gamezone.com, etc..) and asking them (top game site) to try their hardest in spreading this info. to their users. In return to these game sites Firaxis could provide links to these sites from their official site. Just a thought.

Quote:

I don't think they'll ever get the AI right. Civ1 the AI was weak. Civ2 the AI was weak. SMAC the AI was weak.

I never played Civ1 but I would imagine the AI from Civ1 to Civ2 was an improvement. I know Civ2's AI to SMAC's AI was a slight improvement. Having a great AI in Civ3 would be great but it's most likely not going to happen. I would be happy with an AI that would just be competent. Nothing more nothing less. When I say competent I mean an AI that can handle the basic premises of the game. What I'm saying is that the AI needs to be handle the go to command, the automated settler, the resource system, a good city placement, etc... correctly and consistently. I don't expect the AI to be able to beat me, I just want a slightly challenging AI and an AI that can again correctly and consistently manage some of the tedious work. Firaxis hear me out, give me at least a competent AI!

SerapisIV · July 30, 2001, 01:08

I thought that the SMAC AI was a huge improvement over Civ2. The AI cheats much less and actually plays by the rules of the game. The AI's wars, while not as focused as a human player, are much improved and there is real personality amongst the leaders, they actually act different. One of the biggest hurdles for the AI is dealing with growth limited factions in SMAC, but the war-mongers can be a tough bunch. Civ2 never achieved that in my opinion, all that game had was blatant cheating. In SMAC the AI, although given cheaper production advantages, is still worlds ahead of Civ2.

OneFootInTheGrave · July 30, 2001, 05:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Simpleton
I don't think they'll ever get the AI right. Civ1 the AI was weak. Civ2 the AI was weak. SMAC the AI was weak. Don't even get me started on the CTP series (worst AI ever) Various programming teams have had 10 years since the Civ series started to try to create a great AI and none has. My point is they could delay the game 3, 4 or 10 years but AI would still struggle. Games like the CIV's are too complex for today's AI builds and substandard computing power. Given that Civ3 is more complex than every Civ before it the absolute best we can hope for is that the AI is as competent as it was in Civ2.

Try CTP II with med mod this is the best AI in a Civ game so far, strange but true. CTP II ai is actually good, but it needed modding and balancing to make it work.

Anyway for civ III I have no comments, it is rather wait and see. I think it will be interesting and different from the past civ games, but I would think it is impossible for it to capture my imagination as the Original Civ did...

Solver · July 30, 2001, 07:20

I think it was groundbreaking, and will definitely be. Look, developing it for too much time isn't exactly what we need. For instance, Age of Mythology is now being created for 4 years, and still isn't here. I don't see a single reason why would Civ 3 fail - it has better gameplay than previous Civ games, and that's what we need.
Also, release of Civ 3 in 2001 would keep the interest for me here. I am now starting to get bored with existing Civ games, as there's nothing new. CtP 2 is CtP, and SMAC is Civ 2 with additional concepts and poorer AI. Even though, still very good.
Before some amazing breakthrough is made, I doubt it's possible to make an excellent AI, people would need to learn to program computers more like humans, and to that, they need to discover how the human brain works and translate it into 1's and 0's. But, I have the feeling Civ 3 AI will be better than before, and will be good for enough time. I hope it will use the complexities of the game, not get stunned by it, and simply stand there, like it happens with SMAC, where the game is too complex for the AI to handle.

Buck Birdseed · July 30, 2001, 08:09

From the beginning all I wanted was a game that would be more easily customisable than Civ2 and definately SMAC. It seems that we're getting that, as well as more tools in free updates. Now, though, I'm getting more and more excited about the features, the graphics, the ideas... Love it, love it, love it!

Simpleton · July 30, 2001, 17:56

To OneFootInTheGrave: I will try the mod pack for CTP II. If it works as well as you say I may have gotten part of my $70 or so dollars worth.

To Solver: You say that Civ3 has better gameplay. How do you know? Have you actually played the final version? If so than I am glad to hear Civ3 is good. If not we can only judge what the AI and other elements of the game will be like from what has preceded it (i.e. Civ1, Civ2 and Smac). All three had weak AI. As I've said before there has been nothing to sway me into thinking otherwise. No word from Firaxis that they are making a dedicated effort to improve the AI just a lot of mumbo jumbo about all these new features.

My question to Firaxisis : How good is the AI at using all these new features as well as implementing everything you've imported from the previous Civ's? I suspect the upbeat answer they give (were they to reply) and the actual truth would be vastly different.

Simple and ....... pessimistic.

Warm Beer · July 30, 2001, 18:10

I am tending to straddle the fence when it come to the optimistic/pessimistic extremes that are on this board.

Optimistic: It is the sequal to the best stragegy game of all time; Improved trade; improved diplomacy; an extra playable civ; different winning conditions.

Pessimistic:The lack of dialogue between Firaxis and the fans (sorry, just about every other designer who is producing games that I anticipate buying has 'spoiled' me with an open ear and time to comment on fan's views, fears, joys etc.

); Some of the changes may not take civ3 out of the much maligned Civ 2.5 theory; and, honestly, some of the things that I am optimistic about have serious potential for disappointment if not implimented correctly.

I really don't have an opinion about the AI (ain't that silly?) because I am not expecting much as far as that department goes.

rah · July 31, 2001, 11:19

Quote:

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave

Try CTP II with med mod this is the best AI in a Civ game so far, strange but true. CTP II ai is actually good, but it needed modding and balancing to make it work.

Not a chance. I'm been playing a med mod game for the last couple of days. I'm already well into A.D. and no A.I. civ has attacked me yet. (even after catching me with my pants down twice, the AI stack backed away from my city) I've done everything I can to piss them off but they refuse to attack. They are technically equal. I've heard a lot of people say the AI is more aggressive in med mod, but they're just deluding themselves. THE AI STILL IS THE WORST IN THE CIV SERIES>
The only limiting factor in world conquest is the # of cities happiness problems. THE WORST WAY TO BALANCE A GAME>

RAH

Sabre2th · July 31, 2001, 12:18

Maybe the AI knows you're trying to bait it and is actually going to turn around destroy you when you let your guard down.

rah · July 31, 2001, 12:26

I wish any AI was that clever.

They had me dead to rights twice. And the worse thing is the first time (after hearing how much more aggressive it was) I actually felt fear. Then when they backed off.... I had to laugh. My city was on a plains with no defensive improvements. I only had 5 units in the city, (older units) and the advancing stack had 8 (the unit showing was modern. If they wouldn't attack with that advantage, what's the point.

But I will admit that the mod pack makes the game more interesting, but it really didn't help the AI at all.

RAH