Well I for one am happy! (The ultimate PRAISE civ3 thread)

Pythagoras · August 12, 2001, 15:15

It sounds like theres tons of cool new features, serve it up. I think the cultural system is awesome, and the graphics are awesome. Not too mention the tidbits of suprisses you will find that Firaxis hasnt talked about!! I love the idea of actually needing commodities to do things. I was VERY happy to see that they spent time on the game, and leaving only 16 civs. The customized civs sound awesome, and diplomacy seems to be a step above the rest! Im excited, bring it on!

Ralf · August 12, 2001, 15:34

Well, Im not that ecstatic, but on a whole I agree with you. Some confirmations on expected features and some minor graphical adjustments + a major strategical AI-improvement, is all I need to give the game "all time classic" best wishes.

Considering how some developers can handle upgrades on game-classics; SC 2000 -> SC 3000 (and get away with it), I say Civ-3 sky-rockets above both Civ-1/2 & ToT.

Phutnote · August 12, 2001, 23:14

I'm with Pythagoras on this one. How can such a renowned mathematician be wrong, anyway?

There seem to be lots of features in the game that haven't yet been talked about.

I'm a little confused about the Nationalism thing and the war/peace status you can choose. Is this only available for Nationalism? It sounds more like a tech advance that would be open to every government, rather than just Nationalist.

But as you say, the graphics are looking good.

Phutnote

marcuspeddle · August 13, 2001, 00:50

I'm also very optimistic about Civ3. The more I hear about it the more I want to play it. I thought SMAC was much better than Civ2 in diplomacy and gameplay but the dark graphics and the music made it much too depressing to play. Plus I like historical games more than science fiction. So, I'm thinking that if SMAC was so great then Civ3 will be even better in terms of diplomacy and gameplay. The graphics look bright so I won't feel like doing away with myself halfway through the game.

One thing I was a little disappointed with was the trigger for the golden age. I'm a peaceful player so I'm not likely to get many golden ages. I suppose in history golden ages have followed the aftermath of military exploits but I'm not sure about that. Anyway, I think players should get a golden age if they can stay at peace with all nations for a certain number of turns and have a high enough cultural rating. But that's just my opinion and I'm sure the game won't change for me. In spite of that I'm looking forward to playing.

Provost Harrison · August 13, 2001, 06:49

Yeah, different triggers for golden ages would be quite handy, and make them quite hard to predict. Otherwise you could just send a special unit off around the world just looking to pick a fight

Paul L · August 13, 2001, 06:54

Quote:

I'm a peaceful player so I'm not likely to get many golden ages

as far as I know each civ gets only one golden age.

Provost Harrison · August 13, 2001, 07:16

I think he meant in his whole civ3-playing career rather than in a game.

Rasputin · August 13, 2001, 07:30

They ahve included two of my suggestions in civ 3, the need to actually get resources to build things and also looks like including some sort of allaince move...

Just awaiting soem more MP stuff

Provost Harrison · August 13, 2001, 07:33

Well Ras I really don't think you have to worry about the MP stuff. It was assumed as standard with AC, and I would be extremely surprised if it wasn't supplied as standard with Civ3 in this day and age. It has been mentioned in passing, but Firaxis, and the buyer, just assume it is included nowadays...

marcuspeddle · August 13, 2001, 10:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I think he meant in his whole civ3-playing career rather than in a game.

That's what I meant.