The game seems to have a bias towards nerdy "relatively peaceful builders"

[Alexander's Horse]

Firstly, the ridiculous new rule that invaders cannot use roads. WTF?

Secondly, you can't destroy spaceships after launch - that was always fun

Thirdly, the strongly rumoured lack of multiplayer - what a joke

Fourthly, the use of culture to define borders, what are troops for?

Fifthly, that fact you MUST build improvements to expand your empire (tell that to the Mongols!), so much for ICS

Sixthly, the fact that some units, in fact mostly defenders, won't have a zone of control (tell that to the spartans!)

I think Firaxis is a bunch of peacenicks

And stacked combat seems to be out as well

[monkspider]

Wow, you're diety level! You are the only person I have ever seen anyone here to reach that level. I was going to challenge the whole "nerdy peaceful builder" remark, but as you are an omnipotent diety perhaps you know things better than I.

[monkspider]

All I can say is, perhaps there will be things implemented to help the war monger as well? The decrease to controlling 2/3 of the world will help things out immensely. There will be new unique units, better combat, "gunboat diplomacy", etc. Everything will work out.
Perhaps we should just put trust in Sid, he has always led us to victory in the past......

[monkspider]

besides, you warmongers have always gotten off easy in the past.

[saracen31]

I am a peacenik myself when playing Civ. But I must admit to having some of the same concerns - I can't believe they'll let the no road bonus stay in the game, and just last week I played a game of Civ 2 when I had to go after an enemy capital to destroy their spaceship.

That said, you can be assured there's plenty we don't yet know which may balance it out in the end.

[Lung]

Originally posted by monkspider
Wow, you're diety level! You are the only person I have ever seen anyone here to reach that level. I was going to challenge the whole "nerdy peaceful builder" remark, but as you are an omnipotent diety perhaps you know things better than I.

Wow! That must have taken MILLIONS of complaints!

You're absolutely right, AH. I smelled a rat when i ran the CivIII screensaver and the warrior won....every time!

Dan has given some lame defences of not-so-special units' lame bonuses, but the Jaguar Warrior has surpassed his lamest defences by a mile. "Hey, if you rush-build a couple of hundred JW's and quickly place them on your enemy's doorstep, you can capture an unwalled city with no terrain bonuses defended by a lone warrior!"

You will be limited to waging war against only your stupidest enemies, but you won't have to worry about human opponents because there won't be multiplayer!

Oh, wait a minute, i want multiplayer!

There better be something in it for us warmongers or CivIII will be the domain of tree huggers and peaceniks! Worse still, Paul of CivII OCC (One City Challenge) and CTP fame will be INVINCIBLE!!!

[Jeje2]

He truly deserves it by just asking for a program that can do anything.

Sorry AH, but I'm personally quite happy that Civ III is more about non-war. If you want war, but Panzer General III or something...



I can understand railroad restrictions in war (Ex. WWII Germany in Russia), but roads giving no benmefit on enemy soil? (How about making it 1/2 mp/square on enemy soil and 1/3 mp/square on own land?)

[GaryGuanine]

Destroying the spaceship thing was always nonsense. The only way to destroy a spaceship after launch is to build something that'll go out there and get it, and if you can do that, then that same thing can arrive on Alpha Centauri faster than the one already launched, and you can win that way. It doesn't address the launch/arrive difference, but it still doesn't make sense.

Gary

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by GaryGuanine

The only way to destroy a spaceship after launch is to build something that'll go out there and get it

I'd settle for that

[Oerdin]

I couldn't agree with AH more that it is TOTALLY unrealistic that invaders won't get movement bonuses for roads. Somebody should have told that to the Germans in 1940 and maybe France would have never fallen.

The other big ***** I have is the lack of multiplayer support. MP is all I play because, let's face it, the AI is a total moroon. To not offer MP support is a HUGE over sit on Fraxis's part and no I do not accept this vage "we'll try to get MP support released in six months or so" fudge by Fraxis. They should release a complete game the 1st time around and not dribble it out in patches over the course of a year.

Heck, I bet only one person in four ever actually installs the patches...

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Firstly, the ridiculous new rule that invaders cannot use roads. WTF?

Secondly, you can't destroy spaceships after launch - that was always fun

Thirdly, the strongly rumoured lack of multiplayer - what a joke

Fourthly, the use of culture to define borders, what are troops for?

Fifthly, that fact you MUST build improvements to expand your empire (tell that to the Mongols!), so much for ICS

Sixthly, the fact that some units, in fact mostly defenders, won't have a zone of control (tell that to the spartans!)

I think Firaxis is a bunch of peacenicks

And stacked combat seems to be out as well

[Sun Zi 36]

AH, how can u have date registered as 1970? Has this site been created back then?

quote: "Wow, you're diety level! You are the only person I have ever seen anyone here to reach that level. I was going to challenge the whole "nerdy peaceful builder" remark, but as you are an omnipotent diety perhaps you know things better than I."

I wouldn't withhold my opinion if i were u. U should assess people's remarks by the content of the remark, not by who made the remark. I don't take the level stuff very seriously anyway. I know some people who are very experienced with a game but only very rarely visits the game's forums. And i know some people who frequently visits gaming forums but actually only played the game a few times.

Back to the topic, I wouldn't want civ3 to be too peace driven. But as history proves it, the most extreme warlike civilizations had the shortest time periods in which they were siginficant (and sometimes they weren't even classifed as a civilized people). Eg, the Mongols, Vikings, Zulus.

Using culture to define borders is just realism, the troops are used for capturing cities.

Yes, the Mongols didn't build improvements but built a huge empire, that's why they fell so quickly and got assimulated by local culture.

I guess civ3 would be much more sophisticaed, and u cannot conquer the world by PURE war, which is the beauty of it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's good. Seeing as how Civ2 was basically military based, use peaceful builders need someway to have some fun. Culture is a great addition and allows for new strategies needed. After all, which civ has really conquered the world? Let alone by 1 AD!

And monkspider... see my post count too

[El hidalgo]

I'm not a war-monger myself, but these are some valid concerns.

The rule about invaders not being able to use roads is ridiculous.

I agree, military should have a strong effect in determining borders. But it should not be the primary determinant. Culture determines how a people think of themselves; military determines what they can do about it. Once the invader's boot is lifted you go back to your old ways (unless the invader has a strong culture). Example: China after the (Mongol) Yuan dynasty. So maybe the territory is yours but only as long as you have troops there enforcing your culture (maybe if you have enough culture points you don't have to station as many troops). Move the troops, the people rebel; also they rebel if your units become obsolete (the Mongols can only oppress as long as their mounted archers are effective, and they're only effective until something better comes around).

MP -- don't really care about that; sorry. It would be cool, but it's not a big concern of mine.

Shouldn't have to build improvements to expand, agree. But instead you should have to have a huge and powerful army composed of the most modern units. Otherwise you can't enforce borders.

Some units don't have ZOC -- I'm not worried about that. Some units shouldn't. But some units will -- just build those . If worse comes to worse you can edit it in rules.txt (or whatever the equivalent is).

Firaxis a bunch of peaceniks? Maybe. I think the game was too biased toward military before, and now they're trying to balance it out. Maybe they are going too far the other direction, though? I don't think so, but we will soon find out. I think the fact that you don't have to conquer the whole world will help a lot in pursuing a military strategy. I am sure there are many surprises in store for us as well -- hopefully pleasant ones.

[Urban Ranger]

AH,

All I say is, "tough."

Civ used to heavily biased towards the warmongers, in the new release both sides are getting even.

Speaking of realism, which country had ever conquested 2/3 of this world? Not the Mongols, not the Brits. So why should you be able to?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hear, Hear UR!

Let's hear it for balance! For ****ing once!

[Skanky Burns]

Firstly, the Road Rule:
I really hate to say this, but i agree with you There should be some bonus for using roads, like the mentioned 1/2 movement points idea. I am glad that railroad bonuses for invaders is gone tho.

Spaceship launch:
Get them while they are still on the ground!!

MP:
Im gonna reserve judgement on that until Firaxis says something about it... and even then i wont care, dont play MP much

Culture:
Definately a good thing. No more will your Indian allies build a city right in the middle of your empire, forcing you to destroy it and the rest of their civilization... on second thoughts
If an enemy cities culture threatens your scummy cities, That is what your troops are for. Crush it!!

Buildings:
ICS need only 1 culture producing building to expand their border 1 square out, allowing them to access a resource.

ZOC:
Some units dont have a Zone of Control. If you want to control an area, Build the ones that Do have a ZOC!!

And finally, there is army combat, just not as much as (i believe was in) CTP.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by monkspider
Wow, you're diety level! You are the only person I have ever seen anyone here to reach that level. I was going to challenge the whole "nerdy peaceful builder" remark, but as you are an omnipotent diety perhaps you know things better than I.

Nah, he is just a prolific spammer

AH, most of your complaints basically go against the List. I mean, you would throw out literally every single change introduced since Civ2, leaving Civ 2.1 with a tad better graphics...

Personally, I really enjoy a bit of a peaceful building. Plus, all those rules might be offset by some simple additional rule that enables fun and intense wars. We won't know until Civ3 ships....

[yin26]

Well, Sid never wanted Civ to be a warmonger game alone...he wanted peaceful tactics to be equally rewarding, etc. One has to wonder, however, if the pendulum might not be swinging too far in the other direction? One thing that worries me most is the pacing of the game...indications are things will be much slower out of the gate. Compound this with the apparently more difficult ability to go on the offense, and you could really have a game that drags.

Again, this is why I am waiting until March or April to decide.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by LaRusso


Nah, he is just a prolific spammer

Check the credits on the Civ III lists smart arse. Some of us were here before you were ever heard of. Then we left it to kiddies like you and see the results

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Check the credits on the Civ III lists smart arse. Some of us were here before you were ever heard of. Then we left it to kiddies like you and see the results

I had another login, did not use it for 6 months, had my puter replaced and could not remember the password. And yes, I bow down to your post count

[Earthling7]

Firstly, the ridiculous new rule that invaders cannot use roads. WTF?
- Roads are the most heavily defended structures during a war. I can't really see an invading army taking the Intercity train, departing at 10:46 and the defenders just waiting nervously in the cities. Why would you be able to use an enemy's infrastructure?

Secondly, you can't destroy spaceships after launch - that was always fun
- Fun and unrealistic. You think a spaceship would be remote-controlled from Earth? As we may remember from SMAC, they lost contact, so whatever happens on Earth would not affect the spaceship.

Thirdly, the strongly rumoured lack of multiplayer - what a joke
- As long as they include it later. We'll all be able to rehearse and get used to the new rules, before humiliating ourselves online

Fourthly, the use of culture to define borders, what are troops for?
- If OBL was to not just attack NY, but conqeur it, would all New Yorkers automatically become Saudis, Afghans or whatever? No, they're Americans, and they would be pissed off.

Fifthly, that fact you MUST build improvements to expand your empire (tell that to the Mongols!), so much for ICS
- What do they say, Build an Empire to Stand the Test of Time. How long did the Mongols last?

Sixthly, the fact that some units, in fact mostly defenders, won't have a zone of control (tell that to the spartans!)
- I have a phalanx on a hill. An enemy chariot passes through the valley below. My phalanx is useless. Different if it's a bombarding unit.

I think Firaxis is a bunch of peacenicks
- As much as the world has been at war, peace is the default state of things. I find it rather silly that anyone can go to war with anyone whenever, just because they feel like it. It may have been like that in the old days, but not now. I think Firaxis is great!

And stacked combat seems to be out as well
- Now, that would be a shame! I could back you on that.

[Bleyn]

I might as well throw in my 2 cents worth on a couple of points.

4. Historically troops can establish a boarder, they can even attempt to maintain one, but without cultural similarity or whatever you want to call it, they will ultimately fail to maintain it just about every time. There are numerous examples of this, not just the Mongols in China. Here are a couple that come to my mind.

Alexander the Great created a vast empire by force of his armies, and it collapsed within years of his death.

English rule in Ireland. Almost a classic example of this. The cultural differences between Catholic Ireland and Protestant England were so great that the only way that England could maintain its rule was by force of arms. And you can see the bloody results of those policies in the British Isles even today.

A boarder based on a cultural value is better then something defined by troop positions, and at least as good as the system used in SMAC which was just based on city position.

6. Some units just plain should not have a zone of control. You have to keep in mind that the squares in the game represent rather large amounts of space. A zone of control is a representation of the ability of a unit to project its power. For most of history, this meant the ability of the unit to move swiftly and still be able to attack at the end of the movement.

A fortified phalanx should not have a zone of control because it has no way to project power. A cavalry unit should have a small zone of control because it does have some ability to move larger distances at some speed and still attack.

In an example of modern units, an aircraft carrier should have a fairly large zone of control because it really represents a carrier battlegroup. And within the striking range of the air arm of a carrier battlegroup, nothing exists on the water or in the air without the knowledge and permission of the carrier. A submarine, on the other hand, really should not have a zone of control. With the exception of the strategic arms of a ballestic missle sub, their striking range has always been severly limited, and their ability to project power essentially nullified by the operational doctrine of constant stealth. If you don't know the sub is out there, it may be able to hurt you, but unless it attacks it can not affect your operations without surrendering its advantage of stealth. If you don't know the carrier battlegroup is out there, you might as well be dead.

[gremalkin]

Hear, hear, Earthling7!

Everything mentioned in this thread is going to make the game more interesting IMO..

Let's wait for the game before we claim that it is too peaceful. I'm sure some interesting military tactics will be available.. It just makes it slightly more of a challenge for those with militaristic tendancies, which is more fun, right?

[fluffy]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Spaceship launch:
Get them while they are still on the ground!!

Will the other players be able to attack a partially constructed spaceship before launch?

If not, how can you stop it, apart from capturing their entire empire?

[Stuie]

Firstly, bringing back the ability to raze cities to the ground after conquest. WTF?

Secondly, you can capture and enslave enemy units that have a zero defense.

Thirdly, the strongly rumoured lack of multiplayer - what a joke (sorry, but what's this have to do with warmongering vs. peaceful play?)

Fourthly, Smart Weapons: Allows you to pick an improvement to destroy when attacking

Fifthly, that fact you can switch to a wartime economy and pay HALF to build military improvements and units

Sixthly, Battleships can bombard once for every point of movement they have (4 movement points)

I think Firaxis is a bunch of warmongering terrorists and should be targeted by the US government.

And stacked combat seems to be in as well

[shade]

Auwch,seems like both sides are improved,peace and war.

Shade

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by fluffy
Will the other players be able to attack a partially constructed spaceship before launch?

Im pretty sure that taking their capital would destroy their spaceship.

Just had a flash of inspiration They would probably be building the spaceship in the city with the Apollo Project small wonder, so taking that city out would prevent them from launching. But this is just speculation.

[Th0mas]

........seems like both sides are improved,peace and war.

... Seems to me, Fraxis have designed a more rounded, more improved Civtastic game.

Can't wait to play - - - - if my wife will let me

[Master Marcus]

Since a vast majority seem to play "hybrid", not to be a total warmonger exterminator nor a pink peacemaker, I think the new rules applied in Civ3 are in a good way to satisfy the most. All kinds of gameplay styles should be...highly playable considering the customizable options.

[dainbramaged13]

another advantage for warmongers... you can probably use smart weapons to take out enemy spaceships without even taking ths city!