First Impressions

[Raion]

I have not had the time to fully test the game, but one thing I noticed I had not done is take off some of the ways to win which may make the game respond differently. I did not go for BloodLust in Civ II, but it is on by default as a way to win. Actually there are two of them, which one I am not sure, one is Domination, and the other is similiar, which leaves Culture. Diplomacy or Spaceship as a way of winning the game or the Histograph way after all other ways have not developed.
Since then, I have started a new game with 5 other civ's that I pick out, and I am on a large continent island with no other Civ around. It will be a couple of weeks before I can continue that game to see if there is a difference, which I think that there is.
Others have been changing the Civ3mod.bic file of the rules to change the game around for corruption or hit points of later military units by changing the values by 1, 2, 3, 4, for each period of the game.
Until then, I forget to change the ways to win, which all are on by default. I also taken off the Civ's specific abilities also, as to just play a normal type Civ II type game.
Well, that is all, I think somewhere else mentioned on this forum in the FAQ section, a person said a patch is coming out.
All I actually have missed so far is the CHEAT menu item so I could watch the computer play its self after starting a game, that was fun to me, just to sit back and relax and watch the computer play out the game.
If I remember right, Civ II did not have all of those options either when it came out, but Sid and crew, put all that stuff in later in one of the upgraded patches, which came out with the scenario's disk later in an included patch upgrade.
Until later, I still am finding out about CIV III.
But some of the new options I like, like when America captured some of my workers, but I got them back by recapturing, and I think that some new ways of the game have to be checked out by playing more before I can comment on them.
I think I forgotten some things that happened with CIV II, when it was first released, and then what it became with patches that made most people happy and able to build those scenario's that a few of them I really liked -- like the NWO order one with the Dreamland units in it.

[cutlerd]

Basickillr writes:

<
I think the last straw for me was in a fit of rage I bombarded a caraval 17 times with radar artillery and didnt sink it...in fact i guess you cant sink ships with bombard.>>

Which you should have figured out fairly quickly. Bombardment not killing things has been around since CTP1. Bombardment is not designed to be a substitute for attacking. It is, rightfully IMO, designed to accomplish things that attacking cannot do, such as destroying improvements, reducing population, destroying roads, etc. Bombardment allows one to fight an economic and infrastructural battle against an opponent (especially if one's enemy is far away on a huge map). If you want to kill things be a man and attack them!

<< I started at the highest level and backed down through to the lowest, at deity just forget it...the only fun is deciding how your gonna lose.>>

Gee...what did you expect from a level called DEITY LEVEL where it even warns you how tough it is?

<>

First, your artillery is not useless. The AI will send any ships bombarding you back to port if you damage them even slightly. I was also being bombarded heavily by 10 civs in a 16 civ huge map game and I simply built up my cannons and started damaging any ship that came next to my coastline. Given that it took a damaged ship several turns to sail home and repair, I ended up quite efficiently halting the massive bombardment (or at least bringing it down to a level where my workers could keep pace).

Second, there is a stated and known bug regarding air interdiction. It does not work for the player...only for the AI. Does this suck? Yes...but it is being patched and the game is still quite playable without it.

<< So 6 turns into the war nearly every city I have is starving and mad(no roads mines or irrigation, no luxuries +war weariness), my research is at 0 to keep trying to fund my massive yet useless land army since the computer never made more then a token attempt to land troops, my production is a fraction of what it was...no mines and cities loosing population fast. I have wooden ships blowing up my roads...bombard was a nice idea but the thought that a unit can jump in destroy a road network completely and then jump back just boggles the mind. Have you actually thought about what it would take to destroy a road network....ummmm....1000's of ships and aircraft doing nothing but dropping bombs and shells for months...We bombed Iraq for a month with carpet bombing and precision weapons and barely dented their transportation infrastructure...destroying roads networks is so much more then dropping a few bridges....but hey it doesnt have to make sense in a game i guess. >>

You are playing a game where it takes a battleship years to circumnavigate the globe. Civ is not the place for utter realism my friend. And thank God for that...or the game would take 3 years just to play!

<>

Position cannons and artillery on your road networks. You are complaining because the AI actually bombards intelligently? And, BTW, I have seen the AI bombard a city plenty of times. But they like to isolate it first before hitting the city itself...often as a prelude to invasion of that city. Nice tactics from the AI if you ask me.

<>

I have a Democracy on the huge map that controls an area far in excess of the US and I am managing corruption just fine thank you. If you move your capital city and use the forbidden palace properly and build out your courthouses corruption will not overwhelm a Democracy in Civ3. The US can exist, BTW. Who says we don't have corruption in this country?

<>

Strategic resources are one of the best features of the game and historically the cause of many wars. Are there, once again, compromises to reality made for these? Yes. But I'd rather not have to hunt down tungsten and zinc and copper resources in the name of aobsolute reality. The current set of resources do nicely to encourage trade, differentiate the haves from the have nots, allow certain civs to shine during certain ages, and promote conflict for scarce resources.

<>

Forget small maps. Play Civ3 on a huge map with 16 civs for a truly awesome experience. That's all I play. Machevellian intrigue at every turn. Turns can take a minute or two but so what? You want an adrenaline rush go play an RTS.

<>

You mean the swamp that doesn't even exist in CIV3? There is no swamp.

<<...but hey, on the bright side Ill probably have some coal...oh yeah, Ill be dead long before then. 24 turns to clear jungle? In B.C. times whats that translate to...1 or 2 eons give or take...these people not heard of slash and burn...oh thats right, there is no discover fire tech so they actually are digging every stump out of the ground. >>

So take a few turns at start and find more suitable terrain. If you are playing on such a high level that a few turns lost at the start of the game means you cannot win the game, then play at a lower level. I don't think there is any dishonour in playing lower levels of difficulty and don't understand the big Civfan fascination with struttting around like a peacock proclaiming that you can beat Deity level.

<>

Is this any different from CIV2? To be honest, I've yet to see a civ in Civ3 nuke anyone. In CIV2 they used to throw out nukes like crazy. So at the very least you are in the same boat as CIV2.

<>

Terraforming was extremely unrealistic and just not necessary IMO. Since when have we been able to level the Rocky Mountains? Save that kind of stuff for SMAC and sci-fi.

As far as irrigation goes...you can certainly survive without it now that you can mine grasslands. Is it ideal? No. But take that as a part of the challenge of the game.

<>

No...the problem is that you are very set in your CIV2 modus operandi and dislike that CIV3 forces you to think outside of the CIV2 box. I fail to see how, on one hand you complain that the AI is too easy to dominate and on the other hand you complain that starting positions makes the game too hard. My advice? Don't feel like you have to smack around on Emperor or Deity level. Play a lower level game with more civs until you find the right balance where you are challenged yet at the same time have a chance to win even if starting from a bad position (like jungle or no irrigation). That might be a 16 civ game on Regent level or an 8 civ game on a higher level.

I just don't understand some of these die hard CIV2 players who are complaining because they can't just hop into Deity level on CIV3 and rock the world. Slow down....and enjoy the game.

Devin

[rid102]

Bombardment not killing things has been around since CTP1.

QED.

Yes, CTP - Call To Power. NOT Civilization. If I want a CTP style game, I'll play CTP.

Bombardment is just plain silly in Civ3.

Civ is not the place for utter realism my friend.

However, abstraction based upon realism is what is should be. Seems to me you are quite happy with the level of realism varying wildily through different aspects of the game. Longbowmen in 2000AD when you can build Armour (if only I had Oil!) is not a deviation from "utter realism", it's just plain ludicrous.

There has to be some realistic grounding through abstraction in order to create a believable game world and quite frankly, through all "innovations" in gameplay your probably think Civ3 has, they have been at the sacrifice of creating a game that is also believable.

Forget small maps.

Why should I have to? The game has an option to play small maps, so why not? Some of the most intense and frenetic games can be played with small maps and a large number of civs.

Turns can take a minute or two but so what?

Then again, we can't all take "3 years just to play" can we?

The current set of resources do nicely to encourage trade, differentiate the haves from the have nots, allow certain civs to shine during certain ages, and promote conflict for scarce resources.

Not quite.

The current set of resources necessitate trade and also neuter scientific advancement. Overall they are an improvement but they need a lot more refinement. E.g. I can fly to the moon but I can't build railroads because my backwards neighbours haven't discovered Coal and I don't have any in my territory. Gimme a break. That's not pandering to realism, that's just silly.

I don't think there is any dishonour in playing lower levels of difficulty

Neither do I. In fact, I think you'll find most people who are real "fans" of the Civ series don't really play the game to win but more play the game for the fun of playing it and the enjoyment you get from "ruling your empire".

That's one reason why I don't think that adding a host of additional ways of "winning" is necessarily a good thing either. Civ really isn't about "winning" in terms of the Space Race or conquering the world.

No...the problem is that you are very set in your CIV2 modus operandi and dislike that CIV3 forces you to think outside of the CIV2 box.

I think this is very true. When I first started playing Civ3, I played it like Civ2 and if you do that you plain just don't do well.

However, why was it that I could play Civ2 when I first got it just like I played Civ1, except with all the extra features and do reasonably well?

If you're having to think "outside of the Civ2 box" then surely you're also thinking "outside the Civ box"? In which case, how can you even claim that Civ3 is really a "Civilization" game??

IMHO Civ3 has nearly as much in common with the CTP series as it does the Civ series.

When going from Civ1 to Civ2, the moral was "If it ain't broke, don't fix".

When going from Civ2 to Civ3, Firaxis should have done the same thing IMHO. They are not refining the Civ genre with Civ3, they are just changing it.

[cutlerd]

"QED.

Yes, CTP - Call To Power. NOT Civilization. If I want a CTP style game, I'll play CTP.

Bombardment is just plain silly in Civ3."

Who is to say a good point cannot be borrowed from CTP? If bombardment simply kills units, as many people seem to want, then it basically becomes undifferantiated from attacking. I like bombardment now because it does things completely different from attacking. Attacking and bombarding are two separate avenues of attack and compliment each other nicely.

Is it utterly realistic that bombardment takes out roads? Probably not. But bombardment has historically been effective in slowing the movement of goods and troops, especially viz a viz airpower. If you wanted more realism you would essentially have to bifurcate the bombardment system into three separate systems....naval, air, and land based bombardments and you would have to give spearate qualities to each. I.e. naval bombardment cannot take out roads and improvements but can bombard cities and coastal units, land bombardment can bombard cities and ships and land units but not take out roads, and air bombardment can take out roads, can bomb cities and units, and can sink naval units (of course you then have to give naval units anti-aircraft abilities).

The entire thing becomes IMO far too complicated. Civ is NOT a historical wargame. In the pantheon of table top WW2 games it is about on the level of Axis & Allies....above Risk and below Advanced Squad Leader, Advanced Third Reich, or World in Flames.

I just fail to understand people complaining about something as facile as naval bombardment destroying coastal roads when on a huge map it takes a battleship 32 years to circumnavigate the globe! What Civ is supposed to do, aside from providing a challenging game where one must balance multiple dynamically tense systems, is broadly simulate the grand sweep of history. IMO it does that well and Civ 3 does it MUCH better than Civ 2.

"However, abstraction based upon realism is what is should be. Seems to me you are quite happy with the level of realism varying wildily through different aspects of the game. Longbowmen in 2000AD when you can build Armour (if only I had Oil!) is not a deviation from "utter realism", it's just plain ludicrous."

And what is your solution here? How do you force someone to upgrade their units? See...the problem is that you cannot get a realistic outcome from a situation where reality has been deviated from. We do not have a situation on earth where a society of bowmen had to go up against a society of tanks. But in CIV this can happen. What should we do about this? Should we make it so that any civ not in the same age as another is basically toast? That is probably very realistic but not much fun if you have to trash you game if you fall behind.

One thing I disliked about Civ2 was that basically once you got armour and your opponents had railed their nation...the game was over and it was just about going through the motions. You land infinite numbers of tanks, use the rails for infinite movement, and kill everyone. Got very boring. Now, in Civ3, even if you are the man with the tanks...you have to balance corruption, war weariness, civs embargoing you, and the fact that you do not get infinite movement along hostile rail lines.

There have been a slew of realistic games that can now be found in the bargain bins of Comp USA. You play them once, marvel at their reality, and then never play them again.

"There has to be some realistic grounding through abstraction in order to create a believable game world and quite frankly, through all "innovations" in gameplay your probably think Civ3 has, they have been at the sacrifice of creating a game that is also believable."

Really? In Civ2 there was no bombardment at all. So the introduction of a bombardment function (no matter how flawed you might perceive it) suddenly lessens the realism? That makes no sense. Where else specifically has Civ 3 become LESS real as compared to Civ 2?

"Why should I have to? The game has an option to play small maps, so why not? Some of the most intense and frenetic games can be played with small maps and a large number of civs."

You don't HAVE to. But if the small map games are not suiting you, don't ***** about it....go to a larger map game with more civs.

"The current set of resources necessitate trade and also neuter scientific advancement. Overall they are an improvement but they need a lot more refinement. E.g. I can fly to the moon but I can't build railroads because my backwards neighbours haven't discovered Coal and I don't have any in my territory. Gimme a break. That's not pandering to realism, that's just silly."

No...it is necessary. The idea is to allow civs without a given resource to still play the game. What you essentially are calling for is the need basically for iron, coal, aluminum, oil, and rubber to fly into space. That's just too onerous a requirement. Most of the resource requirements now are designed to hamper you in one age a lot, another age slightly, and not at all thereafter. This lets a civ without access to a given resource to struggle through the "key age" and come out with a chance.

I've played a game with no iron and managed to struggle through until I got saltpeter and horses and game into my own again.

So once again, the resource structure is a way to introduce the concept of resources without hamstringing those civs that might be missing a resource so much that they might as well give up the game.

"However, why was it that I could play Civ2 when I first got it just like I played Civ1, except with all the extra features and do reasonably well?"

Because Civ2 was basically Civ 1 with bells and whistles. Civ 3 is basically a new game.

"If you're having to think "outside of the Civ2 box" then surely you're also thinking "outside the Civ box"? In which case, how can you even claim that Civ3 is really a "Civilization" game??

IMHO Civ3 has nearly as much in common with the CTP series as it does the Civ series.

When going from Civ1 to Civ2, the moral was "If it ain't broke, don't fix"."

And likewise, if it ain't broke, then don't play it (the new Civ). If Civ 2 was the ultimate in Civ gaming experience for you, then continue to play it. It sounds to me as if what you really wanted was Civ 2.5. As for me, I am much happier with Civ 3 and the new challenges and tactics it requires. In my opinion, Civ 3 offers much more in terms of breadth of experience and therefore much more in terms of replayability. Civ 2 became the same game over and over again after a while.

Devin

[rid102]

Who is to say a good point cannot be borrowed from CTP?

Equally, who is to say that bombardment is a good point from CTP?

Attacking and bombarding are two separate avenues of attack and compliment each other nicely.

Personally, I think the problem many people have with bombardment is fundamentally it is good yet many feel the implementation is too weak. Bombard units are (relatively) expensive for units which can't actually kill things. With Civ1 and Civ2, people were always used to unit like Cannons etc. being able to kill like normal units (although suffering with weak defense) yet Civ3 has changed this. E.g Radar Artillery cannot sink a Caravel etc.

Is it utterly realistic that bombardment takes out roads?

No, but it is believable. I can use my imagination to pretend that roads/irrigation were shelled/burnt and rendered useless. I don't find the fact that Radar Artillery can't sink a wooden raft nor can my Battleship destroy a Warrior via bombardment particularly believable. I can accept it happening sometimes but nearly all the time? That's not believable by any stretch of the imagination, at least not for me.

If you wanted more realism

I don't necessarily want more realism, I want more believability. That does mean taking everything down to pedantic detail but rather putting in place mature enough abstraction mechanism which keep the game fun but also build atmosphere and believability.

E.g. Civ1 is a great game. It's not very realistic at all, in fact it's a lot less realistic than Civ2, yet it is still highly enjoyable because it's abstract enough to be believable and to create an absorbing game world.

is broadly simulate the grand sweep of history.

This is an interesting point I've seen before. Ultimately, there are two juxtaposed elements to the Civilization games (and Civ3 is no except here, in fact a few other games also fall into this catagory), namely those elements are strategy and simulation.

A game which is pure strategy is a lot more along the lines of something like Risk, in which case there really is little or no amount of historical coherence.

On the reverse end of the spectrum you then have game which aim to offer a strategy element while basically trying to adhere to the same general historic timeline as our own.

IMHO Civ3 leans more toward the second camp whereas I feel that Civ1 and Civ2 struck more of a balance between the two.

I prefer a game where I am defining history on my own little world rather than following history rigidly. The tech tree of Civ3 forces you down a narrower, more pre-deteremined path IMHO.

And what is your solution here?

Personally, I think that more refining is needed. Perhaps even more simplicity. Conceptually, there was very little "wrong" with even Civ1. A few things needed streamlining but that was about it. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" - yet it was "fixed" by Civ2 and "FIXED" by Civ3 by adding a host of new features which really weren't necessary. From a purist's standpoint, Civ3 really has little in common with "Civilization".

How do you force someone to upgrade their units?

I think that's the wrong attitude to take. I wouldn't want to "force" the player into doing anything (yet Civ3 does, e.g. resources). Civ1 never had upgrade options for units yet was not criticised for it - why? Because the overall level of abstraction in the game was high enough for the player to ignore it. E.g. If I had any Phalanx left over in the city in 2000AD in Civ1 I'd imagine them as being a kind of "Honour Guard" - not really intended to fight but ceremonial.

See...the problem is that you cannot get a realistic outcome from a situation where reality has been deviated from.

I'm not asking for 100% realism, that is just silly. I just want something which is more believable and more consistent. The levels of abstraction just vary too wildly in Civ3 to create something which captures the imagination, for me. E.g. On one level, my cities just generate commerce (high level abstraction) yet on another I have to deal with the specifics of resources and resource trading (low level abstraction).

Should we make it so that any civ not in the same age as another is basically toast?

Ironically, I think this would actually work a lot better in Civ3 because of the AI and science advancement, all nations tend to stay a lot closer to each other than in Civ1/Civ2. It's a lot harder to become a technological breakaway country and get far ahead of the pack.

One thing I disliked about Civ2 was that basically once you got armour and your opponents had railed their nation

That depends very much how you play the game. I agree it's not ideal, but ersonally, I had very little enjoyment or satisfaction from doing that. I played Civ2 because I preferred building up a huge perfectionist empire and being a global superpower. IMHO "winning" the game by conquering all other nations is a very hollow victory. For me, winning is much more than just military actions.

Ristricting rail movement (e.g. to 10 tiles/mp a la CTP) and/or restricting movement in enemy territory and/or restricting attacks all help to circumvent this. Given defenders an advantage either explicitly through increasing defense value or implicitly through neutering bombard units is not the solution IMHO.

Really? In Civ2 there was no bombardment at all. So the introduction of a bombardment function (no matter how flawed you might perceive it) suddenly lessens the realism?

Yes, for a couple of important reasons:

a) It's flawed and castrates units which were previously highly effective.

and:

b) On the note of "realism" the actual scale of map tiles is a couple of hundred miles square for each. No cannon could bombard 200 miles. No Battleship can bombard 400 miles. That's not realistic at all. Civ1/Civ2 abstracted this sufficienty by disregarding tile-to-tile bombardments and instead just using the normal combat model. Simple.

The idea is to allow civs without a given resource to still play the game.

I don't think that's really true. Go back to my example of railroads. The player being penalised for having got ahead in the science race. They have the tech but don't have the resource. Go further; I discover Combustion or Electricity yet still cannot build railroads with Coal? It's dragging people down the lowest common denominator.

What you essentially are calling for is the need basically for iron, coal, aluminum, oil, and rubber to fly into space.

No, you're missing the point entirely here. I'm not nit-picking at the details of how the resource system is implemented but at the ridiculous game-changing scenarios it can create. Whether this is a good thing or not is down to personal preference but ultimately backs up against the strategy vs simulation argument.

So once again, the resource structure is a way to introduce the concept of resources without hamstringing those civs that might be missing a resource so much that they might as well give up the game.

So I've built Apollo but I can't build railroads as I don't have Coal. And this isn't "hamstringing those civs that might be missing a resource"? That's just nonsense. The player is being penalised in this type of scenerio.

If Civ 2 was the ultimate in Civ gaming experience for you, then continue to play it. It sounds to me as if what you really wanted was Civ 2.5.

If by that you mean a game that is more of a refinement of the old concepts then, yes. By the same token, wasn't Civ2 essentially just Civ1.5? I'm just questioning whether Civ3 has a genuine right to be classed as "Civilization" game in light of all the classic game concepts it has altered. If you want to make a new civ style game then call it CTP3 or make up some other name. The purists and dedicated fans of the genre expect a certain set of features which are common to the previous Civ games, and these have been changed. Hence why I think it's fair to say that Civ3 has at least as much in common with the CTP series as it does the Civ series. I think the following quote from you sums this up pretty nicely:

Because Civ2 was basically Civ 1 with bells and whistles. Civ 3 is basically a new game.

[Ferdi]

I totally agree with you Devin.
It seems clear that some people are annoyed because they are not able to use their well proven play style.
I can't understand people who said that civ3 is broken because some features doesn't work like they would want. We were waiting for a new game with new concepts based on the same basic idea. Now we have it with a great AI (the biggest improvement)!
I've been playing civ1/2 for 10 years and I'd be nut to go back to civ2 just because I can't transpose old strategies.

[LaRusso]

devin

[rid102]

It seems clear that some people are annoyed because they are not able to use their well proven play style.

It's also clear that a lot of people on here pick up the wrong end of the stick and think that anyone who says anything critical of Civ3 is a "whiner" etc.

I'm not "annoyed" that I can't use my "well proven play style". In fact, the most general play styles (e.g. perfectionist/expansionist) still work pretty well. Most of the old loop holes have been closed and a couple of new ones created.

I can't understand people who said that civ3 is broken

I'm not saying it's "broken" by anymeans. If that's the kind of game that you think Civilisation is and should be then congratulations, you've found your Ultimate Game. However, for a lot of people who very much enjoyed the previous games (i.e. me) too much has been changed for Civ3 to really be considered a "Civilization" game.

We were waiting for a new game with new concepts based on the same basic idea. Now we have it with a great AI (the biggest improvement)!

The AI isn't great. One of the major gripes which was levelled at Civ1/Civ2 with regard to the AI - the fact that the AI has cheats and bonuses, and basically doesn't play on a level playing field - has not been addressed at all. The AI has been improved but it's far from "great" IMHO.

Too many new ideas and suggestions were put in Civ3 without real thought of how much the tried-and-testing game structure of Civ1 and Civ2 worked so well.

I'm not saying that it's turned out as a horrible bad unplayable game. It's not. It's just not great either and for me it belongs next to CTP2, not Civ2.

[Ferdi]

I think that is impossible to reach everybody's expectation. What is good for one is sometimes bad for another. Maybe were you expecting too much from civIII?

[cutlerd]

"Personally, I think the problem many people have with bombardment is fundamentally it is good yet many feel the implementation is too weak. Bombard units are (relatively) expensive for units which can't actually kill things. With Civ1 and Civ2, people were always used to unit like Cannons etc. being able to kill like normal units (although suffering with weak defense) yet Civ3 has changed this. E.g Radar Artillery cannot sink a Caravel etc."

I can only tell you that I find bombarding units absolutely worthwhile in a cost/benefit analysis. Being able to destroy roads, chase away ships, and destroy citizens and city improvements are EXTREMELY valuable.

But if you don't feel they are worth the cost, can't you simply not build them? No one is forcing YOU to build them and if they are as underpowered as you deem them then you should not have a complaint about the AI building them. So what's the problem? There are plenty of non-bombarding units for a non-bombarding player to build that attack and kill just fine.

""No, but it is believable. I can use my imagination to pretend that roads/irrigation were shelled/burnt and rendered useless. I don't find the fact that Radar Artillery can't sink a wooden raft nor can my Battleship destroy a Warrior via bombardment particularly believable. I can accept it happening sometimes but nearly all the time? That's not believable by any stretch of the imagination, at least not for me."

But there is the rub. Realistically even a battle ship should not be able to destroy a warrior unit. After all, let's be realistic here. Even the Iowa had a max range on its guns of 20 miles. Given the size of a map square as being at least 100 miles, technically the warriors just have to move inland a bit. History has also proven during WW2 that sea bombardment did not ever destroy land units. They merely pinned them down and rattled them enough to allow invading forces the opportunity to attack.

Take a look at naval bombardment rules for table top games like World in Flames and Third Reich. They are uniformally complimentary to land attacks but NEVER are able to attack and destroy land units on their own. There is no historical precedent whatsoever for naval bombardment to do more than disrupt land units.

That is why if you want to worship at the altar of realism (or believability, which is simply another name for realism), you are essentially demanding 3-4 separate bombardment systems each with its own characterstics.

And while on the realism subject...I fail to see how someone calling for realism (not utter realism but a higher level of realism) in one area would not be calling for the same level in others. How do you stomache the movement rates of modern land and naval units in all version of Civ? Doesn't this get your gall up? 35 years for a modern BB to circumnavigate the globe? BBs making a single attack per year? Should we give BBs unlimited movement and attack? That'd be far more realistic. Should we break down modern turns into week long periods? That'd be realistic...but also unplayable.

My point is that Civ requires a HIGH LEVEL of abstraction.

"I don't necessarily want more realism, I want more believability."

Tomayto....tomahto....it's the same thing.

"That does mean taking everything down to pedantic detail but rather putting in place mature enough abstraction mechanism which keep the game fun but also build atmosphere and believability."

Sorry...I just don't see all of this great realism residing in Civ2. Please tell me specifically how Civ2 was more believable or realistic than Civ 3....'cause I just don't see it?

I look at Civ 2 and see terraforming..changing mountains into grasslands with the advent of Explosives....a tech historically gained in the 1800's yet accomplishing feats we are incapable of even today (like turning the Sahara into the French Riviera).

I see no supply rules.

I see no need to supply modern armies with oil.

I see ships taking years to cross seas.

I see tanks taking years to cross un-railed continents.

I see Democracies able to wage war willy nilly without any repercussions.

I see a completely out of balance Fanatacism government form that bore no resemblance to reality.

I see spies that are WAY too powerful and become ubber weapons.

I see a global warming routine in Civ2 that was so all or nothing it was laughable.

I see a simplistic AI system and pretty much a complete lack of AI diplomacy.

I see a combat system with no need whatsoever for combined arms and arms synergies.

I see huge empires composed of captured cities that never revolt and walk warmly into the loving arms of their conquerors after a turn's worth of disorder.

I happen to think Civ2 was a great game....but I fail utterly to see how it was this paragon of believability that somehow became corrupted in Civ 3. In almost every way Civ 3 is MORE believable than Civ 2.

"I prefer a game where I am defining history on my own little world rather than following history rigidly. The tech tree of Civ3 forces you down a narrower, more pre-deteremined path IMHO."

Well, in my current Civ 3 game the Iroqouis have dominated half of the world by 1928. Where are my constraints? What constraints are you specifically referring to?

"Personally, I think that more refining is needed."

To this I agree. Tot refined Civ2, and some refining to Civ 3 is also needed.

"Perhaps even more simplicity. Conceptually, there was very little "wrong" with even Civ1. A few things needed streamlining but that was about it. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" - yet it was "fixed" by Civ2 and "FIXED" by Civ3 by adding a host of new features which really weren't necessary. From a purist's standpoint, Civ3 really has little in common with "Civilization"."

Civ 2 was a huge departure from Civ 1. I think time and nostalgia have hazed this up for you. But look, if you are perfectly happy with a game (i.e. Civ 2) then the obvious solution is to not buy Civ 3 and play Civ 2 forever right? What exactly did you expect from Civ 3? A couple more units thrown in? Civ 2 is a complete game and about as chock full as it needed to be. The need for Civ 3 was to add in new elements, and that is just what they did. I would frankly be pissed off if they sold Civ 3 and I found it was just Civ 2 with some flash added.

"I think that's the wrong attitude to take. I wouldn't want to "force" the player into doing anything (yet Civ3 does, e.g. resources). Civ1 never had upgrade options for units yet was not criticised for it - why? Because the overall level of abstraction in the game was high enough for the player to ignore it. E.g. If I had any Phalanx left over in the city in 2000AD in Civ1 I'd imagine them as being a kind of "Honour Guard" - not really intended to fight but ceremonial."

How are you stopped from doing that in Civ 3?

"I'm not asking for 100% realism, that is just silly. I just want something which is more believable and more consistent. The levels of abstraction just vary too wildly in Civ3 to create something which captures the imagination, for me. E.g. On one level, my cities just generate commerce (high level abstraction) yet on another I have to deal with the specifics of resources and resource trading (low level abstraction)."

Sorry...I disagree. The resource system is a high level abstraction, given that there are only 8 strategic resources spread out over 4 ages.

"That depends very much how you play the game. I agree it's not ideal, but ersonally, I had very little enjoyment or satisfaction from doing that. I played Civ2 because I preferred building up a huge perfectionist empire and being a global superpower. IMHO "winning" the game by conquering all other nations is a very hollow victory. For me, winning is much more than just military actions."

Which is one of the reasons I really like Civ 3. Culture is an awesome addition to the game. Now you can build a non-military perfectionist empire and actually reap tangible results from it.

"Yes, for a couple of important reasons:

a) It's flawed and castrates units which were previously highly effective."

Then use your imagination and pretend some of your cavalry units are cannons and some of your tanks are howitzers .

"and:

b) On the note of "realism" the actual scale of map tiles is a couple of hundred miles square for each. No cannon could bombard 200 miles. No Battleship can bombard 400 miles. That's not realistic at all. Civ1/Civ2 abstracted this sufficienty by disregarding tile-to-tile bombardments and instead just using the normal combat model. Simple."

Simple and simplistic and boring.

"I don't think that's really true. Go back to my example of railroads. The player being penalised for having got ahead in the science race. They have the tech but don't have the resource. Go further; I discover Combustion or Electricity yet still cannot build railroads with Coal? It's dragging people down the lowest common denominator."

No it is a means of forcing civs, even on islands all to themselves, to have to come out of their turtle shell and engage the rest of the world. That is a good thing IMO. It also allows civs with resources and lack of tech to have leverage to trade for tech. It also adds a another element of strategy to the conflict aspect of the game. Are you really incapable of fighting or trading your way to the resources you need in Civ 3?

"So I've built Apollo but I can't build railroads as I don't have Coal. And this isn't "hamstringing those civs that might be missing a resource"? That's just nonsense. The player is being penalised in this type of scenerio."

It is hamstringing PLAYERS who cannot manage to fight or dimplomaticize well enough to get what they need. Do you want everything handed to you on a silver platter?

"If by that you mean a game that is more of a refinement of the old concepts then, yes. By the same token, wasn't Civ2 essentially just Civ1.5?"

No....it's not. Pull out a copy of Civ 1 and crank it up and then Civ 2 and compare and contrast.

" I'm just questioning whether Civ3 has a genuine right to be classed as "Civilization" game in light of all the classic game concepts it has altered."

Semantics. I don't care about semantics.

Devin

[Libertarian]

Goodness, you certainly see a lot. May we see the game you've written? We'll expect you to supply us with welding goggles as the sheer brilliance of your effort is bound to blind us.

[rid102]

Being able to destroy roads, chase away ships, and destroy citizens and city improvements are EXTREMELY valuable.

They're valuable abilities, yes but they're also the only abilities several ground units now have. If you want to destroy terrain improvements, then pilage with ground troops. If you want to kill population then attack with ground troops (except you can't now as that too has been changed).

But if you don't feel they are worth the cost, can't you simply not build them?

And not worry about the fact they're next to worthless? I don't build them anymore after I worked out they are practically useless, don't worry.

Realistically even a battle ship should not be able to destroy a warrior unit.

I'm not arguing for an anally pedantic level of detail as you seem to think. Battleships could destroy Warriors in Civ1 and Civ2, so why not Civ3?

If you want to get down to pathetic bickering over "real life" examples then equally how on Earth can a Catapult destroy (via bombardment) 10,000 square miles of roads or irrigation? It's only a game.

Take a look at naval bombardment rules for table top games like World in Flames and Third Reich.

Civ isn't a wargame.

That is why if you want to worship at the altar of realism (or believability, which is simply another name for realism),

You choose to read my arguments how you want. If I am "worshipping at the altar of realism" then conversely you seem to be "worshipping at the altar of Firaxis" by accepting everything that comes out of Civ3 as gospel.

How is it that Civ3 can increase the level of "realism" in some areas, yet mess up others with dodgy abstractions and this is still perfectly acceptable in your eyes?

And while on the realism subject...I fail to see how someone calling for realism (not utter realism but a higher level of realism) in one area would not be calling for the same level in others.

The only reason we're on the "realism" subject is because you've steered the conversation there. The point which you find so easy to ignore, and fail to understand, is that I'm not asking for "realism" just improved abstractions that lead to game I can believe rather than scorn. You think these are one and tha same but they're not.

If you don't want any degree of realism at all then why not make combat 50/50 all the time? Why don't we allow armies to have 1000 attacks per turn? Blah blah. In fact, if you're not bothered about any realistic coherence at all, you can do whatever you want in the game and justify it.

How do you stomache the movement rates of modern land and naval units in all version of Civ?

Because it's always been like that in Civ games and is an accepted balance decision. Quite how that makes everything else right in your mind is beyond me.

My point is that Civ requires a HIGH LEVEL of abstraction.

Yeah and my point is that many of the proven abstractions that worked well in Civ1 and Civ2 have been broken in Civ3.

Tomayto....tomahto....it's the same thing.

No it isn't at all.

Please tell me specifically how Civ2 was more believable or realistic than Civ 3....'cause I just don't see it?

Please tell me where I said that Civ2 was the epitomy of realism? I didn't at all. You're missing the point and have twisted the argument into one of realism vs balance which is not what I'm arguing about at all.

I look at Civ 2 and see terraforming..changing mountains into grasslands with the advent of Explosives....

Well lucky for you that's been ripped from the game. Now you run along and have fun building your railroads without any Coal, after having built Apollo and having discovered Combustion and Electricity...

Swings and roundabouts.

I see no supply rules.

I see no supply rules in Civ3 either. I can't even capture a unit's home city anymore to cut its supply lines. In Civ3, once a unit's built there's no way of stopping it other than by fighting it.

Great advancement.

I see no need to supply modern armies with oil.

And now you can't build modern units without Oil which is scarce enough to allow just one or two Civ's to trade it, who'd be fools for doing so. Have fun on MP where no-one in their right mind will ever trade Iron, Saltpeter, Oil, Coal etc. and the whole game simply becomes a wargame. In Civ2 units had resource support cost which was enough for me.

Great advancement.

I see ships taking years to cross seas.

Which is how it always was. Now though as soon as I enter unfriendly territory suddenly I can use roads or railroads... do the roads suddenly refuse to let my troops march down them?

I see Democracies able to wage war willy nilly without any repercussions.

But now we can't have wars longer than 20 turns because you're empire in unmanagable. Want to take turns gang-banging a player in MP? Just rotate who's at war with him so that he's always at war with at least one player. That way all his cities are in disorder after 30+ turns and he can't do anything. If the AI declares war on me, I pay a penalty for it too.

Great advancement.

I see a completely out of balance Fanatacism government form that bore no resemblance to reality.

Fanatacism was broken in Civ2 but only really after you reached the modern era where it became super-powerful. So with Civ3 let's chuck it out and reduce the number of government options even more rather than fixing it.

Great advancement.

I see spies that are WAY too powerful and become ubber weapons.

Again, spies were well-known to be too powerful. So, instead let's have espionage that doesn't even have a chance of working unless you're Communism...

Great advancement.

I see a global warming routine in Civ2 that was so all or nothing it was laughable.

So let's replace it with a system where cities have unquellable pollution no matter what you've built and an indicator which means you have no idea how close to global warming you are.

And still no decent worker auto-clean pollution.

I see a simplistic AI system and pretty much a complete lack of AI diplomacy.

Replaced with an AI that'll offer you 999999 gold/turn if you make peace with it and which can't resist exploring your territory all the time despite repeatedly asking it to withdraw. An AI so "advanced" that it still needs production bonuses/penalties and builds mines everywhere. Great.

I see a combat system with no need whatsoever for combined arms and arms synergies.

Replaced with a hybrid Civ1/Civ2 "advanced" combat system where Tanks can have less damage (HP) than Warriors. A system which favours defense. Where Longbowmen give Riflemen a hardtime for their money, regularly. Where the attacker needs superior technology and unit numbers to have a decent chance of victory. Where all the AI does is chase down and capture your workers because normal ZOC rules have been discarded. Where fortresses only offer a +25% defense bonus. etc. etc.

I see huge empires composed of captured cities that never revolt and walk warmly into the loving arms of their conquerors after a turn's worth of disorder.

Now we have medium sized empires (no-one can build huge because corruption is so crippling it's not even funny) where it makes more sense to raze any city you capture...

I happen to think Civ2 was a great game....but I fail utterly to see how it was this paragon of believability that somehow became corrupted in Civ 3.

There was no "paragon of believability" rather there were abstractions in place that provide for a game which were reasonably believable (without huge gaps or disparities) that Civ3 has sought to cut swayths through because someone thought they could do it better. 90% of Civ2 was very very solid and did not need overhauling. So...

Why fix what wasn't broken? (The best answer I've got this so far is "Why play it if you don't like it?", which is a nice answer-a-question-with-a-question-dodge-the-point type answer).

In almost every way Civ 3 is MORE believable than Civ 2.

See above.

Where are my constraints? What constraints are you specifically referring to?

E.g. the fact Sanitation has now been pushed so far up the tech tree that size 12 cities before the 1700's are near impossible. The fact there are research caps of 32/4 turns. The game is placing boundary markers and basically saying; "If you're worse than X then I'll help you out - 32 turns" or "If you're better than Y then tough - 4 turns". As someone on here said very succinctly "Civ3 punishes good players and rewards mediocre players".

Civ 2 was a huge departure from Civ 1.

I don't think it was actually. Civ2 was more like Civ1++, super-Civ1. Simply double the number of city improvements and units. Add a new combat system. Tweak and refine science/diplomacy/governments and viola! Civ2.

You can jump between Civ1 and Civ2 pretty easily because fundamentally they are the same game.

The same cannot be said for Civ2 and Civ3 IMHO.

But look, if you are perfectly happy with a game (i.e. Civ 2) then the obvious solution is to not buy Civ 3 and play Civ 2 forever right?

Well I've already bought Civ3 but chances are it will get shelved in the not-too-distant future. I am not "perfectly happy" with Civ2 at all. It has good points and bad points, no game is perfect (in fact I'd say that Civ1 is more "perfect" in this sense than Civ2). I'm annoyed that many things could have been fixed for Civ2 and pushed it a lot closer to perfection. And instead Firaxis have thrown a spanner in the works by changing a lot of stuff that didn't need to be changed.

What exactly did you expect from Civ 3?

More along the lines of Civ2++ rather than CTP-meets-Civ1-meets-AC. Much more refinement and an evolution of the game rather than ripping it's guts out and replacing them.

The need for Civ 3 was to add in new elements, and that is just what they did.

Why? The need is to sell games, not anything more or less.

I would frankly be pissed off if they sold Civ 3 and I found it was just Civ 2 with some flash added.

So were you pissed off when you got Civ2 then and found that it wasn't hugely different to Civ1? No, of course not because there's sufficient refinement and exploration of the concepts involved in Civ1 to make it worthwhile.

Take an analogy with something like Quake. Do you think Id will release Quake 4 (or whatever) and decide that everyone's got to fight while bouncing around on pogo-sticks and hitting each other with rubber mallets? (hey that actually sounds like a half-decent game... ) Of course not. But it seems to me there'd be some people defending it as a good design decision. Same situation here.

The resource system is a high level abstraction, given that there are only 8 strategic resources spread out over 4 ages.

The resource system itself is a high-level abstraction but the management of trading agreements ("when does that 20 turns end, btw?"), who's got what resources? Could city X do with more luxuries etc. is delving into the low-level.

Which is one of the reasons I really like Civ 3. Culture is an awesome addition to the game. Now you can build a non-military perfectionist empire and actually reap tangible results from it.

Culture is a step in the right direction but is negated by many other espects of the game. I don't see how you can build up a huge empire without being crippled by corruption though. If your military is weak either the AI will attack you (if you're playing on the harder difficulty levels) or it takes you so long to mobilise an army if you need to strike that it's almost not worth going to war (as you need twice the number of units as the defender, at least). And what "tangible results" are you referring to? Like the ability to hit a 4 turn science cap earlier on the game? Great.

Then use your imagination and pretend some of your cavalry units are cannons and some of your tanks are howitzers .

Errr... yeah OK.

So we have a unit called Cannon and a unit called Cavalry but let's pretend that Cavalry also has got some Cannons too? If I want to mix units, I'll built an army.

Let's just pretend that all the units are just a load of blokes with a mixture of swords, horses, cannons, longbows, guns and tanks shall we?

Simple and simplistic and boring.

Well you have fun pretending you're Battleship can partially damage that group of blokes with swords, horses, cannons, longbow and tanks 400-miles away only for it get sunk the next turn by an Ironclad.

No it is a means of forcing civs, even on islands all to themselves, to have to come out of their turtle shell and engage the rest of the world. That is a good thing IMO.

So you think it's a good thing to limit player's strategic options and not allow them to play isolatinist if they want to? With Civ3 there are less viable strategies for playing the game. Great.

It also allows civs with resources and lack of tech to have leverage to trade for tech.

Yeah, it allows the "great" AI to trade with tech all the time to beat the human player in the science race. What if you don't have a resource that either another Civ hasn't discovered yet or is something that gives so much power (e.g. Oil) that you'd be stupid to trade it?

Are you really incapable of fighting or trading your way to the resources you need in Civ 3?

Oh yeah you're right. I've sat here all this time explaining the failings in the game concepts of Civ3 to you but actually it's just I can't play the game.... Gimme a break

It is hamstringing PLAYERS who cannot manage to fight or dimplomaticize well enough to get what they need. Do you want everything handed to you on a silver platter?

No, but I wouldn't mind railroads with Iron/Steel/Combustion/Electricity. How am I supposed to trade with the AI when it doesn't even have the required tech or has no Coal spare to trade with me? I'm supposed to go to war with them? Maybe I don't want to because of crippling war weariness. Oh, but I clearly can't play the game so it's OK. It's my fault, not the game. I am playing this game or is the game playing me here?

No....it's not. Pull out a copy of Civ 1 and crank it up and then Civ 2 and compare and contrast.

I have and play both. Most of the mechanics are very similar (granted the graphics and interface are very different) but there aren't huge differences as you seem to want to think. Certainly there are no "great" game-altering concepts like resouces that have been thrown in.

Semantics. I don't care about semantics.

Equally I don't care much for you ignoring the point.

Lemme guess, you also think the CTP series is just as revolutionary and just as classic a game as Civ1/2 also, right?

[cutlerd]

"They're valuable abilities, yes but they're also the only abilities several ground units now have. If you want to destroy terrain improvements, then pilage with ground troops. If you want to kill population then attack with ground troops (except you can't now as that too has been changed).

And not worry about the fact they're next to worthless? I don't build them anymore after I worked out they are practically useless, don't worry. "

Wonderful. Then you, not thinking they are worthwhile, do not build them. I, thinking them worthwhile, do build them. Frankly, in ever Civ version and Civ-like game there are units, improvement, and wonders that I think are worthless while others think they are the best thing since sliced cheese. So what? Do I moan and whine about those items I personally don't feel worth building? No. I simply don't build them and recognize that differing playing styles might make some units worthless to me and invaluable to others.

"I'm not arguing for an anally pedantic level of detail as you seem to think. Battleships could destroy Warriors in Civ1 and Civ2, so why not Civ3?

If you want to get down to pathetic bickering over "real life" examples then equally how on Earth can a Catapult destroy (via bombardment) 10,000 square miles of roads or irrigation? It's only a game. "

Your initial assertion was that Civ3 chose to include elements that did not meet a "believability" criterion. Now you seem to be saying realism is not that important. Would you care to take a step back and redefine what exactly your problems with Civ3 are?

You complained about being able to build spaceships but not railroads. Is that not a realism argument? If not, what exactly is the basis of that particular argument? Do you just have a jones for railroads?

Or is the thrust of your argument basically one of if you can't have 100% realism you want all half-hearted attempts at realism to be damned? For example, Civ2 had no strategic resources. Now most people would probably argue that in real life there are such things as strategic resources. Civ3 has strategic resources. They are a highly abstract phenomenon in Civ3 in that, yes, you can end up with a Civ able to build spaceships but not railroads, but nevertheless, I view a 25% lurch towards realism as an improvement over Civ2's 0% realism.

If you want to argue that strategic resources in Civ3 suck because they are yet another thing you have to manage and balance and you think Civ has enough to manage and balance without them then while I won't agree with your argument I will at least understand it. But you seem to be arguing that since strat resources in Civ3 do not meet some threshhold for realism, that they should be dumped altogether.

"Civ isn't a wargame. "

Once again, if realism is not your grail, then other than "because it was that way in Civ2" what is you precise problem with battleships not killing land units?

"You choose to read my arguments how you want. If I am "worshipping at the altar of realism" then conversely you seem to be "worshipping at the altar of Firaxis" by accepting everything that comes out of Civ3 as gospel. "

Wrong. I have problems with Civ3. Shall I list them?:

1. Bugs like coastal fortresses and fighter interception not working, and enemy subs causing auto declarations of war.

2. Corruption is too extreme at the out layers of an empire.

3. Not being able to irrigate hills with a proper civ advance.

4. No farmland improvement.

5. Late war units coming in too late as compared to the space race (in other words, the space race victory happens before you get to see the late war units built and used....space race advances should come last).

6. Para and helicopters should come much earlier.

7. Armies should be more worthwhile. They serve almost no purpose now. They should also be upgradable.

8. There should be a Fascism government type.

Those are off of the top of my head.

"How is it that Civ3 can increase the level of "realism" in some areas, yet mess up others with dodgy abstractions and this is still perfectly acceptable in your eyes?"

Because I don't see many areas where Civ3 has regressed from Civ2. In other words, in almost every area, even if not implement perfectly, Civ3 improved on Civ 2. Is Civ3 bombardment perfect? Maybe not...but given that option didn't even exist in Civ2, I call it an improvement. Is corruption perfect in Civ3? No. But given that it is an improvement on Civ2. Are strategic resources perfect? Maybe not, but given that they didn't even exist in Civ2, they are an improvement. The ONLY true regressions I can see between Civ3 and Civ2 is the lack of the farmland improvement, the cutting down of government types, and the loss of firepower (though I am still debating that last one).

"The only reason we're on the "realism" subject is because you've steered the conversation there. The point which you find so easy to ignore, and fail to understand, is that I'm not asking for "realism" just improved abstractions that lead to game I can believe rather than scorn. You think these are one and tha same but they're not. "

Sorry I don't buy it. Given that NO game can be 100% realistic EVERY game is merely a set of abstractions. Therefore, calling for improved and more believable abstractions is calling for more realism. Deny it all you want, it's the truth.

"If you don't want any degree of realism at all then why not make combat 50/50 all the time? Why don't we allow armies to have 1000 attacks per turn? Blah blah. In fact, if you're not bothered about any realistic coherence at all, you can do whatever you want in the game and justify it. "

I welcome bombardment and strategic resources as more realistic than their complete lack of implementation in Civ2.

"Yeah and my point is that many of the proven abstractions that worked well in Civ1 and Civ2 have been broken in Civ3."

Then play Civ2. It is clear to me that any Civ release that was not essentially Civ2 with some fluff add ons would not meet your approval. Great. I assume Civ2 still boots up on your machine. Have a blast. As for me....I would have been pissed off if Civ3 turned out to be Civ2 with....God I don't know what you could have added on to Civ 2 TOT to make it a new game without changing anything to keep you safe and happy in your little Civ2 womb.

Why don't you enlighten me? You are Sid Meier and it is 2 years ago. What do you do to Civ2 to make it Civ3? It's easy to whine and complain. Let's hear your solution.

"lease tell me where I said that Civ2 was the epitomy of realism? I didn't at all. You're missing the point and have twisted the argument into one of realism vs balance which is not what I'm arguing about at all. "

You have stated that Civ3 has too many systems that are not believable. Since you do not have that same criticism of Civ2 that directly implies that you feel Civ2 is more believable than Civ3. Now that we have the semantics out of the way, care to actually respond to the question?

"Well lucky for you that's been ripped from the game. Now you run along and have fun building your railroads without any Coal, after having built Apollo and having discovered Combustion and Electricity... "

Oh My Gosh! You mean now I actually have to wheel and deal and threaten and use my playing skills to gain those resources I don't have? What a shame! I am really sorry this game has so mastered YOU that you find it soooo onerous to go and get those resources you need. Maybe you should stick to Candyland.

"I see no supply rules in Civ3 either. I can't even capture a unit's home city anymore to cut its supply lines. In Civ3, once a unit's built there's no way of stopping it other than by fighting it. "

Buzz!! Wrong. You can also cripple the enemy's economy (via bombardment as one way) so that they have no income to support their army and have to disband units.

"And now you can't build modern units without Oil which is scarce enough to allow just one or two Civ's to trade it, who'd be fools for doing so. Have fun on MP where no-one in their right mind will ever trade Iron, Saltpeter, Oil, Coal etc. and the whole game simply becomes a wargame. In Civ2 units had resource support cost which was enough for me. "

Is Civ3 an MP game? I hadn't noticed. Please show me where the MP option is in the game?

"Which is how it always was. Now though as soon as I enter unfriendly territory suddenly I can use roads or railroads... do the roads suddenly refuse to let my troops march down them? "

Yes they do. It's a common realistic factor in wargames. Did you think the Germans just sidled down Russian railroads through hostile territory. Advancing slower in enemy territory is a very realistic way to simulate fog of war, low level enemy activity, unavailability of enemy infrastructure, and is a good balancing device. One thing I hated about Civ2 was that once your enemy railed his civ you just landed tanks and spies and killed him in a turn or two. Frankly, Civ2 got REALLY boring once tanks came out. It was pretty much the end of the game except for the mental masturbation of moving units around into a foregone conclusion.

Now maybe that sort of megalomaniacal counter shifting thrills you, but I prefer an actual challenge.

"But now we can't have wars longer than 20 turns because you're empire in unmanagable. Want to take turns gang-banging a player in MP? Just rotate who's at war with him so that he's always at war with at least one player. That way all his cities are in disorder after 30+ turns and he can't do anything. If the AI declares war on me, I pay a penalty for it too. "

I managed a war of over 100 years as a huge Democracy. You just have to know how to manage it. And as far as MP...once again....please point me to the part of the game that supports MP. As of right now Civ3 is NOT an MP game.

"Fanatacism was broken in Civ2 but only really after you reached the modern era where it became super-powerful. So with Civ3 let's chuck it out and reduce the number of government options even more rather than fixing it. "

I agree Civ3 needs a Fascist type government option. But yes I'd rather see no Fundie than a broken one that essentially RUINS the game.

"Great advancement. "

Yes the removal of Fundie IS an imprpovement, even though the introduction of a non-broken one would have been even better.

"Again, spies were well-known to be too powerful. So, instead let's have espionage that doesn't even have a chance of working unless you're Communism... "

My spies work just fine as a Democracy. What problems are your spies having?

"So let's replace it with a system where cities have unquellable pollution no matter what you've built and an indicator which means you have no idea how close to global warming you are. "

Duh. As Global Warming is now a continuous rather than discrete function, when the sun icon is showing there is global warming. You are always in global warming. And once you build mass trans and recycling pollution is quite manageable. Oh..you want cities producing at full with no pollution? Sorry....that would be as silly as....terraforming.

"Replaced with an AI that'll offer you 999999 gold/turn if you make peace with it"

A bug being fixed. Do you really want me to point out all the bugs in Civ1 and 2 before they were fixed? Give me a break!

"and which can't resist exploring your territory all the time despite repeatedly asking it to withdraw."

You have to ask them to withdraw several times until the threat of war message comes up. Then they usually withdraw. The times they do not or when they keep trying again are when they are at war with someone and have to go through your territory to attack them, or there are close by "holes" in your borders and they want to build there.

Easy solution.....either close the holes with cities or culture, or DOW them and beat them around a bit. I have never had a civ tresspass on me after I punched them around a bit and then came to peace. Sometimes asking nicely doesn't work. That's life.

"An AI so "advanced" that it still needs production bonuses/penalties and builds mines everywhere. Great. "

AI will always need some advantage to counter the human element. Or have you divined the secret of true AI and haven't told the rest of the world? Did the Ai in Civ2 really provide a challenge to you? If so then I finally understand why you can't handle Civ3.

"Replaced with a hybrid Civ1/Civ2 "advanced" combat system where Tanks can have less damage (HP) than Warriors. A system which favours defense. Where Longbowmen give Riflemen a hardtime for their money, regularly. Where the attacker needs superior technology and unit numbers to have a decent chance of victory."

This is a case of people only remembering the flukes. You take a Civ of longbowmen and I will take one of riflemen and let's see who wins? I bet it's mine 99% of the time.

And riflemen are essentially Civil War musketeers. Seems the American Indian longbowmen gave Custer's riflemen a run for their money at Little Bighorn. So did Geronimo in the 1890's. So did the Zulus at Isandalwahna against British VETERAN and ELITE riflemen.

The problem with Civ2's firepower system was that once you got the next step in weapons it was all over. You NEVER lost a combat. Not too fun to play..thank God the AI was so weak that it was usually the player running all over the AIs. In CIv3, however, since the AI is actually decent, allowing inferior troops a chance might (I stress MIGHT as I am still undecided on this issue) be a good thing.

"Where all the AI does is chase down and capture your workers because normal ZOC rules have been discarded."

That is not all the AI does. Believe me I have tried using Workers as a shield. But in any case...what is the problem with chasing down workers?

And the ZOC rules being discarded was also a good thing. I didn't appreciate in CIV3 a bunch of dudes in a fortress stopping my entire tank advance...even in my own territory. In CIV3, it makes more sense that faster units get opportunity shots on others moving through their ZOCs.

"Where fortresses only offer a +25% defense bonus."

Given the fortress' easy building and dismantling...I see no problem. And for someone who just complained that CIv3 had "a system which favours defense", why are you now complaining that forts defend to little. Are you enjoying eating that cake you are also having?

"Now we have medium sized empires (no-one can build huge because corruption is so crippling it's not even funny) where it makes more sense to raze any city you capture... "

I build empires spanning half of a huge map game no problem. Proper management of government and the Forbidden City can allow you a large empire. I would like to see a cap on corruption so that any city produces at least 15%-25%, but if corruption never changed, it is still playable and manageable.

"Why fix what wasn't broken? (The best answer I've got this so far is "Why play it if you don't like it?", which is a nice answer-a-question-with-a-question-dodge-the-point type answer). "

Because it was broken. And in addition, something can be not broken and still improved upon. I am sure the Ford Model T might not have been broken, but I'll take my modern vehicle any day.

"E.g. the fact Sanitation has now been pushed so far up the tech tree that size 12 cities before the 1700's are near impossible. The fact there are research caps of 32/4 turns. The game is placing boundary markers and basically saying; "If you're worse than X then I'll help you out - 32 turns" or "If you're better than Y then tough - 4 turns". As someone on here said very succinctly "Civ3 punishes good players and rewards mediocre players"."

No..the constraints makes the game harder to beat and master. The constraints force you to manage ALL of the aspects of your empire and not just pop a single aspect heavily to the exclusion of everything else and use that to dominate the game...something that was far too possible in CIV2 (pop tech and win the game, pop Fundie and build massive armies and win the game). Civ2 was basically an excercise in headlong charge towards the victory conditions. But IMO, the entire CIV genre is about balancing and juggling. In Civ3 you cannot run headlong from 4000BC to 2000AD specializing in one aspect and using that to carry the rest of your empire along with you. In Civ3 you cannot completely out-tech everyone the way you could in Civ2 (oh look...it's 1500 and I have tanks and you all have knights...gee what a great player am I).

"More along the lines of Civ2++ rather than CTP-meets-Civ1-meets-AC. Much more refinement and an evolution of the game rather than ripping it's guts out and replacing them.

So were you pissed off when you got Civ2 then and found that it wasn't hugely different to Civ1? No, of course not because there's sufficient refinement and exploration of the concepts involved in Civ1 to make it worthwhile. "

Civ2 WAS hugely different from Civ1.

"The resource system itself is a high-level abstraction but the management of trading agreements ("when does that 20 turns end, btw?"), who's got what resources? Could city X do with more luxuries etc. is delving into the low-level. "

I am sorry keeping track of 20 turns is so tough! Escpecially when you have various screens to show you how many turns are left. And BTW, micromanaging units to home cities was delving into the low-level wasn't it?

"Culture is a step in the right direction but is negated by many other espects of the game. I don't see how you can build up a huge empire without being crippled by corruption though."

Then keep trying, because I can and others on these very boards can.

"If your military is weak either the AI will attack you (if you're playing on the harder difficulty levels)"

Oh my gosh! The AI will attack you if you are weak!? What perfidy! I demand my money back!

"or it takes you so long to mobilise an army if you need to strike that it's almost not worth going to war (as you need twice the number of units as the defender, at least)."

War should be costly and gone into only with great forethought and specific goals. Not like Civ2 where it was "tra la la another 100 year war...who cares? I'm a democracy but I can attack defenseless neighbours for no reason whatsoever tra-la-la and I can pick off my neighbours one by one and my OTHER neighbours won't even sense that they might be next on the menu...tra-la-la."

"Errr... yeah OK. "

Yes, asking you to use your imagination WAS an excercise in futility..wasn't it?


Devin

[cutlerd]

"So we have a unit called Cannon and a unit called Cavalry but let's pretend that Cavalry also has got some Cannons too? If I want to mix units, I'll built an army. "

Yes, you can pretend in CIV1 that a Phalanx is an honour guard but your imagination suddenly whithers when you tack 3 onto the name CIV.

"So you think it's a good thing to limit player's strategic options and not allow them to play isolatinist if they want to? With Civ3 there are less viable strategies for playing the game. Great. "

Yes I do. It is inconceivable that someone can build up a modern society without any trade whatsoever. Once again...sorry you have to actually work for your victory.

"Yeah, it allows the "great" AI to trade with tech all the time to beat the human player in the science race. What if you don't have a resource that either another Civ hasn't discovered yet or is something that gives so much power (e.g. Oil) that you'd be stupid to trade it? "

If you don't have a resource that another Civ hasn't discovered yet then that means by definition you are ahead in the tech race. Using your tech advantage, go TAKE the resource man! Are you a man or a mouse?

"Oh yeah you're right. I've sat here all this time explaining the failings in the game concepts of Civ3 to you but actually it's just I can't play the game.... Gimme a break "

That's how it seems. WAH! I can't manage corruption! WAH! I can't play a civ that sits on an island and never interacts with anyone and growns into a modern society. WAH! A longbowman killed my rifleman! WAH! I have to use my brain to get resources I don't have!

"No, but I wouldn't mind railroads with Iron/Steel/Combustion/Electricity. How am I supposed to trade with the AI when it doesn't even have the required tech or has no Coal spare to trade with me? I'm supposed to go to war with them?"

Yes. A fact of life. You need. They have. They won't give. Go take it. It's not a difficult concept.

"Maybe I don't want to because of crippling war weariness. Oh, but I clearly can't play the game so it's OK. "

Dude. If you can't manage to maneuver a limited war to gain a strategic resource and then maneuver a peace before war weariness becomes too much of a drag on your society...then YES YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO PLAY THIS GAME. It is clearly too much of a juggling act for you. The game is simply beyond you.

"Lemme guess, you also think the CTP series is just as revolutionary and just as classic a game as Civ1/2 also, right?"

I think CTP1 had some useful concepts and if the AI had been better and the non-combat units tweaked it would have been a fine game. CTP2 was drek.

In short, it seems to me that overall CIV3 just requires too much from you. Most likely too much effort. You just want a game like CIV2 where you can crank on through and whup the other CIVs. You enjoy moving your tanks around for 100 years in unbridled conquest where you really don't have to worry much about anything and don't have to think too much. Hey...good for you. Whatever tickles your pickle. Stick to CIV2 and enjoy!

Devin

[rid102]

Yes, you can pretend in CIV1 that a Phalanx is an honour guard but your imagination suddenly whithers when you tack 3 onto the name CIV.

No, my imagination starts to wither when my Cavalry is apparently also supposed to be Cannons too according to you....

Yes I do.

Well I think it's safe to say there's a clear difference of opinion here. Personally, I prefer strategy games with a wide range of possible successful stratagies to play rather than being forced by the game to essentially play only one or two distinct types of strategy (hey, that'll be fun in MP!).

Once again...sorry you have to actually work for your victory.

It's nothing to do with "working for victory". For me, Civ is not about whether you win or lose. I can win the game easily (granted I have not played on Monarch or above) by simply applying the same bog standard strategy. The problem is that the game forces me to make certain decisions. I'm not sure sometimes whether I'm fighting the AI or the game itself.

Using your tech advantage, go TAKE the resource man! Are you a man or a mouse?

If I want a wargame I'll play something else.

Civ isn't about running around bullying everyone else to get resources (although apparently, Civ3 is according to you).

E.g. in a recent game, I played the Aztecs and controlled a large chunk of the world, had several sources of all strategic resources (5 Coal etc etc.) and a load of luxeries too. However, I obtained a lot of those by fighting border skirmishes with the other Civs. I got near the end of the game (had Mech Inf blah blah while others were back in the Middle Ages) and built the UN. Well, I lost the game because of it. Why? Because I'd run around attacking everyone as soon as a new resource appeared and everyone hated me.

Great tactic.

That's how it seems. WAH! I can't manage corruption!

It also seems as though you've dodged answering my points above (yet again) and instead prefer to insult me rather than discuss the issues I raise. It's OK for you to slate me and Civ2 but if I tell you about what I feel are legitimate issues with Civ3, then it's because I can't play the game and I'm a whiner?

I'll let everyone else be the judge of your reasoning power.

Dude. If you can't manage to maneuver a limited war to gain a strategic resource and then maneuver a peace before war weariness becomes too much of a drag on your society

You're taking most of what I'm saying far too literally. What I'm proposing here is not the game exactly as I play it but rather general situations and scenarios that either I have encountered or can (and do) arise in Civ3. Why is that so difficult for you to see? It seems (yet once more) that you feel happier blaming my (apparent) shortcomings rather than admit I might have a point?

The issue here is that sometimes it is not possible to just fight a little precise war for exactly one resource that you want. Other civs can get involved, the civ you attack may fight back more aggressively than you expect, you may not want to for diplomatic reasons (e.g. that Civ is trading a load of lux with you that you need). At least this is one aspect where Civ3 is not as entirely simplistic as you make it out to be. But, I'm fairly sure you'll skip right over this...

WAH! I can't play a civ that sits on an island and never interacts with anyone and growns into a modern society.

No, actually more like; "How sad that there used to be many good winning strategies but now there's only a couple and they're both pretty lame. Ohhh.. that took me what, 3 games to master. Great."

Yes. A fact of life. You need. They have. They won't give. Go take it. It's not a difficult concept.

How "civilised" of you.

Once again, this isn't supposed to be Risk with resources. But I think sadly, in a way you've proved me right. Civ3 is too war-centric.

Did you notice how points per turn for World Peace have also been removed? There is no precedent for playing a peaceful society in Civ3.

In short, it seems to me that overall CIV3 just requires too much from you.

I think it's actually the opposite; more underwhelming than overwhelming.

Most likely too much effort. You just want a game like CIV2 where you can crank on through and whup the other CIVs.

It is a lot of effort in the modern era, but the effort is mainly in moving settlers to clean up pollution and waiting for another 4 turns for your next advance. Certainly a lesson in patience anyway.

I would have prefered a game closer to Civ2 than Civ3 is. Not because I want to "whup the other civs" but just because, for me ultimately, it's more enjoyable and less tedious. It does have problems, it's not perfect but 90% of the guts of Civ2 are right verses about 30% of the guts of Civ3.

Stick to CIV2 and enjoy!

I probably will. I think I'll play another game or two of Civ3 when the patch is released to see if that makes any difference.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by rid102
I think I'll play another game or two of Civ3 when the patch is released to see if that makes any difference.

nah, stick to civ2 and its infinite strategic possibilities (howitzer blitz, panzer blitz, paratrooper/bomber blitz, ICS, etc.)

[rid102]

nah, stick to civ2 and its infinite strategic possibilities (howitzer blitz, panzer blitz, paratrooper/bomber blitz, ICS, etc.)

Well it hardly has an "infinite" number of stratgies but it has more than one.

I might go back to Civ2, depending on how the patch seems.

If not then it's CTP2/Alt Civs etc.

[cutlerd]

"Well I think it's safe to say there's a clear difference of opinion here. Personally, I prefer strategy games with a wide range of possible successful stratagies to play rather than being forced by the game to essentially play only one or two distinct types of strategy (hey, that'll be fun in MP!). "

What one or two distinct types of strategy? Given 6 different ways to win in CIV3 that must result in 6 different strategies almost defacto. I have played Civ3 games where I am the all conquering bringer of doom and woe. I am currently playing one where I am Mr. Nice...never start a war, and am absorbing cities culturally. In Civ2 it was always the SAME strategy over and over again. Blitz tech to tank and then go to Fundie and spy spy spy til your head explodes. Weeee!

"It's nothing to do with "working for victory". For me, Civ is not about whether you win or lose. I can win the game easily (granted I have not played on Monarch or above) by simply applying the same bog standard strategy. The problem is that the game forces me to make certain decisions. I'm not sure sometimes whether I'm fighting the AI or the game itself. "

That is the inherent nature of the entire CIV genre...to force the player to make tough decisions and to juggle priorities. You seem to have a problem with this. You have a problem with having to make tough decisions. May I suggest a chieftain level game on a huge map with 1 opposing CIV? Then you can operate fully free of those annoying decisions (er constraints) and can build your dream civ without any nasty interference from the game. I wish they had a zero enemy civ option for you...maybe they can patch that in.

"If I want a wargame I'll play something else. "

So now you have a problem with having to fight for things? If you want a non wargame play Sim City. And for someone who just brushed off the entire war aspect of the game you do some mighty loud whining about lack of certain war units. Once again, talking out of both sides of your mouth.

"Civ isn't about running around bullying everyone else to get resources (although apparently, Civ3 is according to you). "

It is about doing what you need to do to get the things you need to get. Sometimes it is best to wheedle or beg for things. Other times to intimidate. And others to fight. You find this a design flaw? Your arguments become more and more spurious and non-sensical as this debate progresses. I often have quite an easy time getting the resources I need without fighting thank you very much. But then again I am capable of more than one-dimensional thinking.

"E.g. in a recent game, I played the Aztecs and controlled a large chunk of the world, had several sources of all strategic resources (5 Coal etc etc.) and a load of luxeries too. However, I obtained a lot of those by fighting border skirmishes with the other Civs. I got near the end of the game (had Mech Inf blah blah while others were back in the Middle Ages) and built the UN. Well, I lost the game because of it. Why? Because I'd run around attacking everyone as soon as a new resource appeared and everyone hated me. "

Boo hoo! You can repair your reputation you know. Did it occur to you to make peace with everyone and lavish them with gifts BEFORE calling for a vote? Too complicated for you huh? Did it occur to you, since you say you gained the resources in border skirmishes, implying they were near to your border, to move your palace near those borders and build up culture and gain the cities and resources peacefully (maybe aided by espionage)? Did it occur to you to perhaps maneuver the civ with the resources into wars with other civs so that they are weakened and then intimidate them into giving you the cities and resources you needed?

Civ3's greatest strength is that it punishes one-dimensional thinking. You cannot just blitz science or blitz military. You have to set up...plan...maneuver...and think!

"It also seems as though you've dodged answering my points above (yet again) and instead prefer to insult me rather than discuss the issues I raise. It's OK for you to slate me and Civ2 but if I tell you about what I feel are legitimate issues with Civ3, then it's because I can't play the game and I'm a whiner? "

Yes....your posts make it clear you DON'T know how to play the game. EVERY problem you have presented is simply one of strategy that needs to be overcome by clever counter strategies. Nothing you have presented is insurmountable. Take your little pathetic Aztec example above. Do you know how many Civ3 players are laughing at you for whining that YOU had the stupidity to call a vote in the UN when YOU had made enemies with everyone and YOU had done nothing to repair your relations with them? Don't bash the game for your bad play. I have suggested at least 3 broad ways you could have accomplished what you wanted. They are not brilliant strategies by the way, they seem pretty basic to me.

"I'll let everyone else be the judge of your reasoning power. "

That's probably best because you obviously don't have the faculties to judge anything regarding Civ3.

"You're taking most of what I'm saying far too literally."

Hah! I am taking what you say as what you say. If you don't mean what you say, then start saying what you mean!

"What I'm proposing here is not the game exactly as I play it but rather general situations and scenarios that either I have encountered or can (and do) arise in Civ3. Why is that so difficult for you to see? It seems (yet once more) that you feel happier blaming my (apparent) shortcomings rather than admit I might have a point? "

You don't have a point. You are stuck in the CIV2 box and are afraid or too lazy to break out of it and master this much more complex game.

"The issue here is that sometimes it is not possible to just fight a little precise war for exactly one resource that you want. Other civs can get involved, the civ you attack may fight back more aggressively than you expect, you may not want to for diplomatic reasons (e.g. that Civ is trading a load of lux with you that you need). At least this is one aspect where Civ3 is not as entirely simplistic as you make it out to be. But, I'm fairly sure you'll skip right over this... "

Yes...sometimes things don't go according to plan. That is also the sign of a good game. A good game PLAYER will react to these unexpected situations and come out of them on top. But your postings are presenting these little scenarios you have cooked up as some sort of insurmountable indictment of the game. That is just plain rubbish. You worried about other civs attacking you if you try and fight a limited war for a resource? Then ally with all the civs against that one enemy. Sign mutual protection pacts with half of the civs on the map...each one adjacent to a civ you haven't signed the pact with.

Example:

You are the Americans and want to fight a limited (6-8 turn) war with Persia to get oil. You are worried the Russians will attack you if you do. The Russians are neighboured by the English. Sign a mutual protection pact with the English. If Russia then declares war on you, the English will declare war on Russia, forcing Russia to deal with their neighbour rather than bother you.

Almost any civ at war with you, unless you have just been a complete backstabbing bastard for the entire game to them, will make peace with you in 10 turns after war. You should be able to manage war weariness for 10 turns. If you are a Religious civ, just switch to Communism for the war period, since Religious civs only get anarchy for 1 turn. If you are not Religious, then make a lot of trades for luxuries with civs that are favourably inclined to you, make sure you have Universal Sufferage and Police Stations if possible, and cathedrals and colosseums if you do not, and every 2 turns of the war boost your luxuries slider up 10%. As cities still start to go into disorder, take their labourers down to no growth and use every spare for Entertainers.

I have sustained a 100 year war in the 19th century in a huge Democratic Empire against from 4-11 at war civs this way with mild enough war weariness that my core cities could still produce military units.

Will tech suffer and cash suffer? Yes. But that's what is nice about CIV3, you have to weigh trade offs. Build a cash reserve BEFORE you fight a war.

"No, actually more like; "How sad that there used to be many good winning strategies but now there's only a couple and they're both pretty lame. Ohhh.. that took me what, 3 games to master. Great." "

Obviously, you HAVEN'T mastered CIV3 yet. This is clearly evident of your posts.

"Once again, this isn't supposed to be Risk with resources. But I think sadly, in a way you've proved me right. Civ3 is too war-centric. "

Yep. That's right. That's why in my current game as Egypt on a huge map with 16 civs I am playing completely peaceful (it is 1700 and I have had a single 5 turn war with the Russians...and they started it). Yet I am in the lead in tech and culture, have all the strategic resources I need through trade, and have absorbed now 7 other civ cities through culture alone. The other civs are happy enough with me that I probably have my choice of space race victory or UN victory and certainly point victory.

This the game right after I played the Iroquois and kicked everyone's butt and could have conquered the world but due to real life time constraints had to finish up the game so I went space race at the last minute.

Yep...you're right...it's impossible to win peacefully. My game is just a hallucination isn't it?

"Did you notice how points per turn for World Peace have also been removed? There is no precedent for playing a peaceful society in Civ3. "

Other than winning through culture or diplomacy? Duh!

"I think it's actually the opposite; more underwhelming than overwhelming. "

Yeah..right. And 2 + 2 = 5.

"It is a lot of effort in the modern era, but the effort is mainly in moving settlers to clean up pollution and waiting for another 4 turns for your next advance. Certainly a lesson in patience anyway. "

Sure that's all it is when you are so ignorant of how to manage your diplomacy that you basically fall on your own sword with the UN wonder.

"I probably will. I think I'll play another game or two of Civ3 when the patch is released to see if that makes any difference."

It won't for you, since your main problem does not seem to be related to air interception bugs and the like.

Devin

[rid102]

What one or two distinct types of strategy? Given 6 different ways to win in CIV3 that must result in 6 different strategies almost defacto. I have played Civ3 games where I am the all conquering bringer of doom and woe. I am currently playing one where I am Mr. Nice...never start a war, and am absorbing cities culturally. In Civ2 it was always the SAME strategy over and over again. Blitz tech to tank and then go to Fundie and spy spy spy til your head explodes. Weeee!

Yeah..right. And 2 + 2 = 5.

That is the inherent nature of the entire CIV genre...to force the player to make tough decisions and to juggle priorities. You seem to have a problem with this. You have a problem with having to make tough decisions. May I suggest a chieftain level game on a huge map with 1 opposing CIV? Then you can operate fully free of those annoying decisions (er constraints) and can build your dream civ without any nasty interference from the game. I wish they had a zero enemy civ option for you...maybe they can patch that in.

But then again I am capable of more than one-dimensional thinking.

So now you have a problem with having to fight for things? If you want a non wargame play Sim City. And for someone who just brushed off the entire war aspect of the game you do some mighty loud whining about lack of certain war units. Once again, talking out of both sides of your mouth

My game is just a hallucination isn't it?

It is about doing what you need to do to get the things you need to get. Sometimes it is best to wheedle or beg for things. Other times to intimidate. And others to fight. You find this a design flaw? Your arguments become more and more spurious and non-sensical as this debate progresses. I often have quite an easy time getting the resources I need without fighting thank you very much. But then again I am capable of more than one-dimensional thinking.

You don't have a point.

Boo hoo! You can repair your reputation you know. Did it occur to you to make peace with everyone and lavish them with gifts BEFORE calling for a vote? Too complicated for you huh? Did it occur to you, since you say you gained the resources in border skirmishes, implying they were near to your border, to move your palace near those borders and build up culture and gain the cities and resources peacefully (maybe aided by espionage)? Did it occur to you to perhaps maneuver the civ with the resources into wars with other civs so that they are weakened and then intimidate them into giving you the cities and resources you needed?

Once again, talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Civ3's greatest strength is that it punishes one-dimensional thinking. You cannot just blitz science or blitz military. You have to set up...plan...maneuver...and think!

Yes....your posts make it clear you DON'T know how to play the game.

Yes...sometimes things don't go according to plan. That is also the sign of a good game. A good game PLAYER will react to these unexpected situations and come out of them on top. But your postings are presenting these little scenarios you have cooked up as some sort of insurmountable indictment of the game. That is just plain rubbish. You worried about other civs attacking you if you try and fight a limited war for a resource? Then ally with all the civs against that one enemy. Sign mutual protection pacts with half of the civs on the map...each one adjacent to a civ you haven't signed the pact with.

Boo hoo!

Example:

But your postings are presenting these little scenarios you have cooked up as some sort of insurmountable indictment of the game.

Yep. That's right. That's why in my current game as Egypt on a huge map with 16 civs I am playing completely peaceful (it is 1700 and I have had a single 5 turn war with the Russians...and they started it). Yet I am in the lead in tech and culture, have all the strategic resources I need through trade, and have absorbed now 7 other civ cities through culture alone. The other civs are happy enough with me that I probably have my choice of space race victory or UN victory and certainly point victory.

That is just plain rubbish.

All of the quotes I've used to answer your points above are things you've posted as counter-arguments to me.

Now you run along and fun arguing with yourself there Devin. Take your rude and condescending attitude elsewhere, because I don't care for it.

[cutlerd]

"All of the quotes I've used to answer your points above are things you've posted as counter-arguments to me.

Now you run along and fun arguing with yourself there Devin. Take your rude and condescending attitude elsewhere, because I don't care for it."

Ah yes...the last refuge of someone who has run out of good points to make. Vuh vye!

For your information...I'm staying. You can feel free to ignore my posts or can run along back to the CIV2 boards where you can rejoice in the rapture of gaming that is CIV2.

ta ta!

Devin

[cutlerd]

While debating the now defunct rid102, I considered the whole strategic resource issue and his contention that this somehow limited a player's option.

To this I have two points.

First, he makes the statement that it is unbelievable for a civ to be able to build spaceships because it has access to oil, aluminum, and rubber but unable to build railroads due to lack of coal. I agree that it is unbelievable, but one has to wonder what the solution to this problem is. Is it to require coal to build spaceships? What about iron? You probably need iron for spaceships too. So the solution to this particular problem is simply to require civs to have access to coal and iron along with the other 3 resources in order to construct a spaceship.

The problem is that this solution, while addressing his believability problem, exacerbates his other problem with strategic resources....the constraint of having to get them.

So on the one hand rid 102 is decrying the fact that you can build a spaceship without coal, the solution of which is to require coal to build a spaceship, and on the other hand, he is decrying the effort it takes to have to gain these resources (or the constraints it places on him to have to get them).

Which is it? Do you want more believable strategic resources or none at all?

Second, his argument that strategic resources constrain the game, forcing it into narrow corridors of play is preposterous.

Let's look for a moment at CIV2. What are the possible at start variations in CIV2 that affect the play of the game? I can think of only one....starting location. That's it. Starting location is the ONLY determinant factor present at the start of the CIV2 game that varies from game to game. This is why CIV2 became boring. I can basically categorize starting locations in CIV2 into a few broad categories:

1. Start on a small island
2. Start on a decent sized island by yourself
3. Start on a large continent with neighbours with good terrain in the middle of the map (i.e. near the equator)
4. Start on a large continent with neighbours with bad terrain in the middle of the map (i.e. near the equator)
5. Same as #3 but near a pole
6. Same as #4 but near a pole

That's about it. There are basically 6 game paths in CIV2 and you are doomed to repeat the same 6 games over and over again.

Now let's lok at CIV3.

First, you have all of the 6 criteria listed above. Add to that the following:

1. Which strategic resources are nearby (this present a huge combination of possible variations just on its own....do you have iron or horses? That affects the early game quite a bit. Do you have access to the terrain types that oil comes into? If not, then that is going to affect your end game. No desert access? Saltpeter may be a problem). Playing in the ancient world without iron is a big BIG difference than playing with iron. Same with horses.

2. Which civ do you choose to play? Unlike civ2, where one civ was as good as another, now the choice of civ is extremely important as the Egyptians play very very differently from the Romans.

3. Which civs are your neighbours? Again a HUGE variation of possible neighbours, especially is you play the 16 civ huge map game. Are the Romans near you with access to iron? Watch out! The legions are a-comin! Are the Babylonians near you? Be prepared to fight their culture. Germany next door? You might have some breathing room until panzers.

Now take all 3 of the above and matrix them. Are the Romans your neighbour? That's one type of game. But do they have iron? Romans with iron are one type of game....Romans without iron are another. The Egyptians are neighbours? Do they have horses? If not...so much for their war chariots.

If one were to matrix the possible combinations of the 6 geographical starting location types with the 16 civs with the resources one would arrive at literally MILLIONS of potential combinations. This means that it is VERY unlikely that a given game of CIV2 is ever going to feel a lot like any other game of CIV3.

So...rather than viewing things like strategic resources as constraints, as rid 102 does, I view them as part of a means to allow the game to have such a wide variety of strategic variability and play variability that it is unlikely I will ever get tired of CIV3.

Devin

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Cutlerd,
I'd just like to say that you make some excellent points about the potential for variation in the game. The possible placement of resources+Civ you pick+who is your neighbour does give the game a MASSIVE replayability factor, but you forgot one thing: what type of victory you wish to achieve. By adding 2 new ways to win (culture and diplomacy) as well as improving the world conquest victory, you just have so many more ways to play the game!!! This will effect even how you begin your games, as well as influencing your strategy mid to late game!!
Coupled with the VASTLY improved AI (which actually makes diplomacy worthwile), this game is just an order of magnitude better than it's predecessors.

Thats not to say that there are NO problems with the game, but most of these are minor issues which will either be solved by future patches or are not seriously hampering game-play.
The thing about people like Rid102 is that no attempts to improve the game will satisfy them, and they seem to have nothing better to do than complain!! Like you said, if they hate the game so much they should go back to Civ2 or, better yet, SimCity!!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker

[cutlerd]

Great point Aussie Lurker about the new victory conditions adding even more variability to the game. Although I certainly enjoy all styles of Civ play, from militaristic world smashing to intricate perfectionist civ building, my preferred style of play is civ building punctuated by warfare.

I find it quite awesome that, in Civ3, I can build a truly nice, perfectionist civ and get tangible results from it. Hell, I can actually take over the world without firing a shot. If McDonalds and Pepsi can do it....why can't I?

I am very much enjoying my current game where I have vowed to be Mr. Lawful Good and not start a war. Believe me...it is tempting to go and smash those weak neighbours of mine, but that temptation recedes when I see that 7 cities of my rivals (I won't say enemies since we have never fought a war) have defected to me....and a few of them were large cities in the heartland of the enemy.

My challenge now is to see just how far my culture can truly spread in a 16 civ game on a huge map.

And from my vantage point around 1700AD, I have the luxury, technically, of going for a diplomatic win (which I could probably pull off....all but one of the civs likes me, though that could change), going for the space win (I am ahead in tech by between 3-6 advances), going for the point win (I am ahead in that by a few hundred), or should I decide to break my Lawful Good role I can go for domination. That's more options than I ever had in Civ2.

Devin

[rid102]

The thing about people like Rid102 is that no attempts to improve the game will satisfy them, and they seem to have nothing better to do than complain!!

I am just disappointed that a lot was changed rather than directly improved. The emphasis here being on "attempts", I think...

Civ2 satisfied me over Civ1 (read back on the posts and you'll see this was the converse for the other guy), why do you feel as though you need to jump on the judgemental bandwagon?

There seems to be an inordinate amount of persecution occuring on these boards against anyone who has anything critical to say of Civ3... yes, a lot has been added to the game but many of those things are double-edged swords, and not just in my eyes but also in the eyes of others too...

[cutlerd]

"There seems to be an inordinate amount of persecution occuring on these boards against anyone who has anything critical to say of Civ3... yes, a lot has been added to the game but many of those things are double-edged swords, and not just in my eyes but also in the eyes of others too... "

Well first, coming to a CIV3 forum and saying the game basically stinks and that you are going back to playing CIV2 is non-productive, non-constructive, and really not what CIV3 players want or need to hear. That does NOT mean all posts have to be love fests, but there is a difference between someone with constructive criticisms to post in the hopes that CIV3 will be made better thereby and someone who basically is a CIV2 partisan and will never be happy and is basically just trolling for a fight.

Second, I got on you because your arguments were contradictory and illogical IMO, and that was a sure sign that you are posting with a chip on your shoulder and an unmitigatable bias against CIV3, and that to me is the definition of "trolling".

Third, it pisses me off when someone condemns a game with a mantle of knowing the game authoritatively and then, by way of his examples, illustrates that he has no idea how to master the various depths and complexities of the game. This leads me to believe that you are an incompetant player (which for the record I don't think you are) or that you basically have, once again, gone into CIV3 with CIV2 blinders on and will tend to dislike anything CIV3 has to offer if it deviates in any way from CIV2. The problems and obstacles you presented in your posts are an inherent part of the game and are over-come-able with good play. The fact that you were unable to smacks of someone who basically tried the game, played it like they played their CIV2 game, got trounced, got huffy, and decided to condemn the game.

I can show you or you can see for yourself many MANY posts in the CIV3 forums critical of CIV3 that did not get trounced on and where the poster was not, as you term it "persecuted". Given that, maybe you should look to what it was in your posts that differentiated you from those people who have criticized CIv3 and not been "persecuted".

Devin

[H Tower]

you mean i have to waste hours to get to tanks and planes?

[rid102]

I've told you already I'm not getting drawn into a flame war with you (which seems to be what you're after).

[cutlerd]

"I've told you already I'm not getting drawn into a flame war with you (which seems to be what you're after)."

No flame war necessary. You pondered publicly why you were being "persecuted", and as someone you surely had in mind when you made that statement, I chose to try and enlighten you as to the reason why.



Devin

[Pachabel]

Clearly the art of brevity has been skewerd and roasted above a prodigious bonfire.

[Pachabel]

.