Things i don't like about it.

Kaak · October 30, 2001, 20:23

1. stacks don't die

When you attack a stack, only the one unit dies...

2. city interphase

not as convenient as civ2

3. no unit zones of control.

enemy units can walk right by your units, even if they are on mountains

and that is just from 5 minutes of play. I am disappointed.

OH! and 4. no MP

Simpleton · October 30, 2001, 20:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Kaak
1. stacks don't die

When you attack a stack, only the one unit dies...

But I thought that's what people wanted: stacks that don't die?

Quote:

2. city interphase

What is city interphase? (I know what interphase is with regards to the cell cycle but not with regards to Civ3)

Quote:

3. no unit zones of control.

enemy units can walk right by your units, even if they are on mountains

I think only certain advanced fast units like tanks have ZOC now. I don't know if any ancient units have it so that is probably why you haven't seen ZOC effects yet.

Typo · October 30, 2001, 20:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Kaak
1. stacks don't die

When you attack a stack, only the one unit dies...

2. city interphase

not as convenient as civ2

3. no unit zones of control.

enemy units can walk right by your units, even if they are on mountains

and that is just from 5 minutes of play. I am disappointed.

OH! and 4. no MP

1. Thank god.

2. Oh well you'll get used to it.

3. We already know this, you need to construct forts.

4. Go away, play the game and tell us something useful instead of playing for 5 mins and coming back with shite...

David Floyd · October 30, 2001, 20:29

Kaak, your disappointments, especially one and three, are simply you being disappointed at more realism - if one infantry regiment attacks a stack of three infantry regiments in real life, the stack doesn't die, why should it in Civ?

As for the whole ZOC thing...why should someone entrenched on a hill (esp. without artillery) prevent movement? Although I would like to see something called opportunity attacks - but who knows? Maybe those are in the modern era.

Kaak · October 30, 2001, 20:32

great great, typo criticizes me with his 24th post...

CBH · October 30, 2001, 20:35

Because we all know postcount = penis size.

SixArmedMan · October 30, 2001, 20:44

I thought his tone was out of line, especially his so called rebuttal of kaak's fourth point. So much for respect

1. I think that's a good thing
2. Interface (Typoe?). I haven't played yet... I just got it now.
3. ZOC's come later in the game judging from what I read. Also there's supposed to be some kind of consequence for moving in a hostile unit's so called ZOC? I'm don't know. I haven't played yet
4. A big disappointment but then... we both bought the game anyways. I guess we're just a bunch of saps like that.

Typo · October 30, 2001, 20:49

24 wow! I didn't realise I'd made that many posts, I must be good

BTW you still here get playing some civ3

Akillias · October 30, 2001, 21:46

WHAT A 24 INCH PENIS???

dainbramaged13 · October 30, 2001, 22:41

Yes, i lovingly strocke my 900 some inche penis while AH has to have a limo to ride around with his ten-thousand inch penis...

Zylka · October 30, 2001, 23:02

The graphics are really, REALLY bad. This is not civ2 further expanded and defined, this is call to power 3.

bleh...

LaRusso · October 31, 2001, 06:17

Quote:

Originally posted by dainbramaged13
Yes, i lovingly strocke my 900 some inche penis while AH has to have a limo to ride around with his ten-thousand inch penis...

yes, AH is a well known spermer, ups...spammer

Siej · October 31, 2001, 06:26

Zylka,

The graphics are exceptional for this type of game. What were you expecting, turn based Quake 3?

Sava · October 31, 2001, 09:14

tbs Quake 3, good one...

I would rather have Firaxis spend 3 years on improving gameplay, then 3 years improving the graphics. That is the problem, especially with console games, nowadays. All these puds care about is "ooh look at the pretty graphics". Graphics should not even be part of a game review. Or at least it shouldn't be weighted in the overall rating as heavily as it is. Lots of people attack the idea of realism using the excuse "gameplay is more important than realism", yet when an awesome game like Civ 3 comes out, those same tards complain about the graphics. I guess some people just complain no matter what the case may be.

As for ZOC:

Considering each square in Civ games represents about 1,000 sq miles, I don't think it is inconceivable that an archer unit can walk past a bunch of phalanx soldiers sitting on their ass. I'm all for the ZOC rules in Civ 3. And anyone who says otherwise can take this action: "Trick or treat, smell my feet, give me something good to eat, if you don't, I don't care, I'll pull down your underwear!"

Max Webster · October 31, 2001, 09:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Typo
4. Go away, play the game and tell us something useful instead of playing for 5 mins and coming back with shite...

...

DonJoel · October 31, 2001, 10:26

Quote:

Considering each square in Civ games represents about 1,000 sq miles, I don't think it is inconceivable that an archer unit can walk past a bunch of phalanx soldiers sitting on their ass.

Uh, how do you judge a square to be 1000 sq miles?
It can be just as well 25 sq miles if you play on a large scale map, for example a map of Italy or Japan.
Or it can be 25.000 sq miles if you play on a fantasy map.
So judging scale is impossible.

Leonidas · October 31, 2001, 12:05

I like Civ games - played them all - but many problems have cropped up because of a forced early release by Infogrames:

1) In the release chat, Firaxis Mike said that the choppy scrolling is due to some sloppy coding (I think he said by himself too) and that he's working on cleaning up the slider code for an eventual patch. So it's not the system, it's the game.

There is simply no excuse for this.

2) If you check out the "Creation" forum, you'll find that the editor shipped WITHOUT an events file - therefore - as it stands NO special scenario can be made like "Red Front" for Civ3.

Also, NO specific scenarios can be made for Civ3. Why? Because of the random placement of units and the fact that initial cities cannot be placed at the beginning of the scenario on the map.

There is simply no excuse for this sloppiness - the production of scenarios is what gave Civ2 its longevity. Again - another feature left by the wayside because of release date pressures.

While the basic game may be fun, I am sure most civvers were looking forward to some exciting new scenarios to play, considering NONE shipped with the game.

Frankly, I am shocked by this. . .

Most of these problems could have been solved/found with an open beta test - but again time pressures by the company have left civvers short-changed.

4) I won't go into all the other problems - except to say - maybe in 6 months - when Civ3 Gold comes out - we may eventually get the game that this release SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

This is really a pity. . .

Kaak · October 31, 2001, 12:16

bah, i'm not saying you people have to agree with me. I'm just disappointed. Yes, the graphics do suck. One of the things that was so great about civ2 was that you could tell instantaneously what a unit was, and what was stacked behind it. Also kind of weird, but i can't figure out how to make a unit attack, and then stay in the same place. It always wants to run over where the other unit was?!?!

Kaak · October 31, 2001, 12:17

also, it isn't windows integrated !?!?! this sucks...

Ozymandous · October 31, 2001, 12:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Zylka
The graphics are really, REALLY bad. This is not civ2 further expanded and defined, this is call to power 3.

bleh...

Gee, and we all know that graphics are obviously the only thing that matter, eh?

Hmm, this isn't Civ2 further expanded but CtP3? Then I guess we'll see slaver's, televangelests, clerics, under sea cities, etc?

What? No? Oh, then you mean this IS Civ2 expanded then with culture, resources, etc.

Oh well, since graphics are the only things that matter I guess everything else is crap...

Right.

Roland Ehnström · October 31, 2001, 12:37

Kaak wrote:
"great great, typo criticizes me with his 24th post..."

Oops, there went my respect for you down the drain, Kaak.

-- Roland

Typo · October 31, 2001, 13:08

I have to agree with everything Leonidas said unfortunately. I do think these things will be fixed with patches etc and civers ingenuity.

Even with these gripes/problems, from what I can gather on various forums (barring the exceptional few), the people playing the game seem to be enjoying it. Plus Civ3 is getting good reviews so I still am looking forward to playing it.

Although I am gutted about no scenarios included.

cassembler · October 31, 2001, 13:29

Quote:

I would rather have Firaxis spend 3 years on improving gameplay, then 3 years improving the graphics.

I somewhat agree, but I'm glad we're not playing with colored dots on a 50x50 square matrix.

ZOC's are only available with modern units, and ?fortresses? I think.
I hear the AI is significantly improved... I'll have to check for myself. Of course, all of the stores here in Arlington, Tx are
SLOW A FU.CK!!!!!!!!! THEY PISS ME OFF DAG NABBIT!!! GET THE FU.CKING GAME IN STOCK NOW!!!!
Comp USA told me November 5th.
Eat my d!ck!!!

Sarcastro · October 31, 2001, 14:10

Quote:

Kaak wrote:
"great great, typo criticizes me with his 24th post..."

FORUM DEBATING FACT: If all you can rebut someone with is a derisive comment regarding their postcount, you've automatically lost the argument. I have no doubt you probably have some way to back that up, but don't hope to convince anyone with this method.

Of course, I only have a few posts here, so what do I know?

Earthling7 · October 31, 2001, 15:01

Kaak. Do you have Civ2? Sounds like just the game for you

ACEofHeart · October 31, 2001, 16:29

Regarding the graphics,,,
Okay someone explain how can a Real-time game like AgeofKings have better-looking graphics, terrain and stuctures. easy smooth scolling across any size map, and yet way less system requirements..???
Why is it when it comes to "turn-base" we always say it's gameplay that counts..and always settle for less ??

Imran Siddiqui · October 31, 2001, 16:38

ACE: Because AoK doesn't have to deal with everything the computer in Civ3 has too. There is much more there, such as what is every city building, what it already has, food production, trade, the money it is making, etc, etc.

Zylka · October 31, 2001, 17:14

Gee folks, I guess criticism of a flawed game isn't allowed around here. Instead, let's just blindly accept that this is a good game because it says civ3 on the box.

In that respect, honestly... they could have gotten away with just about anything chintz, and it looks like they are.

Imran Siddiqui · October 31, 2001, 17:27

*yawn*

Criticism should be in the realm of reality.

Calling Civ3, CtP3, is NOT in the realm of reality. And you might be the only schlub that doesn't think the graphics are better than Civ2. Bet you were calling Sid a sellout for making Civ2 have isometric graphics?

Zylka · October 31, 2001, 18:54

No, I actually do like the graphics better than number two for quality. Yet in terms of what I was expecting, for the graphics to carry in the same form of civ2s iconographic realism, it harshly failed. These graphics are just big studio cartoon garbage. By the way, in the relm of reality - what do you actually like in the game? I'll agree that you like those aspects, but you just can't seem to lend me self preferance in my dislikes.

CONFORMITY NOW SID IS COOL I LIKES DER STUFF