*Neutral* observations after playing...

[Grim Legacy]

I start this thread to make a small list of things that can be observed playing Civ3 that aren't necessarily subjective in nature. These 'facts' are hopefully very informative about the game for those who haven't got it yet.

I noted the following things myself:

1) The game crashed on me quite abruptly after about 30 minutes of play. There was only Civ3 running. After that I restarted and played on.

2) The AI cheats heavily like it did in Civ2. On Deity -which I of course played my very first game at- the enemy cities grow *much* faster than your own, and AI production levels are staggering. My size 1 capital had barely built a spearmen unit when the AI opponents had fielded about 4 units... hmmmm When my city was size 3 (1 settler built) and my second city size 1, the enemies had cities size 5 and at least 4 cities total each. Also, they were completing wonders while I hadn't even been able to built a granary.
***note: this is not my incompetency, this all happened very early in the game, where mistakes aren't really made yet, i.e. what did you do wrong when you built your first warrior and the enemy has two?***

3) Player options are extremely limited. I immediately noted the forced Leader choice... no more typing in your awesome alias or choosing a title. It's one of the pre-fabbed bunch or nothing. (Ok so sue me I want to add a little subjective thing here: all leaders look like total wimps). Another example: the palace can't be turned off. It could in Civ2.

4) The interface doesn't only differ from Civ2, it is also flawed. Sometimes you must double-click an option, sometimes you mustn't. Sometimes you can press space, sometimes you can't. Sometimes a click activates a unit, sometimes it zooms to the city... It looks like it isn't 100% consistent.

5) Scrolling isn't 'slow', but it's fixed at a certain amount of squares, which makes it seem like it isn't fluid. It isn't optimally implemented.


To be expanded.

[Dan Magaha FIRAXIS]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy

3) Player options are extremely limited. I immediately noted the forced Leader choice... no more typing in your awesome alias or choosing a title. It's one of the pre-fabbed bunch or nothing. (Ok so sue me I want to add a little subjective thing here: all leaders look like total wimps). Another example: the palace can't be turned off. It could in Civ2.

On the player setup screen, click the box in the middle directly under the picture of the leader. You can enter in a unique name, title, and all the adjectives.

Dan

[Wexu]

2. Firaxis have said earlier that AI cheats against you -prince-> and for you <-prince-, at prince -level AI does't cheat. (Or so they say..)

3. You can change your leader name etc. by clicking the name.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS


On the player setup screen, click the box in the middle directly under the picture of the leader. You can enter in a unique name, title, and all the adjectives.

Dan

Whoops... thanks for the tip.

Don't let my small oversight stifle the amassment of more 'neutral' comments, now!

[Soren Johnson]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy
2) The AI cheats heavily like it did in Civ2. On Deity -which I of course played my very first game at- the enemy cities grow *much* faster than your own, and AI production levels are staggering. My size 1 capital had barely built a spearmen unit when the AI opponents had fielded about 4 units... hmmmm When my city was size 3 (1 settler built) and my second city size 1, the enemies had cities size 5 and at least 4 cities total each. Also, they were completing wonders while I hadn't even been able to built a granary.
***note: this is not my incompetency, this all happened very early in the game, where mistakes aren't really made yet, i.e. what did you do wrong when you built your first warrior and the enemy has two?***

Yes, the AI cheats heavily on Deity. One of the complaints about Civ2 was that Deity was "too easy." I'm not sure if that was just breast-beating or not, but we were determined to make the game more difficult on the highest difficulty level. Thus, I weighed the game heavily in favor of the AI at that level, and when I thought that perhaps I had made it too hard, I made it even harder still. The truth is that there is no way we can predict how good human players will eventually become at Civ3, so I had to take my "best guess." And yes, you should consider that a challenge.

If you do not want to play against a cheating AI, then play on Regent, which is the level at which the AI receive NO game bonuses.

[Deathray]

Thanks for posting Soren, I'm glad you cleared that up. If you read this post, then I would like it if there was an option to disable AI cheating completely in a game, so that we could play against the AI when it is playing at its strongest without it cheating, because a lot of people don't like it cheating.

[Soren Johnson]

Originally posted by Deathray
Thanks for posting Soren, I'm glad you cleared that up. If you read this post, then I would like it if there was an option to disable AI cheating completely in a game, so that we could play against the AI when it is playing at its strongest without it cheating, because a lot of people don't like it cheating.

Actually, the AI is basically at full strength intelligence-wise at all levels, which is why we have seen some people losing on Chieftain even though the human is able to build and research twice as fast as the AI at that level. (It is a little less aggressive at Chieftain/Warlord and a little more aggressive at Emperor/Deity...)

[Frugal_Gourmet]

Of COURSE the AI cheats at Deity. The difference is, the computer is hard when he DOESN'T cheat (easier levels) in *this* game. I think beating deity is going to be virtually impossible early on.

[lockstep]

Speaking of 'neutral observations' - some people claim that corruption and waste are quite unmanageable even in Democracy. (See the 'Forbidden palace' thread.) Firaxis members, would you mind to throw light on this issue?

[lockstep]

double post

[Soren Johnson]

Originally posted by lockstep
Speaking of 'neutral observations' - some people claim that corruption and waste are quite unmanageable even in Democracy. (See the 'Forbidden palace' thread.) Firaxis members, would you mind to throw light on this issue?

The way corruption works is one of the biggest changes from Civ2, so I am not surprised that people are having difficulties adjusting. Under this new system, you _cannot_ control ever city in the world and expect them to still function. Thus, it takes a slightly different approach than Civ2 (or Civ1 or SMAC) required. Simply put, more cities is not always better.

There are two factors affecting corruption levels: distance from capitol (like Civ2) and number of cities (unlike Civ2).

You can fight the distance factor by:

- moving your capitol to a more optimal location
- building a Courthouse in the city
- building a Forbidden Palace near your corrupt cities
- switching to a less-corrupt government type
- being connected to your capitol via road/harbor/airport
- putting your city in "We Love the King Day" (works for shields only...)

You can fight the number of cities factor by:

- lowering the difficulty level
- building a Courthouse in the city
- building a Forbidden Palace in any city
- playing a civilization with the Commercial bonus
- switching to a less-corrupt government type
- putting your city in "We Love the King Day" (works for shields only...)

and finally...

- emphasize building a few great cities instead of a bunch of puny ones

and also...

- think about razing cities when you capture them (although be careful... you might create an enemy for the rest of the game...)

Hope that helps.

[Comrade Tribune]

Thanks to:

Grim Legacy for informing us about issues that may or may not be a problem.

Soren Johnson for a speedy, polite and reasonable response.

Threads like this one are what I would like to see more often in this forum.

[Auk]

So happiness/culture levels have nothing to do with corruption? (as someone else suggested in another thread..)

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis


Yes, the AI cheats heavily on Deity. One of the complaints about Civ2 was that Deity was "too easy." I'm not sure if that was just breast-beating or not, but we were determined to make the game more difficult on the highest difficulty level. Thus, I weighed the game heavily in favor of the AI at that level, and when I thought that perhaps I had made it too hard, I made it even harder still. The truth is that there is no way we can predict how good human players will eventually become at Civ3, so I had to take my "best guess." And yes, you should consider that a challenge.

If you do not want to play against a cheating AI, then play on Regent, which is the level at which the AI receive NO game bonuses.

Thank you for confirming that. I quickly noticed (some of) the AI bonuses, being used to them in Civ2. I did indeed also note that you've increased them quite a bit still!
I personally do think it is a challenge to try to beat such a difficult game, and I will certainly try so before I yield to choosing Regent levels!
The drawback is that the imbalance is so clear, so that players may get the feeling that they only lost because of the cheating, not because they used inferior strategies. There were some comments on this aspect on these forums earlier.
I do understand it will be virtually impossible to have an AI that doesn't cheat and still is able to withstand the best Civ3 players for the foreseeable future.

Just for the record, is the cheating at Monarch about the same as it was under Deity in Civ2?

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Thanks to:

Grim Legacy for informing us about issues that may or may not be a problem.

Soren Johnson for a speedy, polite and reasonable response.

Threads like this one are what I would like to see more often in this forum.

Thanks for the kind words, Comrade Tribune. I do hope to expand this thread or start others focusing more on 'factual' information instead of wading in the swamps of subjective cries (pink is such an ugly color! etc). I think this may help us in our quest for effective information.

[Pyrodrew]

Soren:The way corruption works is one of the biggest changes from Civ2, so I am not surprised that people are having difficulties adjusting. Under this new system, you _cannot_ control ever city in the world and expect them to still function. Thus, it takes a slightly different approach than Civ2 (or Civ1 or SMAC) required. Simply put, more cities is not always better.

There are two factors affecting corruption levels: distance from capitol (like Civ2) and number of cities (unlike Civ2).

Thanks. It sounds like distance plays a much stronger role than the number of cities, especially when I read a recent post of someone saying they were successful playing on Regent by building 30 cities packed in tight together rather than expanding out. And if I play the English & start in the UK what incentive would I have to colonize Australia if I'm the 1st one there given the heavy distance corruption element (just begging for another civ to take them over)? Is the only reasonable way to expand directly outward from the center of my empire?

[Ray K]

A representative from Firaxis said this:

Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis

...
Simply put, more cities is not always better.

...
- emphasize building a few great cities instead of a bunch of puny ones

...

- think about razing cities when you capture them (although be careful... you might create an enemy for the rest of the game...)

HOLY COW!

I thought I bought "Civilization", a game where you can build an empire and take over the world (at least as one way of winning).

Now a guy from Firaxis is saying that you shouldn't build lots of cities and you should consider RAZING cities that you conquer!?!

This is ****ing absurd. Please find me one historical analogy for this. ONE.

Now I completely understand why all of those modern-era screenshots have all 8 civs. You guys have engineered the game against conquest. Why can't I eventually have LOTS of great cities if I outplay the AI? Why should I raze my opponent's capital?

All of a sudden, Call to Power is starting to look really good.

[lightblue]

This is ****ing absurd. Please find me one historical analogy for this. ONE

I can give you more than one I think. The Crusaders sacked Byzantium/Constantinopel (and that was a Christian city as well). The tribes that sacked the Roman empire didn't really conquer, but rather raped and pillaged their way through. Similarly, I don't think Genghis Khan and his hordes were particularly interested in establishing stable goverments. Or think about how the Spanish sacked the Aztec and Inca cities (though admittedly they did build their own cities on top of them, and I suppose this could be a tactic to get rid of having to subvert the locals after conquering (just raze and build a new city with a settler that is tagging along with your army)).

[Comrade Tribune]

[Smugly adding the observation that no one has conquered the real world so far.]

If you really, really want to conquer the entire world, you should play on Chieftain level. I would be very pleasantly surprised, if, on Deity, this is close to impossible.

I start to like this game better and better. If they had included a decent editor, I would even start to praise Firaxis.

[Dis]

I'm guessing communism is THE ONLY wartime goverment for conquering the world.

All cities are supposed to be the same distance from capitol so this should alleviate the problem for you guys who want to conquer the world (as I do). But I do miss fundamentalism . I wish they had fascism to make up for it.

[Kristjan]

I love this thread... I really do!

Thanks, guys!

[Blunderdog]

If we're going to be tied to accuracy, where's the historical analogy for conquering the entire world?

Edit: Oops! Someone beat me to this witty response.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Blunderdog
If we're going to be tied to accuracy, where's the historical analogy for conquering the entire world?

Edit: Oops! Someone beat me to this witty response.

How much of the world did Great Britain and its spinoffs (i.e. USA) control at the peak of the British empire?

Like I said, I thought I bought a game called 'Civilization'. Taking the possibility of conquering the world out of the game seems like a cardinal sin.

If I wanted to play SimCity, I would have purchased that game instead.

[ProfessorPhobos]

Ray, just because your conquered cities will tend to suffer a lot of corruption(which has a great historical analog- big empires are always frayed at the edges...always...)

and it'll be difficult to control a one-world government, doesn't mean it's not possible.

You can still conquer the world. It's just much harder. (Which is good. It's not like it's very easy in the real world.)

[Dis]

edited out

[Ray K]

Originally posted by ProfessorPhobos
Ray, just because your conquered cities will tend to suffer a lot of corruption(which has a great historical analog- big empires are always frayed at the edges...always...)

and it'll be difficult to control a one-world government, doesn't mean it's not possible.

You can still conquer the world. It's just much harder. (Which is good. It's not like it's very easy in the real world.)

Well, my main complaint is in the cities I have FOUNDED.

According to Firaxis, you should raze the cities you conquer if you are having corruption problems

[FexFX]

Okay here are my impressions after 4 hours of play...(I have not had the kind of time I have really wanted yet...)

First let me say I really love this game!

It is definitely a worthy successor to the Civ name, but could have used some beta testing more for tweaking and feedback than for bughunting.

So Far I have encountered no bugs, but there are a few minor annoyances related to the interface which are mostly usability issues.

My biggest gripe is about the Q feature and its difficulty of use.
Holding down the shift key is annoying, but not my real gripe. My real gripe is that there appears to be no way to remove an item from the Q...The only work around has been to Q up something else in that slot..which is not the same as clearing the Q...which I can find no way to do.

The lack of more than 2 levels of zoom while a bit irksome is not a huge deal to me, but I can see where others might be very annoyed.

There Should be a button to take you to the advisors screen on the City screen, because quite often I find myself wanting to go directly from one to the other. There should also be a way to get to the Civlopedia entry for a Q item fromthe city screen which there is not.

I really like the whole national borders concept, but very often they are not visible to me because they are burried inder the miles of jungle that surround my cities...I like the graphics, but they are actually hindering my gameplay with this behavior...There should be a way to turn off terrain details so I can see my borders clearly, or a patch needs fix it so the National Border is drawn on top of EVERYTHING else.

These are really my only gripes so far. I like the concepts of the new interface, and find many of the new ideas to be wonderful (the new city screen is a great idea!), I just feel some of the implementation is a bit sticky and could be improved on.

So, Great game! Needs a bit of work to be perfect tho!

[Soren Johnson]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy


Thank you for confirming that. I quickly noticed (some of) the AI bonuses, being used to them in Civ2. I did indeed also note that you've increased them quite a bit still!
I personally do think it is a challenge to try to beat such a difficult game, and I will certainly try so before I yield to choosing Regent levels!
The drawback is that the imbalance is so clear, so that players may get the feeling that they only lost because of the cheating, not because they used inferior strategies. There were some comments on this aspect on these forums earlier.
I do understand it will be virtually impossible to have an AI that doesn't cheat and still is able to withstand the best Civ3 players for the foreseeable future.

Just for the record, is the cheating at Monarch about the same as it was under Deity in Civ2?

Actually, Monarch is not really much different from Regent. The experienced players here can beat Regent most of the time, so Monarch is intended to be the level which will give a consistent challenge to most players. Thus, the AI only gets a 10% food/shield/lab bonus in Monarch... if you want to know what the levels are, just do an Investigae City at the different difficulty levels...

btw, I have seen people make suggestions about the AI having a combat bonus, and I just wanted to be clear that the AI gets NO combat bonuses of any kind against the human at any difficulty level. We believed that would have been too obvious, making the game unfun.

[SuiteSisterMary]

This is ****ing absurd. Please find me one historical analogy for this. ONE.

In more or less historical order?

Rome (at various times)
USSR
Communist China
Modern Day America

[Deathray]

Well, I have to say that its very nice to see some developers on the boards answering questions. Its very rare, and very appreciated among us fans. Thank you Soren. I think that its a good decision to implement penalties and bonuses rather than changing the AI strength. I would rather face an intelligent opponent with some production penalties than some inept fool, and I would rather face an intelligent opponent with production bonuses than some sort of omniscient god type opponent.