Time for a nice game of Civ II!

mrbilll · November 3, 2001, 14:38

D**mit, Sid! I've been with ya since the first Civ came out, but I just can't stand it anymore. The look and pace of Civ III is like a turn based RTS, if such a thing is possible. It's very pretty, even though the mountains look like big pimples popping up out of the grasslands. But it was always the GAMEPLAY that mattered.

1- CORRUPPTTTTIOIOOOOONNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! Yes, the smell of corruption rises from this game like a 4 week old corpse. For those of you who prefer to see it as a challenge of the new game, knock yourselves out, it's a free country. But in real life, nothing short of all out, dog eat dog anarchy produces the absolute levels of chaos and waste seen in CivIII. And this is just at Regent level. I shudder to think what Diety must be like! The obvious intention is to stop ICS, (for the player, if not for the AI), but in practice it cripples the entire game.

Let's see, culture out the a$$- check. Courthouses everywhere, capital and forbidden palace well placed- check. Modest, non-sprawling empire check. High happiness levels- check. Switch from Monarchy to Republic, take the disadvantages of Republic on the chin- AND CORRUPTION LOSSES GO UP! AAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

2- Research. This is the most flat, streamlined, uninteresting tech tree I've ever seen. True, the tree in SMAC was a bit much, but did you have to dumb it down so much? It almost doesn't matter what I pick, there are seldom many real choices to make. Early science is painfully slow. It's more viable not to bother with research in the early game, and trade or buy advances from the AI- which seems not to suffer from this problem, same as corruption.

3- Expansion. The AI leaps across the largest maps like a jackrabbit, and they must reproduce like jackrabbits, too, to build sprawling settlements like this. Again, corruption obviously doesn't hinder your opponents, and neither do population constraints.

4- Trade. Never was one of my favorite things in older games, but it sounded like it was going to be much more logical this time around, and I was looking forward to giving it a go. Forget it. You want something, take it. They're never going to trade with you on any reasonable, rational, logical basis. Even if you're on good terms, expect a steadily rising cycle of extortion every 20 turns, even if you've got things your idiot opponent desperately needs.

5- Resources. It's catch as catch can, and about as random as a game of Monopoly. Oh look! My opponent landed on saltpeter, and I rolled a double six and went to jail! Looks like he gets guns and I don't! Sure, you can see if he's got extra, but in that case, see complaint #4.

6- Combat. I think I've got it figured out. If I attack his fortified pikemen, I die. If he attacks my fortified pikemen, I die. Simple. I'm taking every variable into account- terrain, unit level, offense and defense bonuses. But there's no way to explain the enemy vs. friendly losses besides AI cheating. A couple of pikers in his city- devastating. A couple of the same in mine- brushed aside like gnats. Consistently. In several games. On several different types of terrain. With or without walls.

Yeah, a challenging and aggressive AI is great, and I particularly like the way it attacks- nothing half a$$ed about it, it comes right at you. But the deck is so obviously stacked against you, I think Civ II needs two rulebooks- the one I got, and the one the AI uses. Maybe then it would make sense.

As it is, this is about as much fun as solitaire with 51 cards. I'm going for a game of Civ II, or maybe even Alpha Centauri. Anyone care to join me?

n.c. · November 3, 2001, 14:51

7. Quality of the Earth maps (no explanation necessary).

8. Historical starting positions (ditto).

9. Game editor. In Civ II the Rules.txt file was my hangout. Didn't think a bunch of guys on horses were stronger than a cruiser? No problem. It was all there and immediately affected every game.

Now buried in the Editor menus is the new system, which apparently only affects scenarios.

10. Cheat mode. Yes damnit! I play this game for fun, and that's it. If I enjoy the occasional save/reveal map/reload who cares? Who does it hurt?

drreross · November 3, 2001, 14:57

I thought I was getting Civ III not CTP III. This is all graphics (which slow the game and get tedious). Sid - what happened to the game play? By the way the graphics aren't so great. Who drew the world map, have they even been to the UK or Italy. Horrible. After CTP, CTP II, and Test of Time; I've had it. I think all we really wanted was upgraded, next generation features on Civ II -- Not a new game. This is REALLY DISAPPOINTING>

Kindbud · November 3, 2001, 15:03

Re: #6 - Combat

I have had similar experiences with the games I played. I was shocked the first time I built a catpult and wheeled it to a nearby enemy city and tried to use it. What the hell does "Bombardment Failed" mean? How does a catapult FAIL to do at least some damage? What is the point of building a catapult if bombardment can fail. And what the heck is that anyway? I couldn't find anything in the "manual" about bombardments failing.

I realize Civ3 is going to be harder than Civ2 but I would still think that playing a game on a stadard map on Chieftan level should be a fairly breezy feat...

HalfLotus · November 3, 2001, 15:38

Sorry to break up the settler party, guys. Most of the things you mentioned are a result of you not knowing what strategies to employ.
You are a horrible Civ3 player. We all are. If you don't enjoy the challenge of coming up with new strategies, you are playing the wrong game.

Kc7mxo · November 3, 2001, 16:01

Sorry HalfLotus, I completly dissagree.

This fellow has valid points, which I tottally agree with.

1.) I don't mind the corruption, I was able to build an empire of aroudn a dozen cities on a small map, and I've been able to keep corruption under control. The problem is that the AI DOESN'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT CORRUPTION.

I've played several games of civ 3 so far, and in every one the ai will expand as fast and as far as possible.

Firaxis has disabled ICS for the human (Thankyou!) but has made it a STRATEGY for the AI. (You Bastards!)

2.) Tech tree is boring, and uninspiring. Too many techs that don't do anything.

4.) The AI doesn't make any sense in the way it requests trades. It complains that I'm insulting IT? What about its offer to trade world maps if I throw in four techs? Or how about the fact that I have to trade two resources to its one to get it to do anything?

Sid, I love just about all your improvements to civ0, but you #@$!#ed up half the stuff that we took for granted!

HalfLotus · November 3, 2001, 16:09

Soren has confimed that AI suffers from corruption just as you do. Can't ***** about that.

I agree that there are too many techs without rewards.

You guys wanted a better AI right. Well, it isnt easy to expand as fast as them, but it can be done.

About the trading, I've had a grand time trading every thing under the sun. You say they dont make ANY sense. I think they make sense most of the time. Alot of factors go into trading. Attitude, the other civs goals, the other civ culture (North Amer. get along better with each other, Asian better with Asian, etc.)

Stretch · November 3, 2001, 16:28

Some days I like a challenge....

Sometimes I have a crappy day at work and I wanna come home, stick the game on cheiftan, and kick the worlds butt over a six-pack to make myself feel artificially powerful . Its good therapy.

Or i should say it WAS good therapy. Now its not possible. The game is loaded so much to keep people from winning at higer levels that the easy low-level win has been removed.

Ahead in tech? fine.. no resources for you to build the units you need to crush your neighbors. Those resources are on the other side of the world. The civ with them hasn't progressed to your tech level yet so he cant trade them.

So go get the resources! Ahhh no way.. corruption and culture guarantee that any effort halfway around the map will fail miserably.

So now my very advanced and powerful civ must wait for others to catch up to me to be eligible to trade the resources I need. But wait, when they get there.. they wont trade them anyway!

Sometimes a "no-brain needed" big win is desirable because its just plain fun.. now without some amazing luck, it won't happen.

Spagina · November 3, 2001, 17:38

I personally think the game is great right now. Although I do have some beefs that I would hope Firaxis looks at and fixes, and no... these having nothing to do with me being a crappy Civ 3 player.

Number one, the computer expands and breeds like ants. This gets extremely annoying, especially when I'm on my continent. I find I have to either build fortresses or cram units onto the fringes of my island empires that don't fall within my borders because the computer will cram 2 cities into 2 open tiles side by side if it has the chance. It gets very annoying, I just hope they tweak this a bit to make the computer build cities more sensibly instead of this half hazard sprawl across the entire globe.

Second complaint has to do with combat. I know combined arms is king, but when my unit clearly outmatches an enemy unit in open terrain combat, I should be mopping it up. A vetern knight should not be waxed by a veteran AI warrior (I've had this happen 4 times now.) Another fun one was my Elite frigate was utterly annihilated by an AI controlled veteran tireme (The first boat type, don't know the name.) I don't even engage in sea battles anymore since AI controlled tiremes can wipe out my frigate armada in no time. I shudder at the thought of a battleship vs. AI battleship fight. I can almost be assured I'll lose handily.

Other than that, I both love and hate the resource system. I love the idea behind it, and if I'm lucky, I get the resources I need within my borders. Sadly, I noticed a bias toward computer players in the 5 games I've played so far. Never once have I had strategic resources spawn within my borders except for one patch of saltpeter. This is in 5 games mind you. Usually all the resources will spawn within AI territories, and usually my tech is so far ahead of the AI, they don't have the technologies developed yet to acquire the resources, so trading is out the window. But I also can't get the resources to build the units to break into the AI territory to grab it, so I can't get it that way either. Like I said, I love the concept, but the execution is way too AI biased. It makes the game utterly frustrating when every patch of uranium is inside one AI's territory with no way to get anywhere near it. Might as well quit game and start a new one.

Another thing I noticed. From what I've read, coal is supposed to spawn in jungles, hills, and plains or grasslands, one of the two. All I can say is coal spawns in jungles only from the games I've played. In fact, one continent I developed on was just hills, mountains, and grasslands, and it was huge, but not one piece of coal spawned in it. Again, it may be due to an AI resource bias, look above to previous paragraph. But from my observations, coal spawns in jungles only. Might be a bug to be looked in to.

One last bug has to deal with the Lighthouse Great Wonder and tiremes. This definitely is a bug as I can use tireme's to map out the entire ocean without once chance of them being lost after I build this wonder. There is supposed to be a 50% chance they'll be lost in ocean waters, but so far they can hang out in deep sea for 200 turns and not sink. Look into this one.

Other than that, I will say that this game is utterly addictive. I was supposed to run 4 miles last night and I got stuck in the "one more turn" routine. Before I knew it, 2 hours flew by and I had to chop my run distance down. When I got back I was stuck playing this game till 5am. This game is fun, but please look into these issues and other issues and fix them accordingly.

Stretch · November 3, 2001, 18:05

yes! somone else finally posts the same frustration with resources as I have.. which im my case is ruining enjoyment of the game.

its an easy fix..

1) distribute the resources more evenly so at least there's a *chance* of them being near enough me to go after them by force.

2) and I can't stress this one enough: CIVs which havent reached the tech level to use a resource should still be able to claim it and trade extras.

Grim Legacy · November 3, 2001, 18:12

Hm I don't see the problem with an "uninspiring" research tree. This is Civ. The tree is pretty much the same. That's familiar, that's good... why call it un-inspiring? If you want a complicated fantasy-tree then make one yourself. It's easy to rename techs.

And then my experience with combat is different. Though the pre-determinedness of combat is a "hm" in my book, the battles I've had so far were reasonably ok. No massive unexpected losses, but some reasonable occasional stings... and also a few pleasant wins.

On resources... not sure yet. Have had some luck so far maybe. Heard bad stories... pending judgment.

Corruption is only moderate in my games actually. Maybe you need to link up your cities better, border- and roadwise?

Spagina · November 3, 2001, 18:18

There's not much I can say about corruption right now. Although it does seem kind of high, my game strategy centers around using my main continent as my production base, while my cities that I spread around the world usually are used for grabbing resources only since the game has the tendency to never spawn strategic resources on my territories. So in that respect, corruption doesn't hit me as hard as some of you are experiencing, and like I said, may be just because of my game style.

The tech tree I don't have a problem with. I like familiar tech trees. The one in Alpha Centauri almost made my brain explode since I couldn't outwardly tell what I was researching.

But like I said, great game, just needs more spit and polish, and the resource and corruption system need some tweaking without involving the Civ III editor.

mrbilll · November 3, 2001, 18:20

Settler party. Well, those of us with lives usually don't start posting until there's actually something to talk about. The game's been released, and is now being played, and here I am. I've been playing these games for fifteen years, and I'm not impressed, no matter how many posts you've got on this board. In any case, you've got it all wrong.

There's no griping about the fact that CivIII isn't just a rehash of CivII- we'd all be disappointed if it was. Relearning the ropes is part of the fun. It's just that this is the most dumbed down, streamlined, simplified Civ I've ever seen. Call to Power III indeed! They should've named it Civ lite!

A lot of us have figured out what works and what doesn't, and what's changed. We're just strongly disagreeing with the choices Firaxis made. The AI is smarter and tougher than any I've seen, and that's good. It's just that it's doing things that the player obviously can't get away with.

Soren can insist all they want that the AI experiences corruption, but even if that's true, it obviously doesn't hamstring rival civs. The combat rules are cut and dried, yet the player's war losses inevitably mount up higher than the AI's. The handling of settlers is an elegant way to slow the establishment of new cities, but it doesn't stop enemy civ's from scattering the land with cities the way a shotgun sprays buckshot.

Anybody with eyes to see can tell that the deck is stacked against you. Give me a stronger opponent, that's great- I appreciate the challenge. But making me fight with my hands tied behind my back is an entirely different matter.

The balancing act has always been one of the best things about Civ. Guns or Butter? Temple, library, or barracks? Play nice or go to war? Too much of Civ III takes these choices away. Corruption restricts you. Trade blocks you off. Resources tie you down. A large chunk of your game course is decided by blind, stupid luck, as random as a game of Monopoly.

Go enjoy your "challenges" if you like. All I see is someone banging his head against the wall.

KrazyHorse · November 3, 2001, 18:21

Whine, whine, whine. I like the game. I like how hard it is to play conquer-monkey with the AI. I like how bad corruption is. I hate how the ****ing mountains look, but I guess that's too bad. Early research is painfully slow, but it makes sense and provides a good challenge, since you can no longer tech your way up and ignore expansionary needs at the beginning. The game now asks you to walk a razor's edge between expansion and development, and I like it.

n.c. · November 3, 2001, 21:11

Quote:

Originally posted by HalfLotus
Sorry to break up the settler party, guys.

I didn't have time to really read this (or any other) thread, but I found the above comment amusing coming from a Warlord.

ancient · November 3, 2001, 21:16

your complaints are about what makes civ3 more chalenging then civ2. i dont think they are valid.

also your sounding pretty stupid cus all the war system is described in the manual just look at it if you really cant figur it out..

jones · November 3, 2001, 21:25

Agreed.

And it makes me very sad =( I do not like a civ that forces me into specific strats....in fact I do not believe it's civ =(

jones · November 3, 2001, 21:30

Quote:

Originally posted by HalfLotus
Soren has confimed that AI suffers from corruption just as you do. Can't ***** about that.

I can guarantee this is not true. Just try it. Investigate a nice AI city about 30 squares from its (forbidden) palace. For an extra shock, wait until they have 2x the number of cities you do.

Quote:

I agree that there are too many techs without rewards.

You guys wanted a better AI right. Well, it isnt easy to expand as fast as them, but it can be done.

About the trading, I've had a grand time trading every thing under the sun. You say they dont make ANY sense. I think they make sense most of the time. Alot of factors go into trading. Attitude, the other civs goals, the other civ culture (North Amer. get along better with each other, Asian better with Asian, etc.)

Pyrodrew · November 3, 2001, 21:48

Hopefully this thread can instead be made into a helpful Suggestion Thread for Firaxis.

1- Corruption. From what I read from Soren's post (Firaxis) it sounds like they will balance corruption, atleast for the Tiny & Small maps where it is FAR too excessive (standard maps are difficult with corruption, large I can handle). It's the distance corruption which seems too high, this results in many packed-in cities favored rather than exploration & expansion. And as Stretch said, forget trying to build cities in Australia or South America if you started in England, even if they are empty... have to let your enemy have that land.

Yet, as stated before it sounds like they will address this in the patch.

2- Tech-Tree. I like the familiar tech tree, but not the heavily forced system in place which i think Mr.Bill is referring to. Being forced to research SO MANY techs before I can advance to the next age takes away my options & results in a more predictable game with less variety/risk. Yet it's nothing crucial, a minor change would suffice.
Suggestion - In each age, Firaxis could remove 1 or 2 techs as a requirement for advancing to the next age.

3- AI Expansion. I love that the AI expands quickly & I've read posts of people claiming they keep up with the AI & even won it. Unless someone can *prove* there is cheating leave it be. Civ3 AI are the "improved" Civ2 Expansionists, who were *always* the better AIs.
Suggestion - I would love to see Civ3 AI Specialists & other AIs as well... even if they are not as good as the Civ3 AI Expansionists.

This is a low priority tho, other issues should be addressed 1st.

4- Trade. From what I understood historically trade occured *before* writing (which Civ3 requires for trade), but around alphabet. Trading is difficult, even the Iroquis (splg?) weren't as open-minded on their trading as I expected them to be when I was the Americans. I accepted their 1st offer when we met, but they still refused to deal fair afterwards (even at polite).

Yet, it seems some are ok with the AI's trading.
Suggestion - Those of the *same culture type* SHOULD trade/accept 1 on 1 deals with you, especially if you're on good terms or have just met. Allow trading to start at the alphabet instead. The AI should offer/propose more deals - this will increase the odds of successful trades being made with the player.

5- Resources. Resources are always placed in clumps. Again Huge maps seem fine with resources... but the smaller the map doesn't seem to change the sizes of these clumps. This results in standard maps (or smaller) being much more difficult (as Spagina explained).
Suggestion - Frixasis should adjust resource clump size to map size.

6- Combat. I haven't had any excessive or extreme losses/wins.

7- EarthMaps - Earth maps are poor, but I would prefer them spending time on the editor & other items and let the community here make the Earth maps.

8- StartPositions - These will most likely be included in the upcoming patch. Just a few months - big deal.

9- GameEditor - Scenarios don't need to have a map to them from what I read. So you can edit, make changes & save a scenario without a map... then the computer uses your settings for the next map you play.

10- CheatMode - Other aspects of this game seem FAR more important than a cheat mode. But I wouldn't object to it if they put it in, it just should be a low priority.

11- Graphics - Snoopy & others are improving the graphics if you visit the Creation forum to see. Then you can pick & choose what you like.

12- Bombardments - Bombardments "damage city walls, military units, a portion of the city's population, or improvements." I don't know your situation Kindbud, but perhaps it was a small town which only had a worker/settler in it with no improvements. Thus no city walls, no military units, no improvements, & % of population not big enough to drop it down. Nevertheless, Firaxis should check this out.

13- Lighthouse&Tiremes - They took out the Tiremes in Civ3 & the Lighthouse now makes safe sea/ocean travel for all ships. They improved this wonder because it sucked in Civ2.

14- Research - Research is FINE. If anything they should provide an option to slow down the research since some like to use their units *before* they're obsolete (mentioned in other threads).

Overall, I still like the game just needs some tweaks to be perfected.

Matte979 · November 3, 2001, 22:30

Lots of points. But alot is result as metioned above, your play style.. Change it. Tip about corruption. Its about connection to the captial and how happy people are.. Not just courthouse and
forbidden palace. And ofcourse goverment.

But damn this game is fun. had to lower my difficulty to Regent to be able to stand a chance. 5 games lost at monarch teach you a lesson. But now i can keep up with the AI expansion and i love it when they are this good. Enough ranting. Hope firaxis can lessen your problems.

Ok have to run was suppose to be at a party at 7... whoops one more turn..

/Mathias

Darkknight · November 3, 2001, 22:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Stretch
yes! somone else finally posts the same frustration with resources as I have.. which im my case is ruining enjoyment of the game.

its an easy fix..

1) distribute the resources more evenly so at least there's a *chance* of them being near enough me to go after them by force.

2) and I can't stress this one enough: CIVs which havent reached the tech level to use a resource should still be able to claim it and trade extras.

Why don't you practically give that civ the tech required for him to see that resource? then he likes you that bit more and you'll probably get the resource almost straight away.

Pyrodrew · November 3, 2001, 23:03

Quote:

Tip about corruption. Its about connection to the captial and how happy people are.. Not just courthouse and
forbidden palace. And ofcourse goverment.

Connection to the capital is one, but if you're in Archipelago (islands) that goes out the window for most your cities. Soren (Firaxis) didn't list happiness as something that fights corruption, he didn't list culture (which many people believed fought corruption) either. Maybe he can confirm 1 way or another whether they are.

Shadowstrike · November 3, 2001, 23:20

While I admit that Civ3 is much more challenging to play then Civ2, and much more rewarding too, the Corruption is a bit insane. It isn't mearly punishing the ICSer, its punishing all non OCCers. My attempt for example to drive a wedge through the middle of two civilizations (and onto a belt of fertile terrain) ended up with me having to buy a dozen settlers because of the one production thing. In the end, I ended up using a Leader to build the Forbidden Palace too because I couldn't do anyhting in that area.

Wher there's a challenge, there must be a solution.......

Stretch · November 4, 2001, 00:50

"Why don't you practically give that civ the tech required for him to see that resource? then he likes you that bit more and you'll probably get the resource almost straight away."

-Easy-

1) I have to give him like 6 techs to get there, hes is so far behind. I have given up the advantage I have worked for 6 hours to build.

2)even after I do.. its amazing but despite all the gifts he decides not to trade it with me because he knows I need it.

again.. higher difficulty level this is fine. The few times I wanna easily kick booty across the globe I cannot do it.

treedom · November 4, 2001, 02:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Spagina
Number one, the computer expands and breeds like ants. This gets extremely annoying, especially when I'm on my continent. I find I have to either build fortresses or cram units onto the fringes of my island empires that don't fall within my borders because the computer will cram 2 cities into 2 open tiles side by side if it has the chance. It gets very annoying, I just hope they tweak this a bit to make the computer build cities more sensibly instead of this half hazard sprawl across the entire globe.

I don't understand why this is a bad thing. This is a tactic I used on the AI in SMAC. It was a good way to get a solid beach head if a war with them came up.

Didn't everyone want the AI to act smarter and do the same sorts of things a human player would do?