Civ III- The good, the Bad, and the Ugly from an old SMACKERS perspective

[Enigma]

I realize everyone has been doing reviews, but I post this from the perspective of someone who has never played civilization 2.

First of all the game installed well, it runs exceedingly well, saves quickly, good graphics, stable on my system. Even going this far is better than some games do.

The Good-
The AI is EXTREMELY tough! I think that even when everyone knows how to play this game we will still have a hard time... but this comes at a cost (more on this in "The Bad" section)

The resource system is extremely innovative, it was always my dream in SMAC to be Morgan and set blocks against each other, deny a resource to a faction when it gets too powerful, use trade as a tool. Add in the luxuries and trade is a great idea! (emphasis on "idea"- more in "The Bad" section)

Overall I like the speed of the game, just because a unit is a little behind in tech doesn't mean that it is instantly obsolete. I also like the importance of roads- it makes guerilla tactics better. The way roads were done is the one thing that I will say is good without reservations about this game.

The way the different ages have a different feel and different priorities is really cool, I just started playing the industrial era and I love the massive production bonuses you start seeing- in other words, time for war!

The idea of making Settlers use 2 pop to make is very good.

The Bad:
The AI is ludicrously overaggressive- I had the Romans worshipping my Grecian civ at one point, my culture rating was roughly 10 times theirs, yet they still had a strong military. I had hoped to make them my partner.

Yet Caesar wouldn't do any trades unless he got a 50% benefit off of it, he had ludicrous requirements for mutual protection pacts, every 20 turns he jacked up the price drastically for the luxuries we were trading.

The AI is still pretty hostile even when your culture is double the 2nd place civ's culture rating, I recieved frequent extortion demands from the Egyptians, who should be my *cultural allies*, yet I didn't dare to resist them and their allmighty AI "send the 10000000 units we have on the border into his land next turn" strategy.

It is impossible to set up any kind of an alliance, the AIs seem to just hate you because you are human, even with a high culture they never allied, wanted to trade techs 2 to 1, and were generally annoying and rude, violating my territory when they could have gone around.

The AI's aggressiveness and hostility and hate of trade make the "resource" system all the much worse. I have played about 6 games total, and only twice have I gotten *any* strategic resources at all. In my most recent game my empire is about half the size of the Egyptians in land area, and I am at the point where I should be finding rubber, but I have not found *one single* strategic resource, my entire peninsula has only 2 luxuries.

Again even when it would be to the AI's advantage to have a counterweight to fight the Egyptian military juggernaut, they are totally extortionist in trade.

Ideally you should be able to grab resources if you really need them. Uhm, ideally. Guess what, you are totally f*cked if the roll of the dice determines you have no resources to trade, you end up having to pay huge amounts of crap to the AI just to defend yourself, you will have unhappier people due to luxuries, and if a civ that is intristically hostile towards you has your resources then you are screwed, since every major offensive unit requires strategic resources.

The Ugly-
Here is why I think the AI is better- FEWER CHOICES! The game is designed so that you basically make 0 strategic choices, the game is based on expanding really quickly and hoping you get lucky and get resources. If you totally ignore your tech infrastructure that is OK, there are minimum tech wait times! The AIs always traded with one another yet still had lots of money, I couldn't afford to keep up in tech. And this is with the civ that has by far the biggest research base.

This game overall lacks choices. Start in a good starting position next to wheat in a flood plain in you are set. SMAC was very different- even the worse starting positions can be overcome with forests and tech. It *is* possible to get ahead enough in the tech race to get significant amounts of time to exploit a tech while you are still the only one who has it. Tech choices are totally narrowed down in this game, you cannot specialize at all, everything joins back together at a point.

You lack choices in terraforming. The best terraforming technique is roads everywhere, then irrigation/mines. If you are stuck with dessert you are f*cked. No more strategic decisions to build a sensor array vs that forest, or to ignore population and focus on production using a mine- the production varies only slightly between mines and irrigation.

You also are totally screwed if you are not near fresh water, I have played 6 games and in every game 50% of the AI's have their first settlers start at where 2 rivers join, I have had 2 games where I start near fresh water.

And, as a builder the thing that disappoints me the least is the lack of economic fun in this game. You no longer have to make the choice between losing temporary production to get defense (IE support costs) and long term infrastructure. The idea of globalized support has its plusses and minuses, it makes stuff a lot easier for the AI.

The game no longer differentiates between industrial and economic infrastructure- money is BAD! 4 commerce per shield, buildings have higher cost, you have very few facilities available that boost commerce. Pretty much everyone will want high shields. Not that the game gives you enough terraforming choices to make high production a viable choice...

You can see the lack of choices reflected in the entire factional bonus system. Lets compare Miriam and Zack from SMACK
Miriam-
-2 science
Zack
+2 science, Free Net node

Zack's tech in the early game is earned at 2.5 times the rate of Miriam, yet most people still like Miriam (I love her attack bonus!)

The AI "tech" bonus ends up being the equivalent of +15% tech or so, at the most. It is a joke.

All the different civs feel more or less the same, you terraform the same for all of them, etc. The UUs are only useful because they bring a golden age to your civ.

The idea of a "empire wide" economy that relies on energy as contrasted to a conquerers production focused economy that is good at a few bases means that builders can build SPs more easily, in this game all the bases produce about the same, and even if you really need an SP you cannot sacrifice to make it, you just have to wait.

I liked SMAC's SE better too... it made you feel more like the leader of a real faction rather than someone responsible for telling cities to create military unit X.

Combat also totally lacks choices, the only significant combat bonuses are those defenders recieve in mountains... morale has almost NO effect, a unit with 3 times the defenders offense will lose quite frequently, you are limited to a few predefined units.

The Ugly- this is stuff that really shouldn't have been missed
NO MP!
A lot of the problems in this game could turn into fun with the introduction of the resources, players have their own self interest in mind rather than the typical AI attitude of "KILL THE HUMAN". Resources could make MP a lot of fun.

I wasn't meaning to gripe... this game has a lot of potential, I have spent a lot of time addicted to it, but CEO Morgan is still my all time favorite hero, all of these bland homogenized civs don't feel different from one another. This game has a lot of innovative stuff though, trade networks (IE roads etc.) are implemented beautifully, and the concept of trade pwns, so do l uxuries. Luxures make a tremendous difference! But I can't endorse this game like I did SMAC because I always feel trapped by a lack of choices, IE there is only *one* way to achieve most goals, and an overall inflexibility in how your empire is run.

A patch or two could make this game fun... I would love to see my trade empire concept in motion!

Also, greetings to Adam_Smith and Korn469, I have seen both of you post here, Adam I have a few questions about what it is like being an economist for you: I am interested in becoming one (high school senior now)

[Enigma]

^bump

[Urban Ranger]

Maybe the computer players pay attention to how many military units you have. In the bad old days might often made right.

[kimmygibler]

The one thing I like about ai is that it will try to screw you over in trade. Sometimes it is a bit dumb, like when trying to trade luxeries 1 for 1. But when they have a strategic resource that you need, I expect them to try to screw you over every 20 turns. I don't like all the gripe about lack of resources because this is one thing that makes my games drastically differernt from each other. Some games, all the resources appear within my borders, so trade is no concern and I focus on other stuff. When I have nothing, the strategy it way different.

[Matte979]

Resources.

I think it works pretty good. And i like that you have to pay
more to get it from the AI, it shouldn't be easy. And as the prevoius post stated the resources changes the stragtegy from game to game which i think is a BIG improvement. And you lots of your military campaigns acually have a goal to secure resources.

More on trading. Seems your culture also plays a big role in which
aggrement you get.

/Mathias

[Transcend]

I don't have the feeling that the AI diplomacy is overaggressive. You just need to know how to haggle. Don't take their offers too seriously, present them with a counter offer. It usually works.

[Nemo]

Originally posted by Transcend
I don't have the feeling that the AI diplomacy is overaggressive. You just need to know how to haggle. Don't take their offers too seriously, present them with a counter offer. It usually works.

I agree.

[Bosh]

Hmmm I don't find the AI especially aggressive, I've only been attacked one (by a very well coordinated german blitz that kicked my sorry ass since I was playing a cultural game and let my defenses slide). If anything the AI is so passive that I hardly ever see AI vs. AI wars. And the AIs usually willing to trade tech 1 for 1 if you throw in a token bit of gold. Haven't had any real problems getting strategic resources (except in one game where I made the map ridiculously crowded)....

[tolerategravity]

Something I hated about SMAC was the differences between Civs. I want everyone to be the same to start off, and develop into something else. I don't like certain bonuses just because you are one civ. I find that stupid.

Infact, when I play CIV III, I give the special units to EVERYONE. It balances the game out and makes it more fun in my opinion. I'm in favor of Government only units, not civ only units.

MP is overrated in TBS. Civ I didn't have MP until CIVNET, Civ II didn't have MP until MGE and no one called those horrible games because of the lack of multiplayer. Why should we have to wait for a game if the only thing that isn't finished is MP? I'd rather play the game now, and wait until Fraxis finishes up the MP aspect then not have the game.

[Kyle]

Enigma, what difficulty level are you playing at? I'm playing at Warlord (or whatever the second lowest difficulty level is). I've gotten alliances, mutual defense pacts, resource trades, etc. Granted, in the later game, gaining resources is a lot tougher due to high demands.

Overall, most of the other Civs have good relations with me.

[Enigma]

I started at monarch... about to win my first game, in the mop up phase.

It is sooo hard to get a head in tech in this game, that does make it more fun but combat is really difficult.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by tolerategravity
MP is overrated in TBS. Civ I didn't have MP until CIVNET, Civ II didn't have MP until MGE and no one called those horrible games because of the lack of multiplayer. Why should we have to wait for a game if the only thing that isn't finished is MP? I'd rather play the game now, and wait until Fraxis finishes up the MP aspect then not have the game.

Sure, five or six years ago I didn't have a problem with that, but now is now and not then. Would you buy a computer today that didn't come with a modem? Can you even buy a computer today that doesn't come with a modem (I'm talking packaged deals here)? Hey what the heck, people bought the Modle T and it didn't even come with a eight track.

The bottom line is that whether or not it was an acceptable practice yesterday bears no relevence on what is acceptable today. Today this is unacceptable, and depending on how it is handled (i.e. a patch or a add-on that needs bought, etc.) will determine whether or not I intend to invest in this game and these companies at all.

There is a Masters of Orion 3 customer waiting inside us all.

[mharmless]

Well, on monarch the AI is cheating. I'm not supprised that you have a hard time keeping ahead in tech and that the AI doesn't think much of your millitary or culture.

Play some games on regent, no cheats either way there. I think you will find it much more interesting, the AI will not get so far ahead as to place you in the possition of being most easily picked on.

[Enigma]

Hey Elephants! I remember you being someone who liked finding the optimal ways of micromanaging your cities in SMAC- that seems to be practically impossible in Civ3, for better or worse. No more pulling tree farms out of thermal boreholes.

As far as the agressive AI, I would say that the AI is overall OK, it just tends to not want to ally you if you are powerful. If they truly had their own self interest in mind it would be nice to see SOME of the AIs sucking up to you when you are on top, they jockey for power more.

The industrial age is by far the most fun for me in this game, the other ages seem to either move slowly or lack city improvements.

[Stromprophet]

Good perspective from a first time player to the civ series. Being an oldy myself, 10 plus years. It's hard to say yet.

There are things I like, things I dislike. But nothing to make me go insane and return the game.

I thinik Mplayer will bring this game to full potential. Especially in long games, with more players.

The computer never likes a fair deal, it always wants something more. And while you can manipulate countries against eachother, since I'm usually very powerful no one will accept my deals. I have yet to get an alliance vs. someone else.

But in mplayer, human players are more likely to bargain. I hope we can talk to eachother for real in the negotiation. They should have a little chat box for that defenitely. Because if it's like in Civ II, negotiation among allies is useless. The other player might reject the deal(AI coming in sucks) that the human would have accepted. But that kind of negotiation for resources, deals, cities, land, money, etc will bring a lot of potential to its full height.

I want to be able to be devious and negotiate like that in games. It's going to be hard to sustain a long game with humans though.