I think this is the worst civ style game ever.

[aderen]

i agree with some of you that civ3 is so far the worst in civ series. it seems it just added better diplomacy to civ2. call to power had way more additions and i enjoyed playing it much more.
it seems that the more i play civ3 the less i like it. around year 1500 i had about 100 workers and was allied with 2 civs so that they could pass my land, and it took over 5 minutes to end each turn as i had to watch all the units move thru my land and then workers move and it's with animiations turned off.
after playing civ3 for a week i was so bored of just spending half the time watching the units move around that i just gave up.

i just installed ctp2 again (haven't playing it for couple months) and enjoy it much better than civ3. but of course all the reviews will say how good the game is because it was done by Sid Meier.

[n.c.]

Originally posted by LaRusso
SMAC had a lovely earth map

Trying to be sarcastic, ending up stupid.

[Roulette]

CTP??? CTP2??? I don't think you can fairly say that. Those were horrible. Admitedly, there are some simple gameplay issues in civ3. Imagine that. A game released that needed a patch. Most of them do. Give it a month and we'll see what the final patched version looks like. Personally, I still give it a higher rating than civ2 or smac.

The biggest problems I see are the following: corruption needs to be tweaked a little, the AI needs to respect borders, and they need to fix the &%#*% air superority bug that lets them bomb me back to the stone ages no matter how many fighters I put up.... but that's all patchable. There are no issues in this game that can't be resolved with a patch. Even those aren't all THAT bad. Give them a chance to do some touch up work, ok?

[Green Giant]

Why not have the units that are caught in a city you conquered, but then got converted by the enemy, go to your capitol? It makes sense to me. Then you get to keep your units. They could go to the nearest city but that would create problems with people just taking the city right back because it would be ungarrisoned. Just an idea to ponder.

[GenTomGun]

Ok guys, ive been reading alot of posts in this forum about the game, both good and bad.... I took great interest in reading this posts to help better understand this game civ3 and to hopefully gain some insight about this game and how to be a better player.....this forum has done that.
I was not going to post anything in this forum or even register, because i see how some of you veteran guys that have been in this forum since civ and civ2, treat guys like me that is "newbie" here...that i may be, but not a newbie gamer when it comes to tb strategy games.....ok on to my point.
When reading thru the manual i came across a very interesting sentence, that in a round about way answears the delima that everyone is facing when capturing cities thru war means but in the end, not being able to hold onto them because thier culture is too low and another civ captures the city back thru cultural means.....this sentence can be found on page 114 at the top and i state...."During wartime footing, cultural imporvements produce only half the number normally produced per turn."
This is a VERY important statement in understanding everyones trouble in my opinion....now with that said..... I want you civ veterans out there take that sentence and help that rest of us understand this problem in the game that so many are having problems countering or understanding......
Maybe you guys may come to the conclusion im crazy or i dont know what im talking about....but....if you read that sentence over and over to yourself i think most of you guys out there will truely know what im trying to say......

sorry about the double post. tried to delete but couldnt...

Originally posted by player1
HISTORY NOTE:
In ancient & medivial times cities have been razaed as much (or even more) then captured. Why, just because the same reason as in civ3.
Corruprion, ressistance, cultural domitation. There were many revolts. Didn't there?

So, no more Blizkreig in Ancient are. It is a good thing & it's relistic.

---HINT------HINT------HINT------HINT---
Note to those poor civers: Keep many garrisoned units in conquered cities, at least until your culture goes up & resistence lowers (like in real world), not make those cities almost empty (1 or 2 units).
Remember these cities are OCUPATED, deal with them that way
---HINT------HINT------HINT------HINT---

Still razing cities in Modern era? I little to strange, I think razing should be limited to cities lower than 12 size (or at lest make it slower like 20 to 12, 12 to 6, 6 to 0)

Well to be honest with ya I would think 3 tanks 5 artillery and 6 Inf would be a good force. But I still lost the city with ALL my units......... Oh and I was also the most culture advanced nation in the world...... The problem is that once you take an enemy city, but choose to end the war, if there are any other developed enemy cities bordering it, you will loose that city no matter what you do. Especially if the city that boders it has a high influence. This is not historical, its bugged...

Originally posted by Ozymandous


Hmm, are you sure you lost the city via culture or the fact that you failed to subvert the foreign national's that now occupy that city?

I'd hazard that you failed to quell the resistors and this is why the city reverted. I have had cities go both ways (joined my culture and the same city later reverted back) and the only city I ever lost was not due to rioters but because I didn't leave enough troops in the city to keep it stable until my natural population was greater than the population of the foreign people.

Here is what happened in my game:

1. I must admit the Giza was closer to their capital than mine (actually bordering it)

2. First capture: 5ish turns they revolt taking a few of my units

3. 3rd capture: Reduce the pop to 5 with bombardment, capture it with my above stated units.

4. Rush in 5 Workers to join there city (so 5 romans and 5 Egyptians)

5. First turn rush buy temple

6. 2nd turn rush buy Library (all resistance now gone, everyone is happy or content)

7. 3rd turn rush buy Cathedral (having a double bonus due to wonder)

8. Use the rest of my gold to rush buy a Colosseum, on my 4th turn.

I had around 12 troops stationed in the city. My overall national culture was twice as strong as their, but due to the apparent fact that Giza bordered their capital, I lost the city by 7 turns. Loosing all my units stationed and all my added workers, all my culture improvements, etc.

Finale note the ONLY ways to stop a city from revolting is to raze any city around it that borders it and was once apart of the same empire, or just invade and destroy your enemy completely...

[Baloo]

People/Culture power my arse. When you got some enemy soldiers pointing their M-16s to your head, you better think twice before chanting People Power.

I like it better if the occupied cities in peacetime or ceasefire period will inflict damage slowly to whatever enemy military units occupying the city. So the occupying units will recieve atritions just for keeping the city until your culture take over. But for the city to completely join back to its former owner because of the culture - no way! That's just not realistic.

I hope it's just a Gameplay bug (fixable by patch), not a design bug (messing with the code).

[Altuar]

Originally posted by Baloo
People/Culture power my arse. When you got some enemy soldiers pointing their M-16s to your head, you better think twice before chanting People Power.

I like it better if the occupied cities in peacetime or ceasefire period will inflict damage slowly to whatever enemy military units occupying the city. So the occupying units will recieve atritions just for keeping the city until your culture take over. But for the city to completely join back to its former owner because of the culture - no way! That's just not realistic.

Excellent suggestion. Firaxians, take notice! I hope its not too hard to implement. Perhaps the disease code could be applied to troops only in the captured cities for a while?

I mean, come on... the troops in the captured cities ARE my nationals, not theirs... and they *are* troops. Sure, there was resistance in France during WWII, but the Germans never lost a city to them. And besides, when an enemy capital falls, that civ should not get a new capital until palace is actually constructed somewhere. This would make the game a) more rewarding and b) more realistic, especially those easy snags due to culture.

In my most recent game, Romans had Rome (nothing too suprising there) very close to my border with them. So we went to war in modern age, and the first thing I did was to raze every stinking bit of it to ground - to make sure that I could capture his other cities and hold them. Otherwise, it was impossible.

[VetteroX]

I had the EXACT same experience as Knight. Playing on monarch, I took the entire German continental country, and they were in awe of my culture. They had 3 small cities 1/2 way around the world, and I was too lazy to go get them. I quell all the rebellious people, and about 20 turns later, a city in the ceter of what used to be Germany reverts back, after I had built a temple and courthouse AND they were celebrating WLKD! The same thing keeps happening all over. Its pure BS, and I want a patch NOW. Other then this, the corruption, and the fighter bug, the game is great.

Currenty, the only thing it seems you can do is take cities VERY early in the game, because you have to hold a city for as long as they have had it to assimilate them. Option 2 is to Blitz em and take every city in a minimum of 5 turns, and even then you need luck for them not to change before your done. The only other option is to raze evey non wonder holding city you take, and have settlers following behind to found new cities.

[yin26]

I'd like the option to 'expel' the population and keep the city intact with all its improvements instead of having to raze it. The expelled populace (minus perhaps 1) would appear back in the AI's nearest city or capital.

Thus, you'd have the city start 'fresh' at one pop totally loyal to you (which you could augment, of course, with more of your own settlers). Of course, this city could still be influenced by the enemy's culture, but the risk would be much much lower because the citizens are YOURS!

[yin26]

The nice thing about that option besides the obvious is that the AI still keeps his population and can put them to good use to stay in the game. Of course, the refugee flood could also put his cities into chaos ... but that could be fun, too! Imagine the AI doing that to you!

"Hey, I don't WANT all my people back!"

[justgivemeaname]

Omg yes.

The city uprisings and it reverting to their old Civ is absolutely stupid.

There seems to be no reliable way to defend against this. I took a size 13 city from an enemy which was right next to my border. I quelled the horde of resistors, left 2 mech inf. in the garrison and took the next city in my path. Ok. All is well right? Well some 30 turns later long after the war is over the city (which btw had NO unhappy citizens) decided to suddenly revert back to it's former civ. This, despite the fact that It was:
A) not even on my border with the other civ - there was another city that I had taken from that civ that was between the one that reverted and the enemy border cities.
B) Completely content/happy, no unhappy citizens
C) LONG after the war was over.

Of course, my luck was killer because I had about 30 stealth bombers/jetfighters IN that city when it reverted. (Tangent - WTF is with stealth bombers and never hitting the on thing in the city you want to hurt - the defenders? Ok, precision bombing, good idea - if it worked - too bad it doesn't - and even if it did there needs to be a "tactical support" mission or something that specifically TRIES to target enemy defenders and nothing else. Ever bombed a size 20 city to almost nothing trying in vain to weaken the defenders? I have - it was the biggest way of my time, especially having to individually tell all 30 of my stealth bombers to individually attack a city).

I tried reloading an auto-save and naturally it kept reverting. So I reloaded again, moved ALL my military units out of the city (took a long fricken time too... stacking units into armies and groups with NO bonuses [just for movement purposes] is something I can't believe is not in the game) and hit end turn. I was rubbing my hands together greedily thinking I just got the best of the AI. Of course, just to piss me off the city didn't revert .

If a city reverts, make all the military units HP 1 and relocate them outside the city or something. Losing my what could potentially be your ENTIRE army to 2 resisting civilians is ridiculous. So is the fact that your soldiers all willingly defect.

Civ3 has been a roller coaster, times of extreme fun followed by much frustration.

[marcuspeddle]

I thought I read somewhere that building workers was a good way to get rid of the enemy civilians in your city. When you build workers the other civ's citizens get used up first. This would help keep the city from going back to the enemy. Am I right or is my memory not so good?

[yin26]

I think that's right, but in the mean-time, the cities seem to so easily flip back despite all your efforts to the contrary.

[Aendolin]

Originally posted by justgivemeaname

I tried reloading an auto-save and naturally it kept reverting. So I reloaded again, moved ALL my military units out of the city (took a long fricken time too... stacking units into armies and groups with NO bonuses [just for movement purposes] is something I can't believe is not in the game) and hit end turn. I was rubbing my hands together greedily thinking I just got the best of the AI. Of course, just to piss me off the city didn't revert .

If a city reverts, make all the military units HP 1 and relocate them outside the city or something. Losing my what could potentially be your ENTIRE army to 2 resisting civilians is ridiculous. So is the fact that your soldiers all willingly defect.

Civ3 has been a roller coaster, times of extreme fun followed by much frustration.

I had Athens for a good number of turns, long before the war with the Greeks was over. One turn it defected back to the Greeks (who weren't anywhere around), and took my men with it. Frustrated, I reloaded the game, took all my soldiers out of the city, and fortified them next to it, waiting to take it back when it revolted again. It never did. This has now happened to me twice. Has anyone else had a city not revolt once the troops were taken out?

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by n.c.
Trying to be sarcastic, ending up stupid.

yeah, you really are....


OCCUPIED CITIES: It is kinda cool to starve them off and bring in your workers to provide for some non-native inhabitants. this, in turn, makes them more immune to foreign culture.

cybergnu, i cannot believe that you had electricity and yet babylonians had better culture than you? actually, come to think of it, think vietnam. you hold the ground but they just want the foreigners out. culture is certainly controversial thingie, but it gives a third dimension to the map and a dynamic yet unseen in civ games. i like it....

[LDiCesare]

Sure, there was resistance in France during WWII, but the Germans never lost a city to them.

Actually, they did.
They lost Paris. When the Allied came in France, they decided Paris wasn't worth the trouble getting into it. Anyway, the French there, knowing the Allied were near, revolted and effectively got rid of the Germans in their capital city without exterior intervention. Of course, they wouldn't have dared trying hadn't lots of friendly armies been coming along.

[Knight]

[SIZE=1] "During wartime footing, cultural imporvements produce only half the number normally produced per turn."
This is a VERY important statement in understanding everyones trouble in my opinion....now with that said..... I want you civ veterans out there take that sentence and help that rest of us understand this problem in the game that so many are having problems countering or understanding......

That's true, but consider that being at war doesn't mean you're at a wartime footing. The wartime footing toggle is in the Domestic manager screen, and you don't HAVE to be at that footing to fight a war. Pretty much the only time using it is preferable is when you get stuck in a world war and units are more important than a broadway show. I was never at wartime footing in my war against the English, and when my cities reverted, it was a good 20 turns after the war was good and over with.

[Kevin Ar18]

Originally posted by aderen
i agree with some of you that civ3 is so far the worst in civ series. it seems it just added better diplomacy to civ2. call to power had way more additions and i enjoyed playing it much more.
it seems that the more i play civ3 the less i like it. around year 1500 i had about 100 workers and was allied with 2 civs so that they could pass my land, and it took over 5 minutes to end each turn as i had to watch all the units move thru my land and then workers move and it's with animiations turned off.
after playing civ3 for a week i was so bored of just spending half the time watching the units move around that i just gave up.

i just installed ctp2 again (haven't playing it for couple months) and enjoy it much better than civ3. but of course all the reviews will say how good the game is because it was done by Sid Meier.

Did you know that the majority of Civ2 was made by someone other than Sid Meir (according the the manual)?

[Grumbold]

The cultural revolutions are a pain but it is one small dose of realism. Post cold war Europe has been a good example of how dozens of old hatreds and national tendencies can suddenly erupt once the pressures keeing them down slacken off. It doesn't matter whether the place has been occupied for 2 years or 200, the extremists have long memories. The only dodgy thing is losing all the military units - they shoudl be damaged and displaced or keep the revolution suppressed provided there are enough of them but not eradicated.

[Zizka]

Civ II was mostly done by Brian Reynolds who also did alot of leg work on SMAC and gettysburg. He left firaxis ages ago. I think thats why some aspects Civ III sucketh the hind boob in some ways. Brian was the soul of those games. Sid.. well we all know he's appears to be a glorified beta tester now.

I will agree with the sentiment that there is alot of potential in this game but far too many stoopid bugs and design decisions.
My top 10 problems
1) Combat is more like Civ1 -- ancient units can take out mor emodern unist without a fight and too much emphasis on defence.
2) AI doesnt follow NO trespass rules
3) The damn 100 mil bug
4) Fighters and bombers and subs cant sink ships or kill units.. D'uh??
5) Ditto artillery and catapults..
6) Losing all units when city converts?? Huh 10 riflemen die when size 3 city converts.. try boston massacre!
7) Oil is too critical for to many units.. if you dont have oil in your terr. SOrry you are Fricked!! I like the idea that you could build oil unist but whose movement would be reduced0
8) In ability to rush-buy Temples, Colliseums --etc. If a city has no extra food and revolts .. sorry folks people gotta die.. (LOl far too beneficial to kill your own citizens i find)
9) Poor screen scolling
10) Useless as hell manual...

Z

[sachmo71]

Well, I my war with the Egyptians (all for the sake of COAL!), I took their capital and a couple of other cities. So far, no revolt, but when I get home I'm going to move most of my units out, then start hitting the draft soldier button and see what happens. That way I won't have to wait for workers to build. I'm not even sure it will work, but it's worth a shot.

[Lord Maxwell]

Originally posted by Zanteogo
My biggest problem of all are the long waiting times between turns on the larger maps. There is no reason why it should take so long on a modern computer.

Because it does alot of binary tree searches. For every move the AI makes it has probably evaluated a few thousand. And it still makes too few evaluations, and makes them too local.

[ElitePersian]

I heard that the only way to fly these days is to run on a hill. Has anyone else heard of the carpet MANIFESTO?