I'm getting the impression this game is not a worthy successor to civ I and II

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Venger


How about a game that builds on the successful foundation of previous games and adds those things missing along with some new things? Do we have to throw out the old imperfect system to create a whole new imperfect system?

So tell us Venger, what about Civ3 did not "build on the successful foundation of previous games"? Last I checked you still have to build settlers to found cities, build defensive units to protect said cities, build offensive units to show people you aren't a wimp, and build city buildings to either boost your economy, military or science for the empire.

So which of these concepts were left out from Civ2 to Civ3? Last I checked these were indeed the foundation of the game, and all were included in Civ3. In addition to armies, unique units, culture, small wonders and resources.

Seems like they did keep the foundation and did add new stuff, but maybe just not the new stuff like you wanted? Is that the problem? Please tell us hat they left out of forgot, then we can talk about hoe these items could be aded and not break the game. How about it?

You know Mark, maybe if you read the box, you'd see the numerous references to RULING THE WORLD. If I want to manage an empire I'll join the bureaucracy...

Hmm, ruling the world. Funny, I always thought this could be done diplomatically and maybe with commercial marketing and the need for your goods by everyone else. Nah, I guess the only "valid" way to "RULE THE WORLD" is through military means, eh?

[Buster13]

Hey, someone mentioned earlier about a commercial and religious civ, of which there are none in the game.

How about the Jewish tradition (I hope I don't offend anyone, as this is certainly not my intent...). I mean, they have a VERY storied history...and even though aside from Isreal they have assimilated into other cultures...this is a game about rewriting history...and CONQUERING THE WORLD!!!!! Just kidding....

Maybe someone could get Ancient or another mod writer to work that into thier mods.

Civ name: either the Hebrews or the Isrealis
Leader: King David ??? I think it's the best choice.
Attributes: Commerical and Religious
Special Unit: Don't know

It would have to be something from either the 12 tribes of Isreal days or something from modern Isreal (pretty much our military).

Anyway, what do you all think?
E

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Dev
So calling someones BS is an offence ?

Please.

On 2nd thoughts that's pretty cool, I can bully people just by threatening to post in their threads

/dev

NO, launching personal insults because their view doesn't match your own is an offense.

Prove how he was wrong through facts and examples, not simply trying to strike out because you think differently than he did. I believe that was what Mark was saying.

[zapperio]

Originally posted by Ozymandous


I never said the game was perfect,

I'll say it. This game is as close to perfect as any I've picked up in the last 5 years or so. Yes, with bugs, warts and all, this game shines. It is just so damn fun to play, and knowing that it will only get better is quite a thrill. Happy, happy, happy, joy, joy, joy. [dances around his office and throws daisies around]

I've probably ruined any chance of people, here, taking me seriously, but do I care? Not really. I've got Civ 3 and it is as good a gaming experiense as most aficionados can hope for. Oh sweet life, grant me plenty hours to sleeplessly waste in Civ 3.

Zap

[Ozymandous]

Heh Zap,

Depends on what you're looking for.

RTS = Age of Kings, Starcraft, Warcraft2
FPS = Half-life, Quake3, Unreal Tourney
TBS = Civ3, SMAC
RPG = Baldurs gate 2, Icewind Dale, Diablo2 (kinda)

Other games not quite fitting into a "specific" category:

Rollercoaster Tycoon, Jagged Alliance 2, Zoo Tycoon.

All these games have something to offer if you don't go into them with only "your" way to win. Thats what makes games fun for me.

[zapperio]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
RTS = Age of Kings, Starcraft, Warcraft2
FPS = Half-life, Quake3, Unreal Tourney
TBS = Civ3, SMAC
RPG = Baldurs gate 2, Icewind Dale, Diablo2 (kinda)

Out of these only SP Half-life comes close in giving me that intense gaming goodness. Though MP Starcraft still holds it's charms. For pure funfactor Civ 3 wins, IMHO, handily, over SMAC and Civ 2. For me, there hasn't been an empire building game that has been so captivating since Sword of Aragorn.

Sleepless nights are here again.

Zap

[zapperio]

I believe that the flare-ups we've been seeing are probably sides of the age old argument between gamers and grognards. Fun vs Realism. Only Grogs argue that realism = fun. We, the less dedicated folk, don't really care about the mechanics as long as they translate into a fun game.

It seems to me that, in the case of Civ3, overall balance was the the driving force behind the game design and the achievement of that meant taking away the powerful toys (nukes) and toning down the disparity between units (techno debate). It also introduced corruption, culture and resources. And that is what makes the game so damn compelling for me. You are forced to be on your toes from A-Z, there is no easy victory. The game has been remarkably balanced throughout my five games on regent.

Sometimes restating the obvious is helpful.

Zap

[Dev]

Originally posted by Ozymandous


NO, launching personal insults because their view doesn't match your own is an offense.

Prove how he was wrong through facts and examples, not simply trying to strike out because you think differently than he did. I believe that was what Mark was saying.

Ok, I suggest you and Mark read mine and Mr. LaRusso's posts from the last 3 days before you post anymore about my supposed personal insults, facts and examples then.

Thank you.

/dev

[Venger]

Originally posted by Ozymandous


So tell us Venger, what about Civ3 did not "build on the successful foundation of previous games"?

They removed the successful revolution of the concept of firepower from Civ2. They didn't allow many diplomatic features found in SMAC. The list can go on. Or did the only requirement for Civ3 be better graphics than Civ2? Should we ignore the gameplay revolutions found in other Firaxis and Civ titles as well?

So which of these concepts were left out from Civ2 to Civ3? Last I checked these were indeed the foundation of the game, and all were included in Civ3. In addition to armies, unique units, culture, small wonders and resources.

Such tired stuff out of you. How about they fix the Mahattan Project? How about they not break air combat by making planes unable to sink ships. Airbases? Come on dude, alot of people see steps forward and steps back, and unlike you, I can take a step forward and keep my eyes open to the attempts to step back.

Hmm, ruling the world. Funny, I always thought this could be done diplomatically and maybe with commercial marketing and the need for your goods by everyone else. Nah, I guess the only "valid" way to "RULE THE WORLD" is through military means, eh?

Try ruling the world with cheap consumer goods, simpleton. You can achieve victory any number of ways - ruling the world is but one of them. You can be a puny weak civilization and launch a spaceship to win the game. Does that mean you ruled the world?

Venger

[zapperio]

Originally posted by Venger

Try ruling the world with cheap consumer goods, simpleton. You can achieve victory any number of ways - ruling the world is but one of them. You can be a puny weak civilization and launch a spaceship to win the game. Does that mean you ruled the world?

Venger

Man, I wish you learned to argue without putting people down. It would make your arguments seem that much stronger. As is you come across as a...nah that could be seen as an insult.

But to answer your question: Yes. You ruled if you won the game as it is, last time I checked, the object of the game.

Zap

Originally posted by n.c.
The following are not "actual arguments" according to Apolyton management:

1) fix all the bugs and
2) gameplay imbalances
3) no mp
4) air/naval units are pointless
5) governments are done crapilly
6) civ3edit cant make scenerios
7) there no historicle starting places on ma
8) only "in-house" testing
9) serious bugs -- like the airpower-SAM thing in particular
10) corruption bug and
11) air unit bugs
12) This single player version is really no better than a beta you pay for.

Markos, it's okay to admit that some decisions are personal.

I feel this game is a worthy successor to Civ I & Civ II. To be honest, I've never played Civ I. I've played Civ II and Alpha Centauri a ton though. I played Alpha Centauri/Alien Crossfire BEFORE I played Civ II. This is probably why my opinion differs.
After playing SMAC, I guess you could say I was somewhat spoiled. I love that game. I was expecting CivII to be somewhat similar. To me it wasn't. It was very hard to move around and the gameplay was unbelievably slow.. So I held out hope that CIV III would use alot of what made SMAC great. It did! I was very impressed. CIV III is awesome. Its a huge improvement over CIV II.

Sure it might have a few minor problems. I'm sure the only reason people are whining about them being "serious bugs" is because the AI used the bugs to decimate the human player.. Deal with it. Its just a game. Firaxis, like every other gaming company, will release a patch to fix the obvious bugs.

Once that is done, people will find something else to whine about.
Some people will never be satisfied.

[CyberGnu]

LaRusso, yep. That was the last game I played. Greek, started out next to the Romans, took Rome with one archer and a hoplite, exploited the ridicously weak ancient AI by letting the romans seed cities I took over... As soon as the romans were killed I basically set out to kill the rest. Piece of cake.

Ozy: Flame? I beg to differ. I take offense when people repeat inane insults at me, however.

Repeat again: Who is complaining about how civ 3 is not civ 2? So far I've only seen one, who was more complaining about the toughness level, not the actual game.

I've been complaining that it's not sufficiently different from Civ2... Apart from culture, which I think was a nice idea but very badly implemented, extended diplomacy and a better AI in the modern age, there isn;t much improvement. Instead we've found that the whole concept of choosing goverments has disappeared (at least I haven't found a reason to EVER deviate from Despotism - Republic -Democracy), combat reeks, corruption is gone haywire, wonder movies are gone, the ancient AI is a moron, naval combat is a joke... etc etc. Resources, while a concept, are also really badly implemented... As long as you have one oil patch you can build tanks (not to mentione that in one of my games my only link to that oil was an airport... I'd like to see the gray hairs of that poor logistics guy making sure my war effort was supported through airlifted oil...), but if you lose the patch you can still run the tanks endlessly... Just not build new ones.

What happened to all the things we included on the list? Religions, a resource system that worked (just introduce oil as a second currency...), STACKED COMBAT etc...

Finally, I have no clue what you are takling about in your last part of the post... My bitterness and sarcasm? I think you're projecting... I was perfectly honest when I said I wouldn't mind abolishing warfare after the invention of the nuke. That's the whole point of nukes, anyway... War to the finish isn't possible between two empires who have nukes.

Finally, why would I go for RTS game forums? I've been playing TBS games since I had an Amiga. Sure, I enjoy Age of Kings, and it is by far the most well thought out historical game to date, but what has that got to do with things? TBS is still my game of choice, and it deeply saddens me that Civ 3 is a step back from Civ 2 in terms of sheer enjoyment.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Venger


They removed the successful revolution of the concept of firepower from Civ2. They didn't allow many diplomatic features found in SMAC. The list can go on. Or did the only requirement for Civ3 be better graphics than Civ2? Should we ignore the gameplay revolutions found in other Firaxis and Civ titles as well?

Tell me, what's the difference between a unit with 2 offence and a firepower of 10 and a unit with 10 offense and a firepower of 2? And what, SPECIFIC, diplomatic feature did they not include from SMAC?

Why should they include anything from SMAC? Because it was the "logical successor" to Civ2? Or because they are done by the same company?

Well?? Which is it?

Such tired stuff out of you. How about they fix the Mahattan Project? How about they not break air combat by making planes unable to sink ships. Airbases? Come on dude, alot of people see steps forward and steps back, and unlike you, I can take a step forward and keep my eyes open to the attempts to step back.

Ok.. So what's broken on the Manhattan project? Seems to work almost exactly as it did in Civ2.

Hmm, planes sinking ships, wlel based on how overpowered air superiority was in SMAC I believe Firaxis said they decided to tone it down some so people would actually HAVE TO MAKE ground units. Seems balanced from a game standpoint to me, even when using a carrier you attack with planes to soften the enemy ships and finish them off with your own naval ships that *should* accompany your carriers.

Airbases? What about them? They were deemed unneeded and so taken out of the game. Gee I guess folks can't surround their cities with airbases now and get max resources and invulnerability from air units now. I believe air units have the range to attack most anything in the game from cities and where they can't attack from a city the player has the option of using an aircraft carrier. Seems balanced to me.

Oh, I can see foward and backward "progress", but unlike you I accept changes to see how they work, I don't blindly lash out because some features I might have liked were removed.

Try ruling the world with cheap consumer goods, simpleton. You can achieve victory any number of ways - ruling the world is but one of them. You can be a puny weak civilization and launch a spaceship to win the game. Does that mean you ruled the world?

Hmm, try ruling the world with cheap consumer goods? Hmm, how about these examples...

Big Mac's
Coca-cola
Levi's
Nike

Get the idea yet? Oh, and for the record, ruling the world is but ONE way to WIN the game. You know, the ultimate goal, to WIN the game?? Sure you CAN rule the world but it's not the ONLY way to win, and if you DO choose to try to rule the world then you have to accept the limitations to that, like cities not being as productive as your home cities and foreign citizens not liking your beating on the rest of their folks. Just using WWII for example, I think the game matches this scenario pretty well.

Oh, and for the record, you almost made it one whole post without beinbg personally insulting. Congratulations, you're almost out of the grade school mentality, try harder next time you just might succeed.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by CyberGnu

Ozy: Flame? I beg to differ. I take offense when people repeat inane insults at me, however.

Hmm, are you sure? I went back over my posts and did not find ONE that was directed at you, unless you were in the group that I labelled as "whiners" because they had generic complaints about how bad the game was without actual examples of what was specifically broken, ways to improve the game or because their favorite "pet" strategies didn't work from Civ2 to Civ3.

Care to explain why you replied to me personally first with an insult? I would appreciate it because I usually don't like people insulting me in general, unless I did it to them first and IMHO, if you complain about smething but provide no proof then you're wasting air.

Repeat again: Who is complaining about how civ 3 is not civ 2? So far I've only seen one, who was more complaining about the toughness level, not the actual game.

Who has been complaining? All the people whining about corruption and the fact they can't steamroll the AI with 5 tanks anymore.

I've been complaining that it's not sufficiently different from Civ2... Apart from culture, which I think was a nice idea but very badly implemented, extended diplomacy and a better AI in the modern age, there isn;t much improvement. Instead we've found that the whole concept of choosing goverments has disappeared (at least I haven't found a reason to EVER deviate from Despotism - Republic -Democracy), combat reeks, corruption is gone haywire, wonder movies are gone, the ancient AI is a moron, naval combat is a joke... etc etc. Resources, while a concept, are also really badly implemented... As long as you have one oil patch you can build tanks (not to mentione that in one of my games my only link to that oil was an airport... I'd like to see the gray hairs of that poor logistics guy making sure my war effort was supported through airlifted oil...), but if you lose the patch you can still run the tanks endlessly... Just not build new ones.

You know what's funny, I posted almost the exact same complaints about Civ2 when it came out vs. Civ1. The amusing aspect is that everyone (but me apparently) loved Civ2. Now how is it that Civ2, which was essentially a clone of Civ1 with better graphics, was such a surperb game when it first came out yet Civ3 vs. Civ2 is not? Who knows.

To answer your specific examples...

How was culture poorly implemented? Because cities convert/revert without some warning? Because it takes to long to get enough culture? What & why is this broken in your view? What specific things would help make it better? Be part of the solution and not merely complain if you really want to make a difference.

Not much difference between Civ3 & Civ2? Hmm, when did you ever use any government in Civ2 other than Democracy? I hardly ever did. The only game that ever offered a large mix of governments to choose from was CtP.

Combat "reeks"? Why? Because Firaxis balanced the game so that if you didn't have one of the resoucres to make modern units you wouldn't automatically lose the game? This seems fair to me. Or do you mean because you can't use 5 tanks and roll over an opposing Civ using their own rails now? What about combat (naval and ground), specifically, is bad?

Wonder movies are gone? This is a complaint on game play??? You are kidding right?? Did you ever watch the wonder movies after the first 2-3 times you saw them? Or the throne room?? I know I sure didn't. They were great the first few times I saw them, then I turned them off because they were old and I wanted to p[lay the game, not look at movies. Sure, if this game had an unlimited bugdet and time they could have been added, but why should Firaxis have spent time, money and resources on making something most people would ignore after a week or playing??

Ah yes, the corruption complaint... Have you ever studied history? How about Rome and Russia? Even England and it's far flung empire. Have you ever heard how poorly their outflung colonies and cities did because they were so far away from the capital that the people essentially did what they wanted? How about the French underground during WW2. All of these are valid reasons on why corruption is modelled as it is. Although I do think there should be another city improvement to help with corruption I don't see it as "game crippling" as you and others apparently think it is.

Of course we could always go back to the "conquer enemy city in one turn, and they have a WLTKD event the next turn", that was *really* balanced and realistic, sure.

Hmm, Ancient age AI seems to be a lot better than in Civ2, at least from my view. I have had more fun in the ancient age than in almost every other age in the game. Of course I like Huge maps with 16 Civ's, so maybe that's why I like it so much, who knows.

Well with resources, I like them how they are. If they included a EU model then some people would complain that the resource model was too hard to understand, etc. In this case Firaxis appears to have went with the "simpler is better" approach which is better, IMHO.

What happened to all the things we included on the list? Religions, a resource system that worked (just introduce oil as a second currency...), STACKED COMBAT etc...

Firaxis never said they would use ANY of the issues on the list, yet some made it in. Resources, and even stacked combat (that's what ARMIES are for) made it in. Remember the goal of the list was to offer suggestions, I believe the saying was "If even one idea makes it in this is a success" or something close to that.

Finally, I have no clue what you are takling about in your last part of the post... My bitterness and sarcasm? I think you're projecting... I was perfectly honest when I said I wouldn't mind abolishing warfare after the invention of the nuke. That's the whole point of nukes, anyway... War to the finish isn't possible between two empires who have nukes.

Sorry, not projecting, just missed the meaning of what you said. Why abolish warfare after the Nuke? It still rages even in the world today. Although I do wish they had made the Manhattan project a MINOR wonder instead.

Finally, why would I go for RTS game forums? I've been playing TBS games since I had an Amiga. Sure, I enjoy Age of Kings, and it is by far the most well thought out historical game to date, but what has that got to do with things? TBS is still my game of choice, and it deeply saddens me that Civ 3 is a step back from Civ 2 in terms of sheer enjoyment.

Ah, the root cause. You like how you could play and beat Civ2 and because Civ3 is different you didn't enjoy it. Do you wish Civ3 had merely been Civ2 with better graphics and the options from SMAC thrown in? More of a SMACIV? Would that have been more fun? Seriously I am asking because most of the people that have been complaining seem to like the simpler, yet broken, aspects of Civ2 & SMAC over Civ3.

[Buster13]

Hey Oz....

I don't know if you are familiar with a game called Warhammer. It's a tabletop strategy wargame with miniatures and the like. In this game's combat system, there are seven main statistics: movement, weapons skill, ballistics skill, strength, toughness, weapon damage, and wounds. Movement is pretty obvious, but either weapon skill or ballistics skill, depending on whether the attack was HTH or ranged, would be used with modifiers (cover and the like) to determine if the attacker HIT the target. This type of system could be used to replace the attack/defense system.

After a hit was established, the attacker would use the weapon's strength, or his strength if it was a HTH attack VS. the target's toughness to determine if a wound (or wounds) were inflicted. This could be modelled in CIV as the "Firepower" and "Armor Class" statistics for units.

Thus, the difference would be if your unit had a low Attack value, and a high Firepower...it would likely not hit often when attacking a fast target (air support, cavalry) or a target with cover (in city, mountains)...but if it hit, it would likely destroy the target in one shot. A unit with high Attack and low Firepower would be a great unit for rooting out infantry and the like hiding out in the mountains, since despite the penalties...it's chance to hit would still be decent, but it's lack of Firepower would make it less likely to do well against Tanks and Mobile Infantry in any event.

I hope that was an adequate explanation. I know adding more stats adds complexity and bug potential, but is seven equations for your processor all that much different than four? On the surface anyway...I'd say no. Besides, CIV players are a pretty intelligent, astute bunch...they wouldn't be complaining about lack of complexity if they weren't. I would welcome a little more complexity to the combat system, anyway.

If someone would write a patch allowing total world domination and complete personal gratification for players, then maybe Venger and those like him will go away and play a game with no challenge that will allow them to believe that they are great strategists and world leaders and leave the rest of the intelligent community...you know, the one's who don't have to use name calling to put someone down...to discuss the pros and cons of CivIII in peace. Ancient? Vel, know anyone? Please?

Later all,
E

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
Ah yes, the corruption complaint... Have you ever studied history?

If we're going to have corruption be historically accurate why can't combat follow suit? After all being historically/technically accurate adds to the fun right?

[Imran Siddiqui]

What's the point in going through 6000 years of struggle just to end up in second or third place?

What's the point of Civ games? I finish in 2nd or 3rd a lot, and I'm perfectly happy. Not everyone can be 1st!

[CyberGnu]

Hmm, are you sure? I went back over my posts and did not find ONE that was directed at you, unless you were in the group that I labelled as "whiners" because they had generic complaints about how bad the game was without actual examples of what was specifically broken, ways to improve the game or because their favorite "pet" strategies didn't work from Civ2 to Civ3.

Yeah, I actually did count myself amongst the 'whiners', because I've done a lot of the complaining on these forums...

Who has been complaining? All the people whining about corruption and the fact they can't steamroll the AI with 5 tanks anymore.

For corruption, how is that equated with wanting civ 2 back? I don't mind corruption as long as there is
1) a reasonable way to deal with it and
2) Some resemblance of logic in it.

Sure, overseas colonies didn't contribute much to the production of the mother empire, that is true. But that didn;t mean they starved to death because they didn;t feel like building temples to make themselves happy...

The best way to deal with it in my mind is to split up corruption in two parts: One on production, which should be WASTLY reduced, and one on commerce that should be applied only on the net income.

Example: Let's say we have a city which right now has 99% corr. In base, it has 5 production, 5 commerce. It has one temple (upkeep 1) and one library (upkeep 1). Without any corr, it should have 5 production and 3 income, right? with corr, it has 1 production and -1 income.

Instead, I think it should have 4 production, maybe 3 if you're in a bad goverment. The income should have say, 40% corruption but only on the income after paying for upkeep. Cause quite frankly, England never paid for churches in Virginia... So, the actual income is (5 - 2) * (1 - 0.4) = 1.8, rounded off to 2.

I mean, what are the people doing with all that production going to waste? In most cases it is used to develop their own lives instead of contributing to the Empire... but this is not reflected in the game. Instead it is just wasted.


As for the tanks part, I don't think I've seen anyone complain about that... there has been a LOT of complaints about how the combat system is broken, however. They are not in any way equivalent, however, and the reason I insulted the size of your private parts is because it does piss me off when the legitimate complaints about this is being waved off as an incapability to deal with new tactics. It's not a question of new tactics... It's a bad implementation of a combat system, period. And the fact that I've learned to use the flaws at the expense of the AI is jsut making things worse.

It would be like accusing the people who complained about the ICS tactic in civ 2 of not being able to change their tactics from civ 1... Which doesn't really make sense, does it?

How was culture poorly implemented? Because cities convert/revert without some warning? Because it takes to long to get enough culture? What & why is this broken in your view? What specific things would help make it better? Be part of the solution and not merely complain if you really want to make a difference.

Well, the fact that a library expands my borders while a barracks doesn't... That all by itself tells you that the whole culture thing wasn't all that well thought out in the first place.

The assimilation of cities depending on the surrounding culture wasn't either particulary well thought out. If the AI builds a city right in the middle of your empire, yes, he should lose it eventually. If a border town from one civ goes over to another after a few hunderd years of cultural influence, sure, that's fine. But when I've just conquered another city there is no possibility of a peaceful transfer back to the old civ... Not even of a successful revolt. Come on, how many times in history has a nations army been crushed and the civilians threw of the occupiers instead... Without any losses to themselves, I might add.

I've already written extensively on this in other threads, though, so I didn't think I had to repeat it again...

In civ 2 I always used monarchy, for example... Not to mention a few flings with fanatism/fascism for war. But monarchy is effectively gone in civ 3, since it takes the same time to develop republic... and fanatism is gone, while communism is worse than democracy even in war. Ironically, the only good thing with communism is if you have to deal with corruption on the fringes of a big empire...

Combat "reeks"? Why? Because Firaxis balanced the game so that if you didn't have one of the resoucres to make modern units you wouldn't automatically lose the game? This seems fair to me.

Umm, breaking one thing to fix another badly thought out things isn't exactly good. First off, resources. The way it works now is pitiful. Snd it doens't have to be so hard... A second currency should be a LOT easier to deal with than a lot of other concepts. How about requiring the expenditure of one oil unit for every attack you do with your tank? And each oilpatch will give you, say, 10 units per turn. You could stockpile your oil for a big offensive, or trade it for cash.

Then do similar things for the other resources. If you only grow ten horses per turn, you can only build ten cavalry. If you only have one uranium patch, you can only maintain ten nuclear plants, make two nukes or run four nuclear subs. It's not that different from money after all... It's just that it would be used in production, upkeep and perhaps actions.

BTW, what idiot came up with salpeter? You get salpeter from urine and dung... It's sulphur that is the scarce resource...

If you want more info why the battlesystem doen;t work as it should, check out the other thread on the matter.

Oh, one more thing... Armies does NOT constitute a stacked combat system... It's just a way to create one more powerful unit. That the cost of this (wasting one leader, and sacrificing three attacks for one) are way to high to justify ever doing it makes the whole thing a lot worse.

Although I hated CTP, they did get the combat system right. Combined arms was essential not only to offense but also to defense. It was beautiful.

Of course Firaxis doesn;t have to include a single thing from the list... but why NOT include some of the best features from it, unless they just didn;t care about the projects? It looks like they hired AI programmers and graphics artists, mainly... Adding game designers as an afterthought.

Sorry, not projecting, just missed the meaning of what you said.

Why abolish warfare after the Nuke? It still rages even in the world today. Although I do wish they had made the Manhattan project a MINOR wonder instead.

Well, maybe I should have said 'after two countries has the nuke'. IT's MAD, that's why... A country today can't afford to go to large scale war with another nuclear nation. India and Pakistan are at war, but making VERY sure they don't escalate it... Because as soon as one of them appears to be loosing, both sides know the loser would nuke the winner...

Maybe the concept of 'proxy wars' could be implemented... Using only armies from newly conquered cities, for example, representing not integral parts of your empire but instead 'close allies', just like Russia used Cuban soliders for most of their wars in the 60's. No one would argue that Cuba was part of the Soviet Empire, but it is nevertheless clear that in Civ3 Cuba should be treated as such, and not as an independent nation...

Finally, it is not the complexity that bothers me... It's when they don't make sense I get annoyed....

[WhiteElephants]

Umm, breaking one thing to fix another badly thought out things isn't exactly good. First off, resources. The way it works now is pitiful. Snd it doens't have to be so hard... A second currency should be a LOT easier to deal with than a lot of other concepts. How about requiring the expenditure of one oil unit for every attack you do with your tank? And each oilpatch will give you, say, 10 units per turn. You could stockpile your oil for a big offensive, or trade it for cash.

Then do similar things for the other resources. If you only grow ten horses per turn, you can only build ten cavalry. If you only have one uranium patch, you can only maintain ten nuclear plants, make two nukes or run four nuclear subs. It's not that different from money after all... It's just that it would be used in production, upkeep and perhaps actions.

Or perhaps, they just made the units more competitive with one another by making the offensive and defensive numbers closer assuming that the player would realize that while he didn't have sufficent resources to build entire units of said unit he had enough to suppliment his dated units with comparitive weapons, but fell short of a fully modern unit and thus is refelcted in the fact that the dated units numbers and movement are somewhat lower and thereby avoided uneccessary complexities of every civilization needing the exact resource and technology required to reamain competitive.

I'm still waiting for the most technologically advanced country to conquer the world, by the way.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Am I that good or are you guys that bad ?
CyberShy

Neither. Because you overlooked something:

The problem exists mostly on small maps. Try your approach on a tiny map, and you will see what I mean.

I guess corruption is ok on large/huge maps, but it needs to be fixed on tiny (and perhaps small) maps.

[Howling Chip]

[SIZE=1] .

It seems to me that, in the case of Civ3, overall balance was the the driving force behind the game design and the achievement of that meant taking away the powerful toys (nukes) and toning down the disparity between units (techno debate). It also introduced corruption, culture and resources. And that is what makes the game so damn compelling for me. You are forced to be on your toes from A-Z, there is no easy victory. The game has been remarkably balanced throughout my five games on regent.

Zap

I share this sentiment in that it describes why I've found CIV III enjoyable. I think the scenario/mod and MP community are still owed one from Firaxis. Other than that, whether you like the game or not comes down to what you liked about playing CIV II and SMAC.

[UnBiased]

The concerns most people are mentioning are so ridiculously trivial. "Oh, it doesn't have a tech poster." "Oh, there's no multi-player." "We can't work scenarios yet." "It's too different from Civ II."
Granted, I have never been much into multi-player, but I downloaded and enjoyed quite a few Civ II scenarios, so I am somewhat disappointed that Civ III shipped without them. However, I expect that scenarios will be available within a couple of months. Until then, I am simply enjoying playing the single-player version of the game.
It also seems to me as though many of you are complaining simply because your Civ II strategies do not work as well in Civ III. For example, the problem with corruption boils down to the fact that Civ III is a different game and must be played accordingly. I, for one, would have been extraordinarily disappointed had Civ III shipped and been exactly like Civ II.
Bottom line--this game is the best Civ game ever. It clearly surpasses both Civ I and II, and, importantly, keeps the addictivity factor alive. I expect that both Firaxis and the gaming community will continue to expand and improve the game, and it will become a classic just like its two predecessors.

[n.c.]

Originally posted by Max Webster
Yeah NoClue returned the game so what does he care?

I stated my reason for starting this thread. However, just because I returned my $64 LE beta test doesn't mean I have given up on the game forever (almost, though). Besides, I enjoy tweaking the Firaxis fundies.

Originally posted by LaRusso
you already started a thread like this. when are you opening the third whinefest?

The little lock icon means a thread is closed.

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Well Steve and others, why are you spending time defending the game?

If we who complain about the game are just crackpot whiners, why not just let us be? the 'whining threads' would disappear from the first page, and no one would care.

Or is it that n.c. hit the nail on the head with his theory on what whining about the whiners entail?

I just thought some of you might enjoy re-reading this!

[Venger]

Originally posted by zapperio


Man, I wish you learned to argue without putting people down. It would make your arguments seem that much stronger. As is you come across as a...nah that could be seen as an insult.

Sorry, but I find patronization as offensive as name calling. He patronized, and got it returned in kind.

But to answer your question: Yes. You ruled if you won the game as it is, last time I checked, the object of the game.

The point was really to ruling the world through more than military means - but that ruling the world was how you won. Well, launching into space from a small Civ wins the game but certainly doesn't qualify as ruling.

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Finally, why would I go for RTS game forums? I've been playing TBS games since I had an Amiga.

My first real TBS game was Civilization on my Amiga. For nostalgia sometimes I boot WinUAE and play Civ, just to hear the Roman Anthem when I get a tech...hehe, I just loaded it and am listening now.

God, I loved those days! Remember actually WAITING a couple minutes for world generation? Ah...the halcyon days...I just founded my city. Remember the wagon trains arriving and setting up camp? God - Civ is the oldest of the games but was so fresh at the time, I can still remember all the wonder of it...

TBS is still my game of choice, and it deeply saddens me that Civ 3 is a step back from Civ 2 in terms of sheer enjoyment.

Sigh...could be. I still have hope though that thorough patching can get a game worthy of the lineage. Both Civ and Civ2 were watershed masterpieces...

Venger

[n.c.]

Originally posted by Venger
He patronized, and got it returned in kind.

Damn, that's spooky- I just said essentially the same thing to zap on another thread.

[zapperio]

Yeah, I've got my eye on Venger too. Bad, bad boy, Venger.

Zap

[Venger]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
Tell me, what's the difference between a unit with 2 offence and a firepower of 10 and a unit with 10 offense and a firepower of 2?

You will get different damage results than with more reasonable firepower units - and hit points also matter. You'll see units never damaged by the combat, or units annihilated by them. Sometimes the 10 firepower unit will never score a hit, and hence leave the opposition untouched. Other times it may score a hit on the first strike round, leaving it unscathed. It does affect how combat works.

And what, SPECIFIC, diplomatic feature did they not include from SMAC?

The ability to have one ask a Civ to influence another on your behalf?

Why should they include anything from SMAC? Because it was the "logical successor" to Civ2? Or because they are done by the same company?

Because they are the same basic type of game, and SMAC included many innovations? Because it would make a better game?

Ok.. So what's broken on the Manhattan project? Seems to work almost exactly as it did in Civ2.

Which is precisely the problem. Dude, I REMOVED the Manhattan Project from Civ2, along with Nukes, because the game didn't handle them properly. Bulding Manhattan shouldn't give EVERYONE the ability to build nukes - it should be a minor wonder.

Hmm, planes sinking ships, wlel based on how overpowered air superiority was in SMAC I believe Firaxis said they decided to tone it down some so people would actually HAVE TO MAKE ground units.

That's what I heard. I never played SMAC all that much, I ditched it when the planet started talking to me...

Seems balanced from a game standpoint to me, even when using a carrier you attack with planes to soften the enemy ships and finish them off with your own naval ships that *should* accompany your carriers.

Well you're not going to like it when they patch this...

Airbases? What about them? They were deemed unneeded and so taken out of the game. Gee I guess folks can't surround their cities with airbases now and get max resources and invulnerability from air units now.

Yeah, thats called a bug, genius.

I believe air units have the range to attack most anything in the game from cities and where they can't attack from a city the player has the option of using an aircraft carrier. Seems balanced to me.

What about an airbase unbalances the game?

Oh, I can see foward and backward "progress", but unlike you I accept changes to see how they work, I don't blindly lash out because some features I might have liked were removed.

No, you're apparently just blind...

Hmm, try ruling the world with cheap consumer goods? Hmm, how about these examples...

Big Mac's
Coca-cola
Levi's
Nike

So does the presence of multinational corporations allow the US to rule the world? No. Are you arguing we should enjoy playing a game where we build a Golden Arches wonder to win the game? Please...

Get the idea yet? Oh, and for the record, ruling the world is but ONE way to WIN the game. You know, the ultimate goal, to WIN the game?? Sure you CAN rule the world but it's not the ONLY way to win, and if you DO choose to try to rule the world then you have to accept the limitations to that, like cities not being as productive as your home cities and foreign citizens not liking your beating on the rest of their folks. Just using WWII for example, I think the game matches this scenario pretty well.

Well sure, WW2 covered all of about 5 turns of game time. How about expanding your horizons to see how the Roman, Ottoman, and other empires ruled disparate lands for hundreds of years and manged to eke out more than one shield per turn? And I also believe that France manged to produce quite a bit during WW2... while occupied by the Germans.

Oh, and for the record, you almost made it one whole post without beinbg personally insulting. Congratulations, you're almost out of the grade school mentality, try harder next time you just might succeed.

For the record, your patronizing hasn't taken a break, you are still acting like a jerk.

Venger

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by UnBiased
The concerns most people are mentioning are so ridiculously trivial. "Oh, it doesn't have a tech poster."

Yeah those silly people paying 64$ expecting to get their money's worth and actually get some decent goddies. How dare they!

"Oh, there's no multi-player."

Check out the jackal.txt file in your Civ3 root directory to see proof that this was to have been included in the game.

"We can't work scenarios yet."

Before calling concerns such as this one, I would take a look at the list of advertised features on the back of the box.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Ozymandous

Ah yes, the corruption complaint... Have you ever studied history? How about Rome and Russia?

Yes, have you? Corruption in Russia was far worse after the fall of communism than it ever was during it. Production fell, real income fell, real standard of living fell, life expectancy fell. So, what was keeping all of that together? The strength of empire.

Even England and it's far flung empire.

Yeah, those loafers in Hong Kong never could get any production going...

Have you ever heard how poorly their outflung colonies and cities did because they were so far away from the capital that the people essentially did what they wanted? How about the French underground during WW2. All of these are valid reasons on why corruption is modelled as it is. Although I do think there should be another city improvement to help with corruption I don't see it as "game crippling" as you and others apparently think it is.

Because you have a disdain for conquest. There is no real world correlation between what happens to conquered lands in Civ3 and what happens to conquered lands. Are you telling me the citizens of a conquered city really don't want a hospital, an aqueduct, a granary, a marketplace, all because you took it from some other owner? If anything history shows cities just keep on keeping on despite a change in ownership.

Of course we could always go back to the "conquer enemy city in one turn, and they have a WLTKD event the next turn", that was *really* balanced and realistic, sure.

Who said that? Go read my thread on WLTPD being a game crutch. I have lauded the concepts in Civ3 of both quelling resisters and acculturation. But the system has serious flaws - cities revert and you lose a great number of units you stationed there. What sense does that make?

Firaxis appears to have went with the "simpler is better" approach which is better, IMHO.

Yeah, I'll buy that you appreciate the simple...

Firaxis never said they would use ANY of the issues on the list, yet some made it in. Resources, and even stacked combat (that's what ARMIES are for) made it in.

Try putting your army on a ship. Oh, cannot. Yeah, that's not broken. I guess the face that launched 1000 ships launched 1000 empty ones...

You like how you could play and beat Civ2 and because Civ3 is different you didn't enjoy it.

How limp. I enjoyed Civ for what it was, and Civ2 for what it was. Civ3 was named...Civ3 - it is a game in the same tradition. Nobody asked for the same game, we asked for a better game, and we have yet to get it delivered.

Seriously I am asking because most of the people that have been complaining seem to like the simpler, yet broken, aspects of Civ2 & SMAC over Civ3.

Both of those games had systems that worked better than Civ3 in many ways. Combat models, diplomacy models, etc. Which is why we bring them up when expecting Civ3 to build on these, not regress from them.

Venger