Collated Whining Thread

LaRusso · November 13, 2001, 10:05

hiya

i decided to help all the whiners out there and make one BIG thread for them to vent their frustration because civ 3:

- has no caravans
- has corruption
- does not allow ICS
- is BROKEN
- has dodgy combat system
- does not allow a tank blitz
- has culture
- does not have cool civ2 diplomacy
- has graphics worse than civ2
- brings nothing new, despite being a sequel
- has AI that sometimes beats you
- makes you honor alliances instead of double crossing AI at every opportunity
- does not allow you to save load and replay the battle until you win
- has no terraforming so that you can turn desert into swamps like people did in africa
etc.etc.

now i fully respect the freedom of speech and all that jazz, but i thought that collated whiners thread might reduce the speed with which the good threads are pushed down on the forum. alternatively, markos could create Civ3/Whining subsection.

cheers

Blackadar1 · November 13, 2001, 10:11

Yea, this thread is useful .

CB2034 · November 13, 2001, 10:17

- does not have multiplayer
- is not given to us free
- doesnt have a no-cd crack yet
- does not yet u build houses or castles or have silver weapons that do double damage to undead (especially lichs)...
- doesnt do the dishes while im playing so my wife doesnt get mad after dinner

Antonin · November 13, 2001, 10:18

Here's a few you forgot:

Civ3 is a BROKEN, FATALLY FLAWED BETA etc etc because...

- it doesn't require a 16M 3D graphics card

- it's not RTS

- it's not FPS

- there's no way to just mindlessly blow stuff up

- you actually need to read the manual to get the most out of it

MisterMuppet · November 13, 2001, 10:21

- Is not out in Europe yet.

Grumbold · November 13, 2001, 10:21

Now all you need is the collated "blind fanboyz" thread and the collated "dumb n00b questions asked 1000 times already" thread and the whole general forum will never need a new thread button ever again

...except for trolling, of course. I'd start a new "US is not a civ" thread except it would only be locked/moved to the Civilizations forum/earn me a week's holiday from Apolyton and I have nothing better to do in my lunchbreaks

LaRusso · November 13, 2001, 10:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumbold
Now all you need is the collated "blind fanboyz" thread and the collated "dumb n00b questions asked 1000 times already" thread and the whole general forum will never need a new thread button ever again

...except for trolling, of course. I'd start a new "US is not a civ" thread except it would only be locked/moved to the Civilizations forum/earn me a week's holiday from Apolyton and I have nothing better to do in my lunchbreaks

hm, i just might start one before i have to go on a trip

Quote:

- doesnt do the dishes while im playing so my wife doesnt get mad after dinner

amen!

Döbeln_2001 · November 13, 2001, 10:48

>>- doesnt have a no-cd crack yet <<

Sure, there is one.

Regards / Döbeln 2001

Robert Plomp · November 13, 2001, 10:58

- tanks aren't infallable against guys on horses ( like in Afganistan, ask Russia)

- nuclear submarines in real life never sink for no reason (ask Russia again

)

- My big several-contignents spawning empire lacks corruption ! This never happened with empires like Russia (

) and Rome

- It's so strange that cities in the edge of my empire switch to the other side. In real life this never happens (thinks about the former russian states again

)

- Old cities with old buildings have a high culture rating and attrackt people more then the new cities without any old buildings, that's so strange !

- When I agree to any agreement and break it within 20 turns the other civs hate me for it. That really sucks, in civ2 I could sneaky ally against one civ and make peace the other turn without anybody caring. Hey, even the AI did that all the time, that was so cool !

- In civ2 we had cool diplomacy in which you didn't got much choises so it was easier ! In civ3 you have to negotiate and the AI says things like "Add a little more and we have a deal" that SO unrealistic !

- Civ1 got scenario editing tools out of the box and was a great game for that reason

- Civ2 had multiplayer out of the box and was a great game for that reason

- I hate it that my empire doesn't have all resources I need so I have to negotiate with the AI using that cruel surrealistic negotiation table ! I hate that

- It's so unrealistic that if you have a problem with a oil-resource containing civilization you suddenly can't build tanks anymore. Like in the 70's this never happened, that there was an oil crisis and we couldn't drive our cars anymore.

- Empires like Bin Laden have so much resources of Uranium, imagine that dude would have to try to trade for uranium.... that would be so surrealistic !

and so on and so on.

Credits: Russia, for supplying me with that many examples

CyberShy

TheDarkside · November 13, 2001, 11:02

Quote:

- does not have cool civ2 diplomacy

i hope thats not sarcasm because it is extremely similar to civ2 diplomacy. I never expected people to be able to program AI anywhere as good as a human, but lets not try kidding ourselves. the only improvement in diplo is the fact you have more options in which to get frustrated by.

Robert Plomp · November 13, 2001, 11:05

Quote:

i hope thats not sarcasm because it is extremely similar to civ2 diplomacy. I never expected people to be able to program AI anywhere as good as a human, but lets not try kidding ourselves. the only improvement in diplo is the fact you have more options in which to get frustrated by.

you got to be kidding me

(and you must be a part of the spoiled - never satisfied - generation)
Did you ever really negotiate with the AI ?
About resources, techs etc. etc. (while you have in fact something to OFFER them. OF course it's boring if you do'nt have anything and the AI is superior)

LaRusso · November 13, 2001, 11:07

Quote:

Originally posted by TheDarkside

i hope thats not sarcasm because it is extremely similar to civ2 diplomacy. I never expected people to be able to program AI anywhere as good as a human, but lets not try kidding ourselves. the only improvement in diplo is the fact you have more options in which to get frustrated by.

frustrated by what?

Dev · November 13, 2001, 11:08

LaRusso, you sir are an idiot.

I'm patiently waiting for YOU to post anything insightfull about
Civ3, well just anything game relating to the GAME Civ3 at all.

All you post is junk about how much everybody but yourself and your FIRAXIS IS PERFECT, NO CAN'T MAKE MISTAKES circle jerk group supposedly whine.

/dev

Robert Plomp · November 13, 2001, 11:11

Dev, I think LaRusso asks a VERY valid question.
Someone seems to get frustrated by much option, while he's complaining about the lack of more options........ (or at least a(n even) more advanced way of diplomacy.

very very valid.
Besides that........ the name calling is REALLY not appreciated !
[/Backs Up LaRusso mode]

LaRusso · November 13, 2001, 11:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Dev
LaRusso, you sir are an idiot.

I'm patiently waiting for YOU to post anything insightfull about
Civ3, well just anything game relating to the GAME Civ3 at all.

All you post is junk about how much everybody but yourself and your FIRAXIS IS PERFECT, NO CAN'T MAKE MISTAKES circle jerk group supposedly whine.

/dev

okay, over your ad hominem BS
take a look at
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=33823

Venger · November 13, 2001, 11:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Döbeln_2001
>>- doesnt have a no-cd crack yet <<

Sure, there is one.

Regards / Döbeln 2001

Sure is - I'd be using it except I already burned me a copy...

Venger
P.S. And yes, I own the game - but I ain't scratching it up for nobody...

TheDarkside · November 13, 2001, 11:14

Quote:

- Old cities with old buildings have a high culture rating and attrackt people more then the new cities without any old buildings, that's so strange !

This brings up a good idea... i think culture would be more appreciated and respected if it affected cities in the way you describe: attracting people. If city growth rate was a variable in regard to food AND culture, not solely on food, it would probably be alot better. The way it is now, whole cities defect to another empire because of culture which is not too practical. Sure a series of cities have defected to form an independent nation, but that's totally different and has little to do with culture. Instead of this, just have the city's growth rate reduce where it can go into a negative rate if another's culture is overwhelming- so effectively they migrate to other cities, instead of suddenly convincing your army of elite infantry and tanks who originated from your ultra-high culture cities to defect with them where they suddenly disappear.

Dev · November 13, 2001, 11:21

Ok LaRusso so you've made one usefull post in last how many 50?

*Golf Clap*

Cybershy, posting some crap collated whining thread isn't a valid question, it's called being an arrogant ***.

I'll stop the name calling when he starts respecting that other people have opinions that differs from his own and that they they might have valid points.

/dev

LaRusso · November 13, 2001, 11:24

trying to bring up your post count with some insults. where is that button...ahhh, here ...be back in a second....

Robert Plomp · November 13, 2001, 11:27

Dev, you didn't respond to the content of my argument.
LaRusso's post was a usefull one ! You didn't counter that.

Quote:

i think culture would be more appreciated and respected if it affected cities in the way you describe: attracting people.

Well, that's true, but the way Firaxis has done it is true as well.
Imagine you're living in a small city (in the middle ages and before that that's a default) and you have one big city to the west and one big city to the east. To which city will you go once in a while to do whatever you need to do in a city ?

First you'll go to the one that's close to you.
But when the west city will be an amazing beautifull city with a high cultural rating, you might prefer that one above the east city. If a city has a superb culture you might even want to prefer that city above the close to you city that hasn't any cultural rating.

Thus, the more cultural value a city has, the further it's borders of influence reach.

Grumbold · November 13, 2001, 11:33

Woah, careful. We wouldn't want a sensible debate to break out in the middle of a sarcastic troll thread, would we?

TheDarkside · November 13, 2001, 11:34

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberShy

you got to be kidding me

(and you must be a part of the spoiled - never satisfied - generation)
Did you ever really negotiate with the AI ?
About resources, techs etc. etc. (while you have in fact something to OFFER them. OF course it's boring if you do'nt have anything and the AI is superior)

*sigh* well since you have the divine knowledge and the power of judgement to classify people into your "generation" categories based on a single opinion then I guess I am too inferior to argue with you. No I never tried negotiated, I ran the game once and tried a single diplomatic exchange and I based all my opinions on this one event. Oh wait, i'm not you. Of course I tried! Based on the 150+ hours of civ3 I've played so far I stick to my guns, the diplomacy is nothing to pride! Now should I save you some time and effort and give you a new label for me since you wouldn't agree with my opinion? Maybe you can jsut call me a Commie?

Antonin · November 13, 2001, 11:34

Quote:

Originally posted by TheDarkside

This brings up a good idea... i think culture would be more appreciated and respected if it affected cities in the way you describe: attracting people. If city growth rate was a variable in regard to food AND culture, not solely on food, it would probably be alot better.

Hey! This really IS a good idea...

But Darkside, this is supposed to be a thread for people whining about the fact that Civ3 isn't RTS or won't let you powerlevel or...something...and for people who want to laugh at such whiners...

LaRusso · November 13, 2001, 11:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumbold
Woah, careful. We wouldn't want a sensible debate to break out in the middle of a sarcastic troll thread, would we?

nah i swear to god, this is a genuine attempt to be able to collate whining at one point so that valid criticisms do not get scrolled down....

Dev · November 13, 2001, 11:52

Quote:

Dev, you didn't respond to the content of my argument.
LaRusso's post was a usefull one ! You didn't counter that.

Enlighten me please, wherein lies the usefullness of making another "Yo whiners (yes all you who disagree with the divine being that is me) ) u sux a$$" thread ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LaRusso, be my guest.

/dev

TheDarkside · November 13, 2001, 11:56

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberShy
Well, that's true, but the way Firaxis has done it is true as well.
Imagine you're living in a small city (in the middle ages and before that that's a default) and you have one big city to the west and one big city to the east. To which city will you go once in a while to do whatever you need to do in a city ?

First you'll go to the one that's close to you.
But when the west city will be an amazing beautifull city with a high cultural rating, you might prefer that one above the east city. If a city has a superb culture you might even want to prefer that city above the close to you city that hasn't any cultural rating.

Thus, the more cultural value a city has, the further it's borders of influence reach.

Ok, your a small city in the middle ages established a couple hundred years ago by French settlers so its a French city. Your a peasant working the fields in a feudal system where the local noble has full power and a garrison of troops. Sure you and your friends might look accross the border at beautiful Rome and their colleseum and you can take a few buddies and leave in the middle of the night, but how is the whole city going to suddenly switch face to Rome? The noble is tied to the country by blood, corruptive "wages" or in fear of the king's army- so why would he dare try to defect?

And now lets go into modern times, hey maybe the mayor of Champlaign New York looks up to Montreal in awe and so one day he decides to raise a Canadian flag and redraw the border of America. That's logical. Yeah and if America werent to disaprove of this and wanted their land back it would have to be through a "unprovoked" war.

P.S. EDIT: But hey I like the idea of culture I just think it was too hastily implemented and not well thought-out for all scenarios. And again, that's my OPINION.

Robert Plomp · November 13, 2001, 12:00

Dev: Now I see, you're replying to the topic, not to the last post by LaRusso

That makes a difference.
I like this thread though.

TheDarkSide:

Quote:

well since you have the divine knowledge and the power of judgement

thanks thanks !
bows

Quote:

to classify people into your "generation" categories based on a single opinion

Oooops, I see that I wrote "and" instead of "or"
the proper line should be: "Or you must be a part of the spoiled - never satisfied - generation

I'm sorry

(even infallable people like me make mistakes)

Quote:

then I guess I am too inferior to argue with you

You are, but c'mon, give it a try

Quote:

Oh wait, i'm not you

Cool, you do the things you accuse me of !
What's next ? "Hey, @sshole, it's really not polite to call people @sshole ?" or something else

Quote:

Of course I tried! Based on the 150+ hours of civ3 I've played so far I stick to my guns, the diplomacy is nothing to pride!

[serious answer] [finally]
REALLY ? I've played much games as well, and so far diplomacy was one of the pillars of my games. I can't believe my ears (eyes that is)

Quote:

Now should I save you some time and effort and give you a new label for me since you wouldn't agree with my opinion?

Warmonger
Diplomatic disaster
something like that suits ?

I would never call you a commie, I'm not from the states.

LaRusso · November 13, 2001, 12:03

Quote:

Originally posted by TheDarkside

Ok, your a small city in the middle ages established a couple hundred years ago by French settlers so its a French city. Your a peasant working the fields in a feudal system where the local noble has full power and a garrison of troops. Sure you and your friends might look accross the border at beautiful Rome and their colleseum and you can take a few buddies and leave in the middle of the night, but how is the whole city going to suddenly switch face to Rome? The noble is tied to the country by blood, corruptive "wages" or in fear of the king's army- so why would he dare try to defect?

And now lets go into modern times, hey maybe the mayor of Champlaign New York looks up to Montreal in awe and so one day he decides to raise a Canadian flag and redraw the border of America. That's logical. Yeah and if America werent to disaprove of this and wanted their land back it would have to be through a "unprovoked" war.

P.S. EDIT: But hey I like the idea of culture I just think it was too hastily implemented and not well thought-out for all scenarios. And again, that's my OPINION.

darkstar, IMHO at some point they have to depart from realistic concepts and make it just fun. take, for instance world wonders. they are just symbols......

Robert Plomp · November 13, 2001, 12:04

TheDarkSide: about culture,

I think border cities did switch nationality oftenly in the past.
Think about Stratsburg, Geneve...........
Right now a big part of Belgium would like to become dutch while another part would like it to be a part of France.
of course it won't happen, until something serious happens......

Pherhaps we dutch should start some propaganda

about modern time: I think during a democraty cities hardly go to the 'other side' in civ3.

TheDarkside · November 13, 2001, 12:05

Quote:

Cool, you do the things you accuse me of !

Something like that, yes.

Well I'm glad you have a sense of humor- that way I know we can both go back and laugh at our posts instead of carry a grudge to our graves.