Broken Beyond Repair....:(

[adaMada]

ok, this thread is disapointing me now.

Not less than an hour ago, I was on here posting how awsome it was to see a thread which WASN'T purely people who hated the game slamming everyone and everything, with people shooting back with more slamming and making everyone enjoy apolyton less. Instead, we had a thread that made light of all of the slamming going on! What wonder...

Suddenly, this thread becomes nasty too.

Please, people! Let's try to stay civil, shall we? Also, while we're at it, why don't we all try listining to what everyone else is saying? Also, not getting so angry, and trying to keep this to friendly discussion... somehow, I think we'd all be happier if it didn't feel like a civil war here. Personally, this is decreasing my enjoyment of apolyton, and that's sad.

-- adaMada

[n.c.]

I haven't insulted you for liking or critisizing the game. My guess id that if Z did so it came from frustration at the way we are treated by Firaxis fundies.

[n.c.]

Originally posted by adaMada
Also, while we're at it, why don't we all try listining to what everyone else is saying? Also, not getting so angry

That would have been nice. It may still be possible if the Firaxis fundies start behaving with a modicum of respect. I'm not holding my breath.

[TCO]

Originally posted by n.c.
While not "vicious," your sarcasm is at best a gross mischaracterization of the detractor's points, and at worst it's a mean-spirited insult. Regardless it's anything but constuctive.

I would have expected more from you.

Don't be so high horse...I like the energy.

[n.c.]

Originally posted by GP
Don't be so high horse

The high horse rode in with "oh let's not be vicious" right before a fairly harsh post.

[yavoon]

n.c. it only hurts because like all good sarcasm, it has the ring of truth.

[Dis]

and I wasn't referring to your posts n.c. I already pointed that out.

Anyways critisizing the game is a good thing. We need peole who say they will not buy the game until it is patched properly. This will motivate Firaxis to patch, and keep patching until it is right.

I just don't like to be slammed on for having no problem with features of the game (combat probabilities) that others hate. This isn't producitve and won't motivate Firaxis to fix this questionable problem.

As a person with very bad luck said. Can't we all just get along? You would think we all have the same purpose in mind. To get Firaxis to patch this game to make it the best possible game under the current game engine (which seems to be civ1). getting them to patch the game is the most important thing. Not this dickering. As with smac you seen how difficult it was to get them to keep patching the game after a certain number of times.

so what I would like to see is a thread title: I will not buy this game until it is patched properly . I can't make it since I already own the game. Hopefully monetary reasons will be sufficient motivation.

until then I will be playing civ3

[Ancientfool]

Yeah, HEY, lets build a strawman version of legitmate complaints about the game, gloss over substantive criticism and pretend the world is *really* flat. Good work, happy happy joy joy.

The game really does need some tweaking, though a few patches and an editor will hopefully fix most issues. Thats it. No "Gawd-this-is-the-best-ever" joygasms or "Ill-take-it-back-and-sue-firaxis" drivel.

[n.c.]

Originally posted by Dissident
so what I would like to see is a thread title: I will not buy this game until it is patched properly .

Such threads are routinely slammed for being whining. However, I'm glad to see that you now are ready to join me in telling the Firaxis fundies that they are full of it.

yavoon- It didn't "hurt." My main problem with the initial post was that it was incorrect. After that I questioned whether it was constructive.

So, nice try, but you totally missed the mark. In the future you should read the post more carefully.

[Velociryx]

Hmmm....well brother n.c.....I *am* sorry if you took it as mean spirited....it certainly was not meant to be.....was simply an attempt (and largely successful I think, based on the majority of the comments here) at poking some light hearted fun at the general viciousness on the board of late....specifically not at any individual.

In that (again, based on the bulk of the comments here), I think it succeeded.

-=Vel=-

[Dis]

you got it. I'm no Firaxis fundy. I just want to play civ3 and talk about it. And of course make sure Firaxis patches this game. If you let up on them, they won't fulfill their committments. Oh how easily everyone forgets SMAC.

But I can see where this thread came from. I grew very tired of that combat thread about losing units. And then this whole discussion on realism. I am personally fine with the combat system (as there is really no chance of changing it from the civ1 model without a separate game). But a long drawn out thread is not the answer. One thing that is ineteresting is lack of impact difficulty level has on combat. I say make chieftan level super easy so a tank never loses to anything . That way all the people who want to play a game solely to run over the world with a few tanks can do so, while I sit and play a game I like on more difficult levels.

[n.c.]

Originally posted by Velociryx
at poking some light hearted fun at the general viciousness on the board of late

[emphasis added] Then why only poke fun at one side (the one being much less personally vicious)? Sorry, but I am not convinced. Not that you care (as you have clearly convinced yourself).

BTW, what whiner had the following to say?

Colonies suck

there should be fixes to reduce [corruption].... definitely make it LESS.

the *implementation* [of Palace Rush/Cultural Assimilation] is bad

Leaders/Armies should be more powerful than they are, or easier to get.

[Velociryx]

I do care, my friend. And I believe that you are taking this entire thread out of context.

I poked fun at only one side, because it was the side that seemed most prevelant here on the boards as I was browsing (admittedly, that was not a scientific determination....I didn't stop to count them or anything)

And yes, I have said (in the initial post, in fact) that there are valid concerns about the game. Comparisons with Civ2 are unavoidable, but there are people posting who sound an awful lot like the crux of their complaints are that the strategies they are comfortable with FROM Civ2 don't work anymore.

The things you quoted from me (sure, I'll take the title of Whiner for things that are weak points in the game)....the difference here is that Colonies and the implementation of culture have nothing to do with my Civ2 strategies, since they obviously didn't exist in Civ2).

No hard feelings tho....again, most folks simply took the thread for what it was, and had a good chuckle. Another of those fairly rare instances where we happen not to see eye to eye, that's all.


-=Vel=-

[n.c.]

Originally posted by Dissident
I grew very tired of that combat thread about losing units.

It's hard to resist the urge to get sarcastic here. Let me just say that there is alternative to reading threads. This kind of remark is little different than the more basic "shut up."

-"And then this whole discussion on realism."
People act like that is almost irrelevant to the game. The fact is realism is HUGE for some of us. Especially the really annoying unrealistic aspects (like caravels even being on the planet at the same time as nuke subs).

solely to run over the world with a few tanks can do so, while I sit and play a game I like on more difficult levels.

This is the kind of crap (sorry) that is so maddening. We do not want an easier game. Characterizing our position that way is insulting, intentional or not. We want a realistic game, which would involve tanks losing all the time- just not to units that should have stopped existing 200 years ago.

I appreciate your efforts and recognize that you are coming from a good place. Sorry if this is too harsh.

[Velociryx]

PostScript to the earlier comment:
You and I must be reading different threads then, old friend. Without naming any names, I can tell you that there are RAMPANT posts by some of the "Civ3-Sucks" crowd that have been downright evil in their name-calling.

-=Vel=-

[yavoon]

I definitely did not miss my mark n.c.. and for future reference, just because you say something, doesn't make it so.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Dissident
and I get the impression that Zylka hates the fact that I like the game.

I get the impression that he wants everyone to hate civ3 as much as he does

Why in the hell are you addressing me, MIST@R SPIRIT WALKl3R?? I'm not trying to have others hate the game, I'm telling them that we have a right to complain to have all of the twisted aspects fixed, and I'm justifying why each and every one of these aspects should be changed.

take a look at my screen name. I am not like others. I can care less if I lose 1 of my tanks to a pikeman. I just build another. I think some of you wimps are crying when your tank loses to a pikeman. just build another freakin' tank That will be my motto from now on. I may put it in my signiture.

Yes, good. You are not like the others, U R UBER SPIRIT WALK3R GURU CIV3, who can overlook all of the flaws of this game and "just build another one". It applies so well to everything. And oh yes, you sure surmised my complaints well in the above. The fact that I lost a single tank to a pikeman is obviously the very embodyment of the whole argument simplified, you are so F*CKING BRILLIANT IT DEFIES IMAGINATION. Note sarcasm, champ.

You people... you oversimplify and mischaracterize our complaints in the most blatantly stupid ways possible. That's all you have for your argument, to ignore every valid complaint and address parody/fantasy complaints because I R LOVE GAME NO NEED 4 CHANGE U GUYS IS PUSSIES

Fine, have fun. It really is in vain to logically destroy your pathetic & unfounded responses time and again - because the only ones who listen are those smart enough to have already figured it out themselves.


This game is fun.
This game is challenging enough.
Nothing needs to be changed.
No one needs to complain.
You're a ***** if you complain.
Yet will I download the patch that the b*tchers are pushing?

You obviously win.

[n.c.]

Originally posted by Velociryx
there are RAMPANT posts by some of the "Civ3-Sucks" crowd that have been downright evil in their name-calling.

Absolutely. However, I challenge you to list one where the C3 attacker made the 1st inappropriate personal comment (not looking at threads in a vacuum).

Actually, it would not be fair to ask you to find something that doesn't exist.

[n.c.]

Originally posted by yavoon
just because you say something, doesn't make it so.

Apparently your saying that a comment "hurts" makes it so (in your mind). Being the person that was not at all hurt, I merely informed you of your error and suggested a way to avoid making more.

[Scary Penguin]

1) Civ 3 is much more playable than SMAC/Civ 2. The computer can give me a much more challenging game at levels less than diety without it seeming unfair. I get much further into the game before I get the feeling that the game is basically over. Civ 3's AI, while still quite stupid, is far and away the best of the series. Corruption and the strength of ancient vs modern units are both good things, because they make the game more playable, even once someone takes a lead in tech or number of cities.

2) SMAC had the best interface of any of the games. Civ 3's interface is actually worse than Civ 2's and much worse than SMAC's. Everything from control-q for retire to the stupid radio buttons is a step backwards. Also, I miss the wonder movies from SMAC.

3) The diplomatic win is so goofy that I can't believe they left it in the game. I would have disabled it until the next patch, just to save embarassment.

With all that said, I think #1 actually wins out over 2 and 3, and suspect I won't go back to playing SMAC over Civ 3.

[DinoDoc]

nc, we miss you in the OT.

[Zurai001]

Originally posted by Leonidas
3) Contrary to what some people have been led to believe, the AI cheats at every level of the game. I have played a number of games on the first three levels (where the AI, supposedly, doesn't cheat), and have encountered it many, many times.

Actually, the only cheats I've noticed is a cheat I've seen in every single game with a map: The AI knows the map from the start of the game.

Just four examples:

A) Playing on Chieftan (yeah, I know), I was bombarding a city. I destroyed a road, yet, on the next turn, it was built again. Has anyone ever had a single worker build a road in just one turn? But worse than that - on the very next turn - the AI had built a railroad - again - with only the same worker. I destroy those buggers on each turn - but they are re-built on the very next turn.

Actually yes, I have built roads in one turn, and railroads and irrigation and mines too - all with one worker. It's called an industrious civ under democracy with replaceable parts.

B) On Regent level, I had a settler and archer trapped - they were the last units left of a Civ. After I had declared war on that civ, and after I left the diplomacy screen, that settler and archer jumped into the air and landed 10 tiles away. I kid you not. When faced with extinction, the AI can pull off some dramatic events. . . (

Or, I could use my imagination and believe that in 1600 AD, that settler and archer had invented a springboard and parachute, and then with superhuman skill miracluously escaped

C) On Regent level, the AI almost always seems to "know" when its cities will fall to another culture. How do I know? Just before it reverts, you will see that city dwindle to maybe a 2 or 1 pop city before you take it over. However, the human player is given no such warning. . .

Or maybe they just started building lots of workers from there, as part of the normal AI functions. I've personally grabbed size 12 cities from culture before.

D) The AI also always knows where you are the weakest, and what units you have in your cities.

This I acknowledge. The AI knows the map in its entirety, including resources.

4) The game is filled with bugs. While most of the core game is good and playable, it was still rushed out the door, and it shows:

* Broken scenario/map editors. Even the user made maps available for download tend to screw up the tech tree. Sloppy programming? But let's pretend they work.

* No multiplayer - but I'll use my imagination and pretend it exists

* Air superiority and coastal fortess don't work as advertised. I have yet to get the regular fortress to work the way it should, although the AI has no such handicap.

Actually, I have seen regular forts work. The thing is, ZOC is only a 50% chance of triggering, and it doesn't show the attack if it fails to damage the unit, so it seems a lot less.

[yavoon]

just because all the people seem to be for some change, almost as appeasement to the onslaughts of the whiners.

I might add that, I see no need to change any part of the combat system. it adds depth and balance to gameplay, at the cost of realism. this is strategy game, not simulation.

I find no need to change corruption. it forces the question is bigger better, and where you can build cities. obviously one of the gripes eternally on strategy games like this is, because of reality, bigger is almost always better.

I really am happy about the strategic aspects of the game, and am only in need of obvious bugs, like interceptors not intercepting.

its worth mentioning too, that n.c. is one of the cuter characters I've seen in a while. everytime he talks, he talks w/ the authority of god, the conviction of lucifer, but the finesse of a bowling ball.

[Bubba_B]

Funny thread,

Your right Vel military victory in Civ 2 was too easy. Could never resist it.

Although I do miss ramming my Battleship aground to destroy a Phalanx

[Velociryx]

n.c.

Well bro...without looking too long and hard, how about: "Listen you patronizing jerkweed....etc., and so forth" to a post that was neither inappropriate OR personal. (granted, that's a fairly tame example, but pretty easily found in something like three minutes of searching).

There are a good many more, especially shortly after that one (and that's just in one thread I browsed after reading your reply), which turned into a good old fashioned flame-fest for a bit.

Bubba... Thank you....I'm glad it gave you a chuckle.

-=Vel=-

[n.c.]

Originally posted by yavoon
everytime he talks, he talks w/ the authority of god, the conviction of lucifer

Let's see, guy A told guy B how he was feeling. Upon being corrected, guy A says that he knows better how guy B felt. Who was speaking like God?

Damn, that was almost too easy. Feel free to come back for more.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by yavoon
just because all the people seem to be for some change, almost as appeasement to the onslaughts of the whiners.

I might add that, I see no need to change any part of the combat system. it adds depth and balance to gameplay, at the cost of realism. this is strategy game, not simulation.

Realism is the acme of depth and just balance. NO ONE can argue with that.

I find no need to change corruption. it forces the question is bigger better, and where you can build cities. obviously one of the gripes eternally on strategy games like this is, because of reality, bigger is almost always better.

You find no need to change corruption?? It doesn't even work according to the way the designers intended it too, let alone realistically. Governments do not lessen corruption as they should, nor do courthouses. The current corruption model is only fit for despotism. When they fix corruption in the patch, what will you then say?

its worth mentioning too, that n.c. is one of the cuter characters I've seen in a while. everytime he talks, he talks w/ the authority of god, the conviction of lucifer, but the finesse of a bowling ball.

Funny, then you must consider tact to consist of lying and brazen misinterpretation. Considering we're in the same camp, N.C. is being rather gentle with the lot of you. I'm sorry I don't have the same sympathy for your "type"

[n.c.]

Vel- Well, I'd bet an examination of the context/prior threads would be illuminating. The worst I've seen is transferred frustration.

Originally posted by DinoDoc
nc, we miss you in the OT.

Damn, that was one of the nicest things said to me on these forums.

I walked away from the OT to let my forearm heal, but came to the Civ 3 threads after release. Since then I been dragged into this sort of debate. Maybe once I'm back to using both arms.

[Imran Siddiqui]

n.c.: What goes around comes around.

Perhaps you should re-read your 'Whining about the Whiners thread'

[yavoon]

u are worse than politicians, I get called lying for a post consisted entirely of me giving my opinion. no wonder you have to keep posting to defend yourself, you need some real defending.

if they release a patch, i will play that. I am in this for the strategy, and the empire building "feeling" not for a simulation of warfare, or of democracy. cuz to ask for nething else would be hypocritical as a real simulation would be no fun wutsoever. ur harping on points that are moot in civ3's world. like vel sed, its not civ2, and u hate that. somewhere along the line realism and "its not like civ2" became synonymous.