So what's really new in Civ3?

Dev · November 16, 2001, 10:18

- Culture
Ok this a major but damn it needs tweaking.
Losing 10 garrisoned High Tech units when some size 3 town defects is just plain dumb. There needs to be somekind of military power check in the equation. i.e. My 10 garrisoned panzer divisions should pretty much be able to quell any rebellion (which is what culture defection in fact is.)

- Resources
Cool feature, also needs tweaking though since not having some resources is a show stopper. Being able to build things for which you don't have the required resources should probably be allowed at 100% extra cost per missing resource.

- Unique + a few new units, subtracting the units they pulled this is a non factor.

- New worker jobs, har har.

- Slightly better Diplomacy, about at par with SMAC so another non factor. (one of the most heavily bugged parts of the game anyway)

- a few new techs but they also took some out so I won't count that.

- Revamped combat system, if they made it anymore simple there wouldn't be any combat at all.....

- Corruption, I just hope they give us some way of adjusting it in the patch.....

- Better graphics, man I wish they given us a decent combat system and gone back on the graphics to ASCII instead of the other way around.

Remind me if I missed something.....

On a good day I'll say the game they call Civ3 would have been an ok expansion pack for Civ2....
Besides culture there isn't really any new content in Civ3.

/dev

HugoHillbilly · November 16, 2001, 10:34

Sorry but I have to point out that you appear to be contradicting yourself.

You dont like the new features, and your solutions are to revert back to the old Civ2 rules.

Yet you complain that Civ3 is too much alike to Civ2 (just an expansion).

So what exactly are you trying to say?

and btw you can tweak corruption in the editor.

MarkG · November 16, 2001, 10:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Dev
- Culture
Ok this a major but damn it needs tweaking.
Losing 10 garrisoned High Tech units when some size 3 town defects is just plain dumb.

it's not a "bug", it's a feature.

they have intentionally put a limit (3) on the units that have an effect. either use some of the suggested tactics to avoid it or change the resistance factors in the editor(culture tab)

Quote:

- Corruption, I just hope they give us some way of adjusting it in the patch.....

you can already do so in the editor(world sizes tab)

Robert Plomp · November 16, 2001, 10:45

Moderators,
why don't you delete threads like this ?
There are 30 threads that discuss exactly the same as dev came up with. All interesting threads drop down, and every hour someone posts something like this.

it's getting booooring !

dev:

You know all our counter-arguments.
Why do you keep on coming with this ? It's been discussed to death. We just disagree. You prefer civ2 above civ3. Well, go ahead and play it.

You can find the civ2 forums here: http://apolyton.net/forums/forumdisp...?s=&forumid=12

TheDarkside · November 16, 2001, 10:48

Yes... thankfully corruption can be edited, but pollution on the other hand, which IMO is more annoying then corruption anyday. I mean sure, pollution is realistic and it's a serious world problem, but please let me disable it or abstract it in a way so that it dosent interfere with my gameplay so much

it just gets too annoying spending all the time to clean it up!

DinoDoc · November 16, 2001, 11:11

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
you can already do so in the editor(world sizes tab)

Why should we have to fix something in the editor (a joke in and of itself) that should never have gotten through QA?

MarkG · November 16, 2001, 11:39

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why should we have to fix something in the editor (a joke in and of itself) that should never have gotten through QA?

it seems like you are imagining a comment of mine that doesnt exist. my comment was in reply to this

Quote:

I just hope they give us some way of adjusting it in the patch.....

so i explained that he is asking for something that he already has.
nothing more, nothing less....

Dev · November 16, 2001, 11:47

Quote:

Originally posted by HugoHillbilly
Sorry but I have to point out that you appear to be contradicting yourself.

You dont like the new features, and your solutions are to revert back to the old Civ2 rules.

Yet you complain that Civ3 is too much alike to Civ2 (just an expansion).

So what exactly are you trying to say?

and btw you can tweak corruption in the editor.

I think I missed the part where I said anything about reverting back to Civ2 rules.

Guess I'm not very good at comprehending my own posts....

Edit:

What I'm trying to say is that calling this game Civ3 is a bad joke.
It doesn't have enough new features to justify launching it as a new version and that the few new features are bugged and/or need major balancing.

/dev

Dev · November 16, 2001, 11:56

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
it's not a "bug", it's a feature.

they have intentionally put a limit (3) on the units that have an effect. either use some of the suggested tactics to avoid it or change the resistance factors in the editor(culture tab)

you can already do so in the editor(world sizes tab)

hehe gotta love them "features".
I'm not against culture takeovers but having a strong military in the area should be a very good safeguard against it happening....just ask anybody who lived in eastern europe during the cold war.

/dev

Dev · November 16, 2001, 12:02

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberShy
Moderators,
why don't you delete threads like this ?
There are 30 threads that discuss exactly the same as dev came up with. All interesting threads drop down, and every hour someone posts something like this.

it's getting booooring !

dev:

You know all our counter-arguments.
Why do you keep on coming with this ? It's been discussed to death. We just disagree. You prefer civ2 above civ3. Well, go ahead and play it.

You can find the civ2 forums here: http://apolyton.net/forums/forumdisp...?s=&forumid=12

ohh will you please just STFU ?

75% of your posts are either off topic or whines about the supposed whiners...

Anyway, no I don't prefer Civ2, the reason I'm complaining is because I want Civ3 to become a worthy successor but it will only happen if Firaxes pull their collective thumbs out of their asses and deliver a major patch which not only fix the bugs but also adds new content.

I don't care if Firaxis or Infog. is to blame, fact is Civ3 went gold too soon and if WE don't make a lot of noise you won't see them do anything about the shortcomings.

/dev

MarkG · November 16, 2001, 12:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Dev
I'm not against culture takeovers but having a strong military in the area should be a very good safeguard against it happening....just ask anybody who lived in eastern europe during the cold war.

the will of the people is stronger that any army

imho it's a playbalancing choice. if they allowed what you're suggesting it could very easily make culture meaningless. i know i would end up put 10 warriors in each city to keep the captured city from resisting. now i had to come up with new tactics(which i have posted elsewhere

)

RichM · November 16, 2001, 12:04

At the very least they should kick the extra units out of the city. When I'm bordering a stronger culture I keep most of my units outside of the city anyway, it would be nice to automate that. Simply losing all those troops doesn't make any sense, especially since a small amount of extra hassle can avoid that consequence.

Dev · November 16, 2001, 12:06

Ok I won't get into why having to adjust things through an undocumented editor is bull so I'll just ask which setting is minimum corruption ?

/dev

MarkG · November 16, 2001, 12:07

Quote:

Originally posted by RichM
At the very least they should kick the extra units out of the city.

if you dont want to be afraid of loosing extra units, dont put any extra units! it's all part of the game....

TheDarkside · November 16, 2001, 12:13

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
the will of the people is stronger that any army

imho it's a playbalancing choice. if they allowed what you're suggesting it could very easily make culture meaningless. i know i would end up put 10 warriors in each city to keep the captured city from resisting. now i had to come up with new tactics(which i have posted elsewhere

)

I have to express my disagreement. Sure a city as large as New York can easily resist relatively large armies, but if you station 4 divisions of mechanized infantry in TundraTown, North Dakota (population 62) There's nothing they can do no matter how much "will" they might have.

Any yes, you can station 10 warriors in each town, now you have the pay all that extra upkeep for your troops stationed there, and I think that balances it enough.

MarkG · November 16, 2001, 12:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Dev
Ok I won't get into why having to adjust things through an undocumented editor is bull so I'll just ask which setting is minimum corruption ?

now you're making me agree 200% with cybershy

screenshot showing your laziness...

Dev · November 16, 2001, 12:16

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
the will of the people is stronger that any army

imho it's a playbalancing choice. if they allowed what you're suggesting it could very easily make culture meaningless. i know i would end up put 10 warriors in each city to keep the captured city from resisting. now i had to come up with new tactics(which i have posted elsewhere

)

Which brings up another shortcoming, warriors being as good as panzers for domestic tasks.

The need to base it on combined attack/defense stats of the units vs. the tech era of the civ or even better/simpler spawn some rebel units (bigger town = more units) which attacks and try to take the city and if they succed then you lose it to civ next door, otherwise you keep it.

/dev

MarkG · November 16, 2001, 12:17

that was resistance

corruption coming up

Robert Plomp · November 16, 2001, 12:18

Quote:

ohh will you please just STFU ?

75% of your posts are either off topic or whines about the supposed whiners...

I have given arguments against your problems (and I have agreed with some of them as well) in other threads.

I start to 'whine' or 'complain' about posts when someone points something out that I already responded to in any other thread. What do you want me to do, you want me to keep on posting my arguments in every thread about the same topic ?

No, I try to get all topics gathered in unique threads so the discussion will happen in only one thread and not any argument will be lost.

I've given VERY much arguments and I've made VERY much posts that make sence. You either didn't read them or you forgot about them. It's so easy to say simple unfounded things like "You never say something that makes sence".

In fact all I say that makes sence has dropped to page 5

Dev · November 16, 2001, 12:20

Lucky you mark, you corrected your error before I got a chance to write a novell about reading & comprehension

/dev

MarkG · November 16, 2001, 12:20

PTFHB (=press the help button)

Dev · November 16, 2001, 12:28

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberShy

I have given arguments against your problems (and I have agreed with some of them as well) in other threads.

I start to 'whine' or 'complain' about posts when someone points something out that I already responded to in any other thread. What do you want me to do, you want me to keep on posting my arguments in every thread about the same topic ?

No, I try to get all topics gathered in unique threads so the discussion will happen in only one thread and not any argument will be lost.

I've given VERY much arguments and I've made VERY much posts that make sence. You either didn't read them or you forgot about them. It's so easy to say simple unfounded things like "You never say something that makes sence".

In fact all I say that makes sence has dropped to page 5

Well don't read the threads then, this is Civ3 general forum and anything about Civ3 is more appropriate than your off topic posts.

Simple as that.

Besides this thread was supposed to be about the (lack of) new features in Civ3 of which there obviously isn't many since no one but my first post (Edit) mentioned any new features so I guess it's a valid complaint, no?.
Your contribution to this thread OTOH was way off topic and belongs nowhere but in a privat notice to a moderator.

You did succeed in dragging me off topic too though, glory to you.

/dev

/dev

Dev · November 16, 2001, 12:46

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
PTFHB (=press the help button)

Ok I didn't spend 2 hours reading the SCENARIO editor help file when I was looking for a way to adjust corruption so sue me.

/dev

MarkG · November 16, 2001, 12:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Dev
Ok I didn't spend 2 hours reading the SCENARIO editor help file when I was looking for a way to adjust corruption so sue me.

i havent spent more than 200 seconds on the editor help file....

perhaps greeks among the other special characteristics(scientific, commercial) also have the ability to read help files in 200 seconds instead of 2 hours

Dev · November 16, 2001, 13:17

But why should I read the editor help file when I want to change a game setting ?

So, anyone feel like adding some marvelous new features to my list ?

/dev

zapperio · November 16, 2001, 13:28

A pail of sand for you to stick your head in, because, man, you need to hide.

Zap

Ancientfool · November 16, 2001, 15:36

good god, dont bother complaining about anything. It only upsets the fanboys.

zapperio · November 16, 2001, 15:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Ancientfool
good god, dont bother complaining about anything. It only upsets the fanboys.

Hey! now I'm upset!

Zap

Jack_www · November 16, 2001, 19:25

I dont know why you are complaining so much Dev. I have been playing this game for 2 weeks now and I like it a lot, and it is alot better then the all the games I have played. I do have some things I dont like they did( for instance they did not include mp in the release version of Civ3 and it does seem rushed out the door, and the some features of air units dont seem to work), but I still like this game alot. Civ3 I think is much better than Civ2. I like the how they have resources in the game as it is now. If you dont get a certain resource, etheir trade for it or get it through miltary force, thats what I do.

Pyrodrew · November 16, 2001, 20:26

That's one of the main complaints about corruption... and it's listed right there in the help file. Once you pass a "certain number" corruption goes up "drastically". This is unrealistic & annoying. Would the US suffer "drastic corruption" in all cities if it added 1 more city somewhere? It should be something that gradually & slowly increases, not something that is like falling off a cliff. Forcing to keep one's kingdom at 16 cities (for standard) & always greatly fearing city #17 is

BTW, as I've stated elsewhere I enjoy most other aspects about Civ3 that people complain about. But the corruption model is flawed.