There can never be Civ3 MP

And it's true. Just picture the game right now. No expansion abilities, massive corruption, impossible to take another civ over. Every game will be a space race with players doing nothing but building their empire. No war, no fighting, no decisive gameplay. They've put so much emphasis on culture that it now dominates the game. The strategic resources are going to make MP a nightmare. Whoever gets the resources will win the game and no moron is going to trade a resource that gives a decisive advantage. The combat system is atrocious and brings back memories of civ 1. Who is going to want to play competitive games when entire wars are decided on what turn of the game it is? Who really wants to build 20 cities and then stop because the corruption is so bad that it's not worth it to build anymore? What's the use of fighting if it's more valuable to raze a city than keep it? And what the hell were they thinking with the new tech system? I played a game today where Republic was going to be 32 turns no matter if I turned my tax rate up to 90% or if I turned my science rate up to 90%. 32 turns to get 1 tech!!! Nobody is going to play MP if it takes 2 hours just to become a monarchy! What once was a game that relied heavily on war is now a game that resembles Sim City. It's not that the game has become harder, it's not that I'm annoyed that my strategies from civ2 won't work for civ3, and it's certainly not that I find the game too difficult. The simple fact is that there are less options available than there were before. So much emphasis was put on creating a challenging AI that they have literally bogged the game down to crawl in order to bring you down to the AI level. Just think about this next time you start looking forward to MP.

[yin26]

What once was a game that relied heavily on war is now a game that resembles Sim City.

Your quote reminds me of the 'review' I wrote months before the game was even released:

What does this mean in gameplay terms? Obvious, isn't it? You'll be tempted to literally stuff your cities with building after building just to see how far your cultural influence can spread. Then a creeping question will settle in: "Wait, is this even fun or challenging? Does it really add anything to the game?" ... one begins to feel at times that Civ 3 is a sort of grand Sim City or Tropico.

LOL!

[Dis]

impossible to take another civ over? haven't seen that, I've done it many times

I can't see how to play mp anyways even in civ2. too friggin' long. the smac pbem games I played people just quit when they realized they were losing. losers

[Ming]

While I don't agree with your title...
I fear I must agree with many of your points.

They have done MANY things that slow down the start of the game. The 32 turn no matter what sciences alone are enough to make you scream. One night games won't be a heck of a lot of fun Regularly scheduled games might be ok... And the fight for the strategic resources could be "fun"... we all know how hard those games are to continue, and is one of the reasons duels or one night 3 to 5 person games were pretty much the standard deal. Duels will now be VERY boring

The combat doesn't really bother me. There have always been SO MANY different elements of luck in the game... one more doesn't really matter. It all washes in the long run anyway.
The lack of ZOC's also makes for a different type of combat, and does take some of the strategy out of it... (spoken like a true old time board gamer )

[Kaak]

"I am jack's broken heart..."

quote:

What does this mean in gameplay terms? Obvious, isn't it? You'll be tempted to literally stuff your cities with building after building just to see how far your cultural influence can spread. Then a creeping question will settle in: "Wait, is this even fun or challenging? Does it really add anything to the game?" ... one begins to feel at times that Civ 3 is a sort of grand Sim City or Tropico.

Exactly. I've been playing this game for 10 years and I can't stand it. How can they ever hope to bring in new customers with such a boring and dreary game. First time I played it I almost fell asleep.

[ChrisShaffer]

Some of us like Sim City. And some of us like builder-style games.

LOL.

However, I disagree with your idea that they've taken all the war out of the game. If anything, they've made it more warlike. It's much more difficult to play a perfectionist builder game, and there are huge stretches of time (the entire industrial age, for example) when there is nothing to build but units.

[pg]

have to agree with you. i'll use an example/comparision...

it's sorta like quake1->quake3. some of the newer games of older titles(and game types) are super balanced to appeal more to newbies and turn off hard core gamers. afterall, newbies pay as much for the game as the hard core gamer. even if the newbies only play it for a short while they still pay the same amount. basically since game design and how fun games end up being is an art, it's simpler to appeal to the newbie who is much easier to please(and less knowledgable). i think it's perfectly possible to appeal to both the newbie and hard core gamer, but it's obviously harder.

btw, after playing civ3 for a week i'm returning it. the main thing is that it's too tedious/balanced. now i'm not dissing civ3(even though it seems like i am), it's just that i think i can find something better to spend my money on since i already own civnet/civ2mpg/smac.

[cassembler]

No war, no fighting, no decisive gameplay. They've put so much emphasis on culture that it now dominates the game.

If another player puts his freakin' city next to my borders on a splotch of land that I'm just about to control, you can be damn sure I'm gonna go beat his *** into his brain with a shovel.

That's tough to pull off, but at least it gives me a reason to do so.

As far as the culture, and the SimCity-esque-ness of the game, I rather enjoy blissful periods of prosperity. The thing I hated most about Civ2 is once you were at war, you were at war for the REST OF THE GAME. period.

As far as MP, I think we'll all be pleasantly surprised. Call me an optimist if you will.

[Sarxis]

"There can be only one." - The Highlander

[Raleigh]

1. Yes, they need to do something about rampant corruption but since all other players labor under the same constraints it is equal. Nothing like Razing a city to show your genuine affection for an enemy though!

2. I am convinced, the science is not flawed just not explained well. Your science rate does shift. It looks like science goes from anywhere from 32 turns to 4 turns (although in limited circumstances I've been told I am not making ANY progress if I set it too low). Some people claim to have beaten the 4 turn minimum and many complain about it, but IMHO 2 vs. 4 turns I don't think makes such a big deal. As for not changing from 32 turns, that is because you still don't have enough science power. The game, in fact, is DOING YOU A FAVOR, with that minimum. If you are saying you are too bored because you are researching too quickly... Anyway, the solution is to expand faster.

[yin26]

IMHO 2 vs. 4 turns I don't think makes such a big deal.

Well, the first issue is one of having an apparently enforced limitation on the rate of reasearch. Thus, there is no advantage past a certain point to having massive research ability. This is an entirely unsatisfying limit on the game, one that seems imposed on the gamer for two unsatisfying reasons 1) to keep an otherwise weak computer opponent in the game and 2) to force the tech tree to spread across X amount of turns.

Those other issue as to 2 v 4 turns, it makes a HUGE difference! Over the course of the game, you'd be able to have an enormous tech advantage and, thereby, have much greater control over the tech trading the comp does and be able to capitalize on techs much sooner. Think about it.

10 techs at 4 / turn = 40 turns

10 techs at 2 / turn = 20 turns

Play that over the course of the entire game! In other words, the artificial limits (if that's really what's going on, but who can possible say with all the great info we get?) simply punish a good player and reward mediocrity.

[Vympel]

"In other words, the artificial limits (if that's really what's going on, but who can possible say with all the great info we get?) simply punish a good player and reward mediocrity."

That is simply the most precise, simple statement about the main problem with CIV 3 ever ... it punishes the good player and rewards mediocrity.

Look at the research system ... enough has been said about that in this thread.

Look at the combat system ... whether your Modern Armor is killed by a spearman (yes this actually happened to me, more than once, something like three times in the course of my war against America) is entirely dependent on what game turn it is. You have a technological advantage? Hah, doesn't mean anything. The game doesn't care. The combat system has to be this stupid in order to keep the AI even remotely competetive, its so pathetic watching HORDES of spearman and horsemen running around and its 1940 AD.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Ming
While I don't agree with your title...
I fear I must agree with many of your points.

They have done MANY things that slow down the start of the game. The 32 turn no matter what sciences alone are enough to make you scream. One night games won't be a heck of a lot of fun Regularly scheduled games might be ok... And the fight for the strategic resources could be "fun"... we all know how hard those games are to continue, and is one of the reasons duels or one night 3 to 5 person games were pretty much the standard deal. Duels will now be VERY boring

The combat doesn't really bother me. There have always been SO MANY different elements of luck in the game... one more doesn't really matter. It all washes in the long run anyway.
The lack of ZOC's also makes for a different type of combat, and does take some of the strategy out of it... (spoken like a true old time board gamer )

32 turns - well you can hike up your science rate the minute first road is built. cuts it to 16 immediatelly....
as fot the zoc-no zoc debate...its kind of a transition form the russian campaing to the russian front...hope you played both AH games

[Akka]

Originally posted by Vympel
"In other words, the artificial limits (if that's really what's going on, but who can possible say with all the great info we get?) simply punish a good player and reward mediocrity."

That is simply the most precise, simple statement about the main problem with CIV 3 ever ... it punishes the good player and rewards mediocrity.

Look at the research system ... enough has been said about that in this thread.

Look at the combat system ... whether your Modern Armor is killed by a spearman (yes this actually happened to me, more than once, something like three times in the course of my war against America) is entirely dependent on what game turn it is. You have a technological advantage? Hah, doesn't mean anything. The game doesn't care. The combat system has to be this stupid in order to keep the AI even remotely competetive, its so pathetic watching HORDES of spearman and horsemen running around and its 1940 AD.

I wanted to express the exact same feeling for weeks now, but couldn't put words on it
That's EXACTLY that
And I would add what the first poster was saying :

So much emphasis was put on creating a challenging AI that they have literally bogged the game down to crawl in order to bring you down to the AI level.

Same thing as before, just couldn't put the words on my feeling, but that's exactly that.
In fact, the AI act a LOT better than before, but I think that half of the challenge it represents comes from the limitations they put to the human to ensure that whatever the way you play, you would end in a certain bracket of possibilities. Just look at that :
- science, except if you put 0 %, is ALWAYS 4 to 32 turns, and if a tech has already been discovered by another civ, it costs less to research : it's a sure way that the AI will not be TOO far away in tech regardless of your playing style.
- corruption will nullify the advantage of expanding far and fast, ensuring that regardless of the quality of your gaming, you end with roughly the same quantity of "useful" cities.
- combat system will reduce the advantage of your tech lead.

All these facts look to me as some kind of limitations put on each player to be sure that whatever they do, they all end into a limited bracket of possibilities, so that the AI won't be distanced by too much. It has its advantage (more challenging, less incongruous 1500 years gap in technology between too neighbour civ, work for the human player too if he's in late), but as a whole it feel somehow cheesy, some kind of trick to slow down the best player and boost up the mediocre one that get distanced. Again something that should be optionnal (or at least moddable), to allow to people that want it a more challenging game, and people that want it a game that rewards their game abilities to the fullest.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
In fact, the AI act a LOT better than before, but I think that half of the challenge it represents comes from the limitations they put to the human to ensure that whatever the way you play, you would end in a certain bracket of possibilities. Just look at that :
- science, except if you put 0 %, is ALWAYS 4 to 32 turns, and if a tech has already been discovered by another civ, it costs less to research : it's a sure way that the AI will not be TOO far away in tech regardless of your playing style.

very realistic. the spread of knowledge is quicker once someone posesses it. usually people whine about the lack of realism. this is kinda new.

- corruption will nullify the advantage of expanding far and fast, ensuring that regardless of the quality of your gaming, you end with roughly the same quantity of "useful" cities.

which is good, unless you were a fan of ICS. I found ICS extremely boring and could not force myself to crank more settlers past the 15th city. civ3 enables you to win with a 10 city empire, the level that the most gamers find very satisfying.

- combat system will reduce the advantage of your tech lead..

or AI's tech lead, thus levelling the playing field a bit. no more anihillations of empires in one to max two turns. i must admit it was a rush when i first employed bomber-para tactics but it quickly became very tedious.....this time, when i go to war, i know it is going to hurt

All these facts look to me as some kind of limitations put on each player to be sure that whatever they do, they all end into a limited bracket of possibilities, so that the AI won't be distanced by too much. It has its advantage (more challenging, less incongruous 1500 years gap in technology between too neighbour civ, work for the human player too if he's in late), but as a whole it feel somehow cheesy, some kind of trick to slow down the best player and boost up the mediocre one that get distanced. Again something that should be optionnal (or at least moddable), to allow to people that want it a more challenging game, and people that want it a game that rewards their game abilities to the fullest.

well, the whole concept of computer games is cheesy and supposed to be fun. i mean, we are moving little people on the screens. our pyramids give free granaries. magelan's voyage gives extra move, etc. etc.

the whole story with civ3 is like an old serbian legend of dark domain (vilayet in turkish). an army walked into a domain of complete darkness...they felt something under their feet....something like gravel. a deep voice told them...those who take it will be very sorry, those who do not take it will be sorry too. well some of them put some of that stuff in their pockets. once they were out they found out those were gems. those that did put it in were sorry they did not put more, those that did not put them in their pockets...well....
kinda like with civ. we wanted a lot of things. but once they are in, people start whining. everyone had his/her own idea on what it should have been like. and yes, civ2 had les whiners simply because we did not have internet so availiable to vent our frustrations....
IMHO, the only things that need to get fixed are fighters, penalty for another continent city (tweak down) and possibility to group workers in stacks.

[Special_Olympic]

Parts of the game would have to be changed for multiplayer, but it could probably be implemented. Some things would just have to be modified for multiplayer balance.

And you can have plenty of wars in this game. Sometimes it almost feels like a wargame to me. The sim city part is there a little, but jesus... If you can't find a good war in this game you must be blind.

[Grim Legacy]

LOL. Expansion not possible? War is too hard? Tech is too difficult? I'm sorry if this is going to hurt your pride, but these things are probably just your weak gameplay speaking.

I have encountered no difficulty keeping up in research, and techs are typically below 10 turns. My enemies are on par, or some techs behind me. I don't trade like a monkey on crack either.

War: my latest campaign laid 14 Russian metropoli in ruins and halved their effective strength. Perhaps you want to keep too many cities if war troubles you. I took just 2, the rest I razed to the ground.

Expansion: I currently have over 20 big cities, without any major problems with corruption or reversion.

So I don't think the game disqualifies MP beforehand.

[Akka]

Originally posted by LaRusso very realistic. the spread of knowledge is quicker once someone posesses it. usually people whine about the lack of realism. this is kinda new.

That's perhaps why I wrote "less incongruous 1500 years gap in technology between too neighbour civ" in the advantages of this particularity ?

which is good, unless you were a fan of ICS. I found ICS extremely boring and could not force myself to crank more settlers past the 15th city. civ3 enables you to win with a 10 city empire, the level that the most gamers find very satisfying.

or AI's tech lead, thus levelling the playing field a bit. no more anihillations of empires in one to max two turns. i must admit it was a rush when i first employed bomber-para tactics but it quickly became very tedious.....this time, when i go to war, i know it is going to hurt

well, the whole concept of computer games is cheesy and supposed to be fun. i mean, we are moving little people on the screens. our pyramids give free granaries. magelan's voyage gives extra move, etc. etc.

the whole story with civ3 is like an old serbian legend of dark domain (vilayet in turkish). an army walked into a domain of complete darkness...they felt something under their feet....something like gravel. a deep voice told them...those who take it will be very sorry, those who do not take it will be sorry too. well some of them put some of that stuff in their pockets. once they were out they found out those were gems. those that did put it in were sorry they did not put more, those that did not put them in their pockets...well....
kinda like with civ. we wanted a lot of things. but once they are in, people start whining. everyone had his/her own idea on what it should have been like. and yes, civ2 had les whiners simply because we did not have internet so availiable to vent our frustrations....
IMHO, the only things that need to get fixed are fighters, penalty for another continent city (tweak down) and possibility to group workers in stacks.

Perhaps you did not noticed, but I was talking about how Firaxis implanted artificial restriction to be sure that regardless your playstyle, you will always stay in a restricted bracket. Basically, they put barriers to science and city development to disallow the leading civ to take too much advantage over the others, and found ways to boost the weaker to allow it to be able to catch up.

Now you can like it or dislike it, but that's part of things I would like to be selectable or at least moddable. That's all what I was talking about.

[DrFell]

You newbies are just missing the point. How many of you have ever played multiplayer civ2 before even once?? Until you do I don't think you're really qualified to comment on the subject, you just sound stupid. I'd like to pick out some quality comments that made me laugh particularly:

'there are huge stretches of time (the entire industrial age, for example) when there is nothing to build but units.'

Lots of time for war in the industrial era ey? With 32 turn techs how long exactly do you intend to play for? Do you know how few multiplayer games are even continued once, how hard it is to organise a game with more than a couple people, how long each turn takes? This is not single play.

'I rather enjoy blissful periods of prosperity.'

All well and good but VERY boring in MP, especially considering the increased amount of time for turns.

'Yes, they need to do something about rampant corruption but since all other players labor under the same constraints it is equal. '

Yes, and it makes it hell to take over an opponent - if the cities aren't producing anything at all that in itself is a significant disincentive to go to war in MP. Who would want to weaken themselves taking out an opponent (unless it's a duel) when they could just be sitting there building more cities, improvements, and wonders.

'LOL. Expansion not possible? War is too hard? Tech is too difficult? I'm sorry if this is going to hurt your pride, but these things are probably just your weak gameplay speaking.'

He's speaking from a multiplayer's viewpoint. Obviously you are not, expansion, war, and tech research speed are all vital to MP play. Slowing them down slows the game down.

And now for the best, most accurate line I've heard on here since this game came out:

'the artificial limits (if that's really what's going on, but who can possible say with all the great info we get?) simply punish a good player and reward mediocrity.'

I didn't realise it until now, but this is obviously what they are trying to do, merely to make it more difficult for players to beat the AI. They're bringing you all down to the same level. Looks like MP is going to be great fun, a guy who's played the game for a week should easily be able to defeat the best, as there has been, it seems, so much strategy taken out of the game. Firaxis, this MP update best be REALLY good, otherwise you might as well not bother.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy
LOL. Expansion not possible? War is too hard? Tech is too difficult? I'm sorry if this is going to hurt your pride, but these things are probably just your weak gameplay speaking.

I have encountered no difficulty keeping up in research, and techs are typically below 10 turns. My enemies are on par, or some techs behind me. I don't trade like a monkey on crack either.

War: my latest campaign laid 14 Russian metropoli in ruins and halved their effective strength. Perhaps you want to keep too many cities if war troubles you. I took just 2, the rest I razed to the ground.

Expansion: I currently have over 20 big cities, without any major problems with corruption or reversion.

Wow, you're just so great. I'm amazed. I'm in love. You're my god.

Well, and then so what ? You are kicking the AI butt. That's truly incredible. But what's the point except than bragging ?

If I still can read, the first poster just said : "It's not that the game has become harder, it's not that I'm annoyed that my strategies from civ2 won't work for civ3, and it's certainly not that I find the game too difficult. The simple fact is that there are less options available than there were before."

I did not see anyone talking about the tech being difficult nor the game being too hard. I just saw people talking about how the system refrain good play and boost weak one.

[ChrisShaffer]

DrFell, you assume that multiplayer games are only direct connect games -- IP or LAN. Your arguments don't hold up when considering PBEM.

And, just maybe, they'll implement something new for MP, like this: http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000343.html#5

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by DrFell
'LOL. Expansion not possible? War is too hard? Tech is too difficult? I'm sorry if this is going to hurt your pride, but these things are probably just your weak gameplay speaking.'

He's speaking from a multiplayer's viewpoint. Obviously you are not, expansion, war, and tech research speed are all vital to MP play. Slowing them down slows the game down.

Hm ok but I don't see why you then don't just choose to play on Chieftain on MP. Then the 'slowing down' surely is bearable?

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil

Wow, you're just so great. I'm amazed. I'm in love. You're my god.

That's ok, my little Chieftain, I can have that effect on people, I know.

Well, and then so what ? You are kicking the AI butt. That's truly incredible. But what's the point except than bragging ?

I meant to illustrate that I thought the game does not really bog the mentioned aspects so much down as to make it unplayable. I realize it must have looked like bragging, but I didn't mean to -rather I wanted to illustrate that the limits aren't *sooo* tough, even for a few-weeks player on relatively challenging settings (Emperor, large).

If I still can read, the first poster just said : "It's not that the game has become harder, it's not that I'm annoyed that my strategies from civ2 won't work for civ3, and it's certainly not that I find the game too difficult. The simple fact is that there are less options available than there were before."

I did not see anyone talking about the tech being difficult nor the game being too hard. I just saw people talking about how the system refrain good play and boost weak one.

Well I obviously did. Maybe I interpreted the post wrongly. I'm too busy to look it up now. So if I misread this, please excuse my meager contribution.

[Chronus]

I played a game today where Republic was going to be 32 turns no matter if I turned my tax rate up to 90% or if I turned my science rate up to 90%.

This most often occurs because you do not have enough commerce.

32 turns to get 1 tech!!!

I really hope this doesn't come off as arrogant, and I'm apologizing in advance if it does, but I can't help but feel that you are doing something wrong. As LaRusso pointed out above, taking 32 turns to discover a tech should only be occuring in the first few turns of the game. Yes, there are exceptions. For example, sometimes I'm in a heated war and need the cash. Are you building roads where your city workers are? Are you frequently monitering your science rate? I'm not trying to be a wise guy. These are questions/points, in the spirit of genuine friendliness, that I'm bringing up here.

Well, the first issue is one of having an apparently enforced limitation on the rate of reasearch. Thus, there is no advantage past a certain point to having massive research ability.

This is the second time I've seen you make this "accusation", for lack of better words. You offer no proof nor any quotes from Firaxis that would suggest otherwise but, instead, resort to "an apparent" observation.

Does Firaxis really need to come out with a statement saying that there is no "enforeced limitation" implemented in the game? It may or may not be true, but how are you coming to this conclusion??? I've seen, all too often, how an aggressive research effort DOES pay off, and in many different stages of the game.

[Dev]

Chronus, how can a 4/32 turn cap be anything but a forced limitation ?

Firaxis can make all the statements they want but it won't change the facts.

For the record then I think the cap is a good idea but as with so many other things in Civ3 they should have made a f****** checkbox letting the players decide whether they want it or not on their own.



/dev

[LaRusso]

well, they could not envisage all the things you will whine about

[Dev]

Or maybe they counted on everyone being an ignorant consumer like you and decided to publish a half finished product ?

/dev

[LaRusso]

well i fail to see what kind of precognition i had to have to see that the game is 'broken'

[Ludwig]

I'm not entirely sure I agree with the statement that the game system rewards mediocre game play and penalizes superior game play. I think that depends on how you define superior game play.

The combat system does in fact favor winning by attrition. You might say this rewards the mediocre - since it's possible to defend yourself against a technologically superior opponent, if you build lots of units and the opponent is greedy. OTOH, you can say that it rewards planning - all wars won by attrition are, in the final analysis, logistical wars, and the planning and long-scale thinking required to win a logistical war is more difficult than that required to "finesse" a victory with a howitzer or two and the enemy's own rail system. [Or maybe it doesn't. The point is that you can argue it either way.]

I pretty much COMPLETELY agree with the statement that CivIII's MP utility will be pretty limited. The resource system pretty much tanks MP, except for on specifically designed "all islands are equal" maps. In single player, I can chuckle to myself when Bismarck gets all the coal, and appreciate the challenge. MP is about bragging rights, though, and no one is going to accept getting beaten by a human opponent on the basis of random statistical chance - whether that's historically accurate, or not. Picture the bithcing you will see about THAT. If you'll notice, the people most angry about the lack of inclusion of MP in the game's first iteration also tend to look the most askance at the resource system. AND THEY SHOULD, from their perspective - it's the logical reaction.