Civ3 - a one time bit

[Venger]

Yep - I'm not even going to finish my current game, in 1860. It's just no longer any fun.

The late tech tree is a joke - how many late techs are related to building a spaceship? No attempt to even think about current or cutting edge technology? AEGIS comes so late in the game as to be useless. Where is the diversity? The tech tree is suprisingly lame.

Moving all these units is no longer fun, it's become an exercise in tedium. I don' t mind moving 3 transports full of units, I do mind needing 3 transports to take one city, 4 units to take the city, but 24 to hold it. Boring. And no, I don't want to simply raze the city - why do that, when the AI ICS will put a dozen new cities there in 3 turns? I can take a city with 4 modern tanks, but can't hold it with them. I don't feel like moving 1000 units in order to compensate for the new, and totally useless, culture and defection system. Thanks for making empire building dull and tedious.

I am tired of moving 200 workers now. In order to maximize my empire, I have to railroad each and every tile on the map. It's ugly, it's tedious, and it's stupid. You'd think with the leftist environmentalist tilt of the latest Sid games that they'd not require me to cut down every bit of forest in order to build my empire. I'd like to keep some trees, this was in fact a big complaint of the Civ2 system was how automated workers would cut down all your forests. Forest is now weed, there is no reason to keep it - you can get better results from every tile without forests. Rather than give you a bonus when railroading forest, you don't get bubkus, because the railroad only bonuses irrigation or mines - another poor rethinking of Civ.

The AI is poor. Where is the proof of the genius AI some people speak of? I am attacking enemies who are still fortified with riflemen and cavalry, despite having the ability to make tanks and mechanized infantry. Where are the upgrades? The AI as a military challenge is far, FAR worse than Civ2. I take cities with bombers who have never attacked, and ships that have never sailed. I take 4 cities, one of them the capital. I then ask for and get peace. Then I do it again. And ask for peace again, and get it. I can do this all day long. There is no challenge to this. Keeping my eyes open is the challenge. I cannot forsee ever losing a game of Civ3 - the AI is just too stupid.

Change the difficulty level? Oh sure, we can make corruption even more tedious, but that doesn't enhance the challenge, just the tedium. Now it will be 1950 instead of 1850 when I destroy the AI. What a dud.

I found each turn consisted of changing every city from making Legions back to modern armor, or privateers back to destroyers. I am producing about 12 every turn, and it got old after the third turn. 50 turns later, it has taken the life force out of me. After one turn of railroading a dozen squares, trying to find the one city that is in revolt, changing prodcution back to something that isn't 3000 years old, and moving 25 units into a city it only took 4 to capture, the words "screw this" escaped my mouth...

There has been no examination or improvement of the late game, the tedium has increased, the fun and reward decreased. And with the requirement of keeping 20 units in every captured city, it simply means I'm moving 100 units every turn. Screw that.

Coupled with the current crop of bugs, poor interface, poor combat model, and the other niggling problems everyone has gone over ad infinitum, this is the title that will force a revolution in the game...Civ3 = CTP. And that may be insulting CTP.

Civ is dead. Long live Civ.

Venger

[Sratava]

You could always wait for the patch. I'm sure there will be plenty of fixes in it.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Sratava
You could always wait for the patch. I'm sure there will be plenty of fixes in it.

I don't know - there'd have to be a MASSIVE revamp, and I just don't see it. The late game tedium is overpowering, and I doubt they are going to change the conquered city culture defection - where Parisians overthrow the 4 SS Divisions in the city...

Too much I fear.

Venger

[yin26]

I have to agree. The game is inexcusably tedious. Honestly: A waste of money. Once again I must say it's a rookie effort ... to put it lightly.

That said, let's see if they have the competence to patch the damn thing.

[Simpleton]

Why don't you get your own identity instead of stealing Yin's negativist bag. One Yin is enough. Better yet form your own site (Anti-Civ3 site) and the both of you can post all day long. This is all getting tiring man. I'm getting tired of seening Yin and your boring, broken record, negative thinking threads continually appearing.
At least give it a rest and post about something you like about the game. And anyway, the game is the way it is. Posting countless threads about it won't change it!

[yin26]

And anyway, the game is the way it is. Posting countless threads about it won't change it!

Ah, therein lies the rub, mate!

[Venger]

Originally posted by Simpleton
Why don't you get your own identity instead of stealing Yin's negativist bag.

If I had a spare bag I'd offer it to you for your head.

One Yin is enough. Better yet form your own site (Anti-Civ3 site) and the both of you can post all day long.

No need to, Civ3 will do nowhere near as well as Civ2 did, and the proof of the pudding will be in that...

This is all getting tiring man. I'm getting tired of seening Yin and your boring, broken record, negative thinking threads continually appearing.

Are we making you soil your cotton lined panties? What a sissy. Tell you what, if you have someone nearby who isn't a hapless lobotomite, ask them to point to the threads not started by me or Yin, and you can then SKIP THEM. I am tired of hearing you whine like a jackass whenever someone happens to dislike something in the game. Hey jerkweed, I BOUGHT the game, and have as much a right to point out what I find wrong with it as you have to say what you find right. Except you don't do that, rather you whine and drizzle pee down your leg like a frightened dog whenever anybody has a critique of Civ3.

At least give it a rest and post about something you like about the game.

I have, in very many places. I started a Venger game notes thread, where my first couple days of playing notes were. Included in my positive notes were thumbs up for bombardment, assimilation, resistance, opportunity fire, no free tech on city capture, etc. etc. But you wouldn't know about that, because you simply focus on your feebleminded quest to be the person who can bend over the farthest in defense of this game.

And anyway, the game is the way it is. Posting countless threads about it won't change it!

So why do you post, are you interested in receiving the "prison bi+ch" of the week award from Firaxis, given for the person who most blindingly overlooks any complaint or issue with the game and attacks like a neutered gerbil anyone who dares say that Civ3 isn't wearing any clothes? Posting countless threads about it won't change it!

Venger

[codemast01]

For every person who speal negativity, I am sure there are plenty that speal overly positivity. Civ III fully deserves neither. However, lets face it. Civ III has some problem that should have been fixed before release. Not doing so, is blatant disregard of the people who have love the civ series since civ I. For this they deserve most of the negative comments they get.

[LaRusso]

OMG
why do you always have to make another thread every time you decide to post

those are always same complaints. some are valid, some are not. i understand that you just feel compelled to share them with us again and again. but why not use the existing thread?

[Libertarian]

I think it's a good thread. Innovative. Unlike any other thread on the board. Composed by a genius who has written many stellar games, each flawless with artificial intelligence that is the envy of the CIA. A balanced review, carefully measuring the efforts of Firaxis.

I give it a thumbs up.

[Wrong_shui]

Hey yin, I got EU2 looks good but its bloody hard to get into.

[Nexus VI]

First of all: I do like this game the same way I liked Civ and Civ 2 (but not AC which was a great disappointment to me).

I believe it's clear to anyone of you this game has got several bugs and probs and I hope they'll be fixed with the coming patch.

However I can understand what Venger feels.

There are things that can make the game frustrating. For example the fact that Workers tend to clean pollution in a really odd way. If my cities produce a lot of pollution, even if I've got many workers, they'll tend to go all on the same spot of pollution. Actually they should understand that someone else is going to clean a tile and should choose another one. This strange behaviour lead to the fact that before being able to build Mass Transit or Recycle Centers it's possible our cities become full of pollution.

About resources. I don't like this new introduction, however I can accept it. The problem is that they are too tragically scarce. I'm playing on a huge map without having found a single tile of Coal. Now I can't produce railroads and I'm not so happy about it...

I noted that on a couple of small isles there are zones full of resources ('tis strange). Or worse, some kind of resources (eg. Gold) tend to be present doubled (I mean two mountain tiles, one near the other, each of them with a Gold resource on it).

The Espionage button appeared since the discovery of Writing (really odd and umbalancing).

Often, our neighbours "freely" use our territory to bring forth and back their workers and settlers even if they're frequently threathen.

To me, blocking the network of roads which lead to resources or far cities is far too easy.

The wait between turns is really frustrating and I've read it's the same on the fastest processor (I own a 400Mhz AMD with 256mb of RAM with W2k OS).


Forgive me if I posted all these things here, but I found the other post too much chaotic. However many things I've read are sadly true and I hope they will be fixed asap.

In conclusion Civ3 is a good game. I only miss the Advisors movies of Civ2 (really fun). Plus, sometimes when I look at Civ3 I see it more like a toy than a real strategy game... but that's only a momentary effect...

ByeZ.

[yin26]

Hey yin, I got EU2 looks good but its bloody hard to get into.

I had a very hard time getting into EU as well. But trust me, stick with it!

[Libertarian]

Originally posted by Nexus VI However I can understand what Venger feels.

Venger is one of the few complainers who doesn't whine. Though I disagree with many of his assessments, I admire his willingness to acknowledge what is good and to wait until the patch for his own final judgment. Nor can I recall from him any of the ridiculous jabs at Firaxian developers that the whiners have wallowed in.

My impression of his status is that he is "disappointed" rather than "angry". That's why he can be reasonable, and why his opinions deserve respect.

There are things that can make the game frustrating. For example the fact that Workers tend to clean pollution in a really odd way. If my cities produce a lot of pollution, even if I've got many workers, they'll tend to go all on the same spot of pollution. Actually they should understand that someone else is going to clean a tile and should choose another one. This strange behaviour lead to the fact that before being able to build Mass Transit or Recycle Centers it's possible our cities become full of pollution.

Strange? That's the same way I put my own workers to work on tiles, whether pollution control or planting trees or building roads or whatever. I do this because of their cumulative effect. With two French workers in the ancient era, I can build a road in a single move.

About resources. I don't like this new introduction, however I can accept it. The problem is that they are too tragically scarce. I'm playing on a huge map without having found a single tile of Coal. Now I can't produce railroads and I'm not so happy about it...

See, I don't get that.

What were you thinking when you researched railroads? Why wasn't the need to seek out coal part of your strategy? Why weren't you prepared to seek out appropriate terrain? Why weren't you prepared mentally that you might not have coal?

Once you approach the game with a Civ3 strategy, rather than a Civ2 strategy, you consider such things as searching, fighting, and trading for resources to be a fun part of the game.

If something isn't given to you, you must go ought and earn it. I'm the opposite of you. I think the former is blah, and the latter is fun.

I noted that on a couple of small isles there are zones full of resources ('tis strange). Or worse, some kind of resources (eg. Gold) tend to be present doubled (I mean two mountain tiles, one near the other, each of them with a Gold resource on it).

Gold is a luxury resource. Why is lots of gold a problem? It did wonders for Charlotte and San Fransisco.

The Espionage button appeared since the discovery of Writing (really odd and umbalancing).

I don't get that, either. If you are literate, you should be able to read enemy plans and so forth.

Often, our neighbours "freely" use our territory to bring forth and back their workers and settlers even if they're frequently threathen.

Then kill them.

To me, blocking the network of roads which lead to resources or far cities is far too easy.

How hard should it be? Road blocks are made to be busted. I've respected (though I haven't understood) your other complaints, but this one flirts on the edge of "whiny". I often blockade access to key resources or cities. Why should that become problematic for me?

The wait between turns is really frustrating and I've read it's the same on the fastest processor (I own a 400Mhz AMD with 256mb of RAM with W2k OS).

I've seen similar complaints, so I'll take your word for it. But oddly, on our PII clunker running W98, we've never had the slightest problem with waits between turns.

Forgive me if I posted all these things here, but I found the other post too much chaotic. However many things I've read are sadly true and I hope they will be fixed asap.

Overall, I think you might find a lot more fun in the game if you reassess your approach to it. As people have said, this isn't Civ2 + Extras. It's a whole new game. Strategy-wise.

In conclusion Civ3 is a good game. I only miss the Advisors movies of Civ2 (really fun). Plus, sometimes when I look at Civ3 I see it more like a toy than a real strategy game... but that's only a momentary effect...

ByeZ.

It's good to hear from people like you and Venger who don't personalize their issues, and attack Soren, et al. Hang in there. Read some of the great threads in the Strategy section. Especially Vel's. You'll see what I mean about needing a new approach to the game.

All the best.

[Marko Polo]

I am tired of moving 200 workers now. In order to maximize my empire, I have to railroad each and every tile on the map. It's ugly, it's tedious, and it's stupid. You'd think with the leftist environmentalist tilt of the latest Sid games that they'd not require me to cut down every bit of forest in order to build my empire. I'd like to keep some trees, this was in fact a big complaint of the Civ2 system was how automated workers would cut down all your forests. Forest is now weed, there is no reason to keep it - you can get better results from every tile without forests. Rather than give you a bonus when railroading forest, you don't get bubkus, because the railroad only bonuses irrigation or mines - another poor rethinking of Civ.

Railroading every tile to maximise output is just like at Civ1. Except that Civ1 gave one more extra recourse from forest unlike Civ3. I agree that it looks ugly and is stupid to railroad a food plain to get more food out of it??! Very unintuitive indeed. Civ2 concept was MUCH better with farmland and supermarket to get more food. Why not incorporate that idea to Civ3 or what's even better, invent something complete new? Now I feel like playing Civ1 when improving my terrain.

About 200 workers to manage.. The concept of capturing enemy workers is cool but when you get that many you'd really want AI intelligently manage workers for you. For example, there is a pollution square somewhere, why don't every available workers go there and clean it during same turn? That's what I'd be doing. Same with all other deeds, they should be programmed so that they make one turn improvements as groups as much as possible instread spreading them one by one to each square.

You have four workers that should irrigate four squared with road. Put them all to one square and irrigate it immediately and your city will benefit from it right on. Next turn move them as group to irrigate second tile and your city has two irrigated tiles to work. And so on..

Then of course there should be a option to make those automatized worker moves invisibly thus speeding up the game.

The late tech tree is a joke - how many late techs are related to building a spaceship? No attempt to even think about current or cutting edge technology? AEGIS comes so late in the game as to be useless. Where is the diversity? The tech tree is suprisingly lame.

Very sad but true. Even at Civ2 tech tree was MUCH better. I still can't believe Civ3 tech tree is so lame, with all those filler techs..

I found each turn consisted of changing every city from making Legions back to modern armor, or privateers back to destroyers. I am producing about 12 every turn, and it got old after the third turn. 50 turns later, it has taken the life force out of me. After one turn of railroading a dozen squares, trying to find the one city that is in revolt, changing prodcution back to something that isn't 3000 years old, and moving 25 units into a city it only took 4 to capture, the words "screw this" escaped my mouth...

Exactly my experience. Those stupid governors really built warriors (why o why don't those go EVER obsolete???) instead of mech infs. I did everything I could to turn off governers telling never build any units but didn't work. This feature must be broken I think.

And finding unhappy / revolting cities is extremely difficult without going through all your cities one by one. There should be a button to press that "adjust cities to be at least content" or make that default at the end of each turn. Shouldn't be too difficult to program. At least the domestic advisor should tell first about those unhappy / revolting cities instead of this everlasting "build more cities!" when I have over 100 of them already..

Lastly, city defections are badly implemented. At CTP if slaves wanted to revolt they changed into military units and fought my fortiefied cities inside the city. If my units survived I kept the city, otherwise I lost it.

Now it's like totally random and unintuitive effect that my newly conquered city full of tanks can just like that defect back to their original civ and my units just disappear like that?? Doesn't help if my culture is MUCH higher than that of my enemy's. I strongly suggest that Civ3 defection concept hasn't thought out properly.

After all my "whining" I must say that I've enjoyed playing Civ3 a lot. Nothing mentioned here in my post isn't patchable without too much effort. But for me the game that was advertised as "the best civing experience ever" isn't that for me. I've played Civ1, Civ2, SMAC, CTP & CTP2 and find many aspects better implemented in those games. Well, at least better ideas, if not so good implemented or balances..

Only one thing is superior at Civ3 than any other TBS games: the AI. It's definetly better and I like it. Not perfect of course but as a programmer myself I know that it's extremely difficult to program an truly intelligent AI. For me, Civ3 AI is good enough.

[Zealot]

I have to be on Venger and Yin's side on this one! I really expected that Civ 3 would need much less micromanagement! It just sucks the way it is! I think I don't need to repeat Venger's words, but to all those who think Civ 3 is ok and playable, let me say to you that you are ignorant. Because you didn't play enough games to make a good comparison. Civ 3 is fun at the beginning, but dull in the middle/late game.

I can't trust the automated workers, and I can't trust the governors. I couldn't trust them in Civ 2 and SMAC, and it seems so in Civ 3.

Long live Civ.

God damn it! I don't want my governor to build any kind of military unit! Why does he do so?!? And a 3000 years old unit when there are resources available?

[rid102]

What were you thinking when you researched railroads? Why wasn't the need to seek out coal part of your strategy? Why weren't you prepared to seek out appropriate terrain? Why weren't you prepared mentally that you might not have coal?

From discussing this very thing with other people on other threads, it seems to me that the "you" part is what it comes down to here, i.e. it's the player's fault or is a contingence the player needs to consider.

You're left with only three (yes 3) viable strategies for playing the entire game:

a) You have the necessary resources (e.g. Coal). Fine. Lovely.

b) You have an opponent who has the resource you want and is stupid enough to trade it with you.

c) You keep starting wars with everyone over resources all the time and enjoy having a fragmented empire being beaten into the ground by war weariness and corruption.

Most games fall into catagory c) and where's the fun in having a game with an apparently high replay value in which you apply the same strategy everytime as it's the only viable one?

As people have said, this isn't Civ2 + Extras. It's a whole new game. Strategy-wise.

That is very true. Many people (including myself) expected this to be more of a Civ2++ type game and it isn't at all. It's much more of hybrid between various influences of the genre (Civ, SMAC, CTP etc.) and this means Civ2 strategies don't work.

The thing I'm worried about is the more I play, the more I feel that there is just one or two distinct viable strategies for winning Civ3 and nothing else works. Contrary to something like Civ2 where there were many different successful strategies and it was down to personal taste as to which you chose.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by yin26
I had a very hard time getting into EU as well. But trust me, stick with it!

hmmm, i am surprised. shouldn't it be perfect straight out of the box?

[yin26]

Actually, I've never held that position. You, on the other hand, cried big tears at not having the right shape cookie tin. Shoo.

[Libertarian]

rid102,

Why is trading resources "stupid"? It can be stupid, but it can also be very smart. Plus, you left out an option. Go out in search of resources that are not yet colonized. Quite often, they're there. Finally, in your resources wars, don't make them all out world wars. Make them precision strikes: take your resources and sue for peace.

With respect to the strategies, you are demonstrably incorrect, as Vel's thread proves. Do yourself a favor, and have a look at it.

[Nexus VI]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Strange? That's the same way I put my own workers to work on tiles, whether pollution control or planting trees or building roads or whatever. I do this because of their cumulative effect. With two French workers in the ancient era, I can build a road in a single move.

If I have forty Workers on the field I'd like them to divide the work with intelligence. But, at the moment, a Worker situated on a side of my nation often walks to go and clean a polluted tile on the opposite corner together with the latter 39. To me this is strange...

What were you thinking when you researched railroads? Why wasn't the need to seek out coal part of your strategy? Why weren't you prepared to seek out appropriate terrain? Why weren't you prepared mentally that you might not have coal?

First, Civ3 is not Settlers, so, why introducing resources in this way?
However, ok for the resources, but I think they should be more easily found. Think on it: on a huge map (which represents a whole planet I guess) the resources are really so scarce? I really don't think so...

Gold is a luxury resource. Why is lots of gold a problem? It did wonders for Charlotte and San Fransisco.

I believe Luxury resources should be far more rare than Strategic ones. Gold is one of the rarest element (compare it with Coal or Iron...).

I don't get that, either. If you are literate, you should be able to read enemy plans and so forth.

My fault, I wasn't clear enough. I meant the button for espionage appeared too early. The manual says it should appear with the discovery of Espionage.

Then kill them.

Diplomacy does exist. Borders should be respected. There are other ways to go where you need without passing through other nations territories (usually).

How hard should it be? Road blocks are made to be busted. I've respected (though I haven't understood) your other complaints, but this one flirts on the edge of "whiny". I often blockade access to key resources or cities. Why should that become problematic for me?

You can be right, but there's something missing. How can I defend a road that goes straight on a vast continent? Putting on every tile a Unit? It can't be done... The AI tries in every way to cut our network and does it easily. But this is my opinion of course...

I've seen similar complaints, so I'll take your word for it. But oddly, on our PII clunker running W98, we've never had the slightest problem with waits between turns.

I assure you. The wait is enormous at the later stages of the game.

Overall, I think you might find a lot more fun in the game if you reassess your approach to it. As people have said, this isn't Civ2 + Extras. It's a whole new game. Strategy-wise.

As I said, I like the game, but I'd like to see it tuned. That's all. I played the first Civ as soon as it was avaible in my country and I loved it. Now I will do the same with the third episode.

It's good to hear from people like you and Venger who don't personalize their issues, and attack Soren, et al. Hang in there. Read some of the great threads in the Strategy section. Especially Vel's. You'll see what I mean about needing a new approach to the game.

I'm not the enemy to wipe out. I'm just another player like you and many others who express some thoughts about a game I like.


PS for everyone: Bombarding a unit should kill it instead of just wounding it...

[Libertarian]

Nexus,

Though I think a couple of your points are debatable, I won't belabor them. I can only respect you for your opinions and the manner in which you've stated them. Here's hoping you find the enjoyment you seek.

Lib

[korn469]

after playing Civ3 more and more i have came to the following conclusions

*it is not a bad, nor unstable game...in fact it is a fairly good game
*it is not even close to the expectations that i had for civ3, and although it is a fairly good game it has been a disappointment

i am not disappointed at civ3 not having multiplayer, but as i suspected it was a glimpse of things to come...while the editor is easily the most developed editor on the UI side, it probably has the least abilities out of all of the editors for any civ games except civ1

then there is the problem of game balance...a ton of techs that do nothing, with a few techs that do almost everything...combat balance is also off, and civ3 lacks anything new or interesting on the building side

then you have infogrames lynching the people who are trying to help the game...if they wanna crack down on somebody why don't they send a cease and disist order to a warze site instead of people emailing them and offering them help

the most hyped aspects of the game, culture and diplomacy aren't exactly earth shattering...SMAC had superior diplomacy in every category except for the actual trade screen where civ3 is truly superior

however, it does has promise and a few new really good ideas, plus there is a patching come out this week, so lets just see what the patch has in store for us...if it is fairly significant then maybe a few people might change their minds about the game

if not lets rip it to shreads

one last question what would it take to make civ3 worth it?

for me
*about a million editor upgrades
*better combat balance (i am doing this myself)
*pop up events like in EU2 would be great
*changes to the leader system would be awsome
*bug fixes
*more uncertainty
*a little more zing please

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by yin26
Actually, I've never held that position. You, on the other hand, cried big tears at not having the right shape cookie tin. Shoo.

well it was misshaped but well, its the transport.
on the other hand, the notes were not there.
i am just surprised that you could ever possibly love EU, given your gripes against civ3. EU is so unimaginative and has so many 'historical' constraints....yet so simplistic. there are only a couple of strategies you can pursue. depth is minimal. you can literally recreate history with some minor tweaks.

yin,i understand you. after so much complaining before the game was even out, you painted yourself in the corner.....

[yin26]

Korn: Very measured and logical.

LaRusso: I may often seem illogical or too demanding, but I really do try to give things a chance. Even when I wrote about not liking EU, I said that I fully appreciate that so many gamers had to be seeing something in it that I didn't but that I didn't feel like any game deserved so long for me to get into it.

I still think that EU's biggest failure is in not grabbing the player within the first few hours of play.

That said, EU for all its faults is a much better game than Civ3 by a much more focussed group of people.

[korn469]

yin

ok forgetting about the companies in every field except one, that being post game support, how has the EU franchise grown because of EU2, and what has EU2 did right that Civ3 did wrong?

lets speak in terms of magnitude

how much of an improvement is EU2 over EU?
how much of an improvement is Civ3 over Civ2?

and what in your opinion is the biggest failure of Civ3?

for me Civ3's biggest failure was for every step forward it took a step back

it include some clear upgrades to the genre while it failed to build upon some of the things that both Civ2 and SMAC actually did right

[Nexus VI]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Nexus,

Though I think a couple of your points are debatable, I won't belabor them. I can only respect you for your opinions and the manner in which you've stated them. Here's hoping you find the enjoyment you seek.

Lib

And I believe I will, especially if Firaxis will turn Civ3 as much customizable as I'd like it to be. So every one of us will be happy with it in the same way.

[yin26]

how much of an improvement is EU2 over EU?

I don't have EU2 yet, but from what I'm reading, not much. However, EU was pretty good to begin with (my noted reservations aside).

how much of an improvement is Civ3 over Civ2?

In terms of fun and satisfying challenge, almost none. The AI amphibious landings are a noteworthy exception.

and what in your opinion is the biggest failure of Civ3?

Tedium. It's just simply tedious to play the game. I might have stuck with all the other issues if the thing didn't just craaaaaaaawl unit by unit. Then again, EU is pretty tedious as well but for some reason the tedium in EU seems to at least lead to some sense of accoplishment. Not so in Civ3.

[yin26]

What has EU2 did right that Civ3 did wrong?

Again, don't have EU2 yet, but I think the big difference overall is one company believes that the fans can craft a superior game while the other company simply has a superiority complex.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by yin26
Again, don't have EU2 yet, but I think the big difference overall is one company believes that the fans can craft a superior game while the other company simply has a superiority complex.

so the difference is in the attitude of the companies. frankly, i do not give a toss about their attitude, i am more interested in the end product.