What is wrong with civ3?

[splangy]

I dont know why everyone thinks civ3 is dead. The only even slightly large (but not game crippling) bug is the Air suppiority. Combat may be flawed but it keeps the game chalenging, and its not like you dont watch a AI tank collapse before your pikemen every now and then. Wars are harder now, witch is what we (The oldies) asked for on "the list". I am amazed that there are some people complaining about a good AI. There are a few minor bugs (the 99999 gold thing, the bombard anything-anywere cheat) but most of them wont happen unless you force them to, they should still be fixed but in the meantime you might not want to press b really fast while positioning the cursor over a place 20 tiles away from your cannon, that should probably solve you problem . I still cant figure out any problems with civ3, infact I just played it for 6+ hours straight (nothing else to do) and was throughly amused. So, what is wrong with it?

[Monoriu]

I assure you that not everyone thinks that civ3 is dead.

[Allemand]

The only real problem I see is the air superiority thing.

I don't like the way railroads give you instant movement but that's been a problem in previous versions, too.

The AI is very, very good.

The random map generator is much better than the one in Civ II (which was the all-time worst). On the other hand, the map editor is not as good as the one in Civ II.

Overall, I like the game.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Well, I like to think that all these ppl who b***h and moan about the game's faults are really just such ardent and fanatical followers of the game that they want it to be the best possible, and that by noticing these "faults", it shows incredible notice to detail - and, this may get me in trouble, but - it's just a computer game! I doubt most of us would bother with posts this critical and pedantic about anything else, unless we felt just as passionate about that too.

Just think of your Mum when you were a kid, telling you not to do things, and how to do them right - whehter she was right or wrong, she was doing it 'cause she loved you.

But maybe that's just me.

[Shadowstrike]

Actually, I'm waiting for the editor to be fixed. But then again, Civ3 had the bad luck to be released two weeks before EU2 (a game that takes forever to finish)

[codemast01]

Originally posted by splangy
The only even slightly large (but not game crippling) bug is the Air suppiority.

If I didn't know better, I would think we are playing different verisons of Civ III. There are more obvious problems in addition to the AS bug. Precision strike only targets your own cities. Costal fortresses don't bombard passing ships. Not a bug but still annoying : you are asked to comfirm to build something even when you have queued it. Again not a bug : The F117 is exactly the same as the Stealth Bomber. The sort feature on the advisor screens work until you move your mouse to scroll the list. There is no way (that I know of) to see how much pollution is produced by each city without clicking on each city. There are others.

Before someone calls me a whinner, let me say this. Those who think the game is great could easily be labeled the "Sliced Bread" people (They think the game is the best thing since sliced bread. Ok it's lame. Cut me some slack, it's getting late) Pointing out faults is the best way to get things fixed. However no purpose is served by labeling people (both those who think the game is great, and those who don't).

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by splangy
Combat may be flawed but it keeps the game chalenging, and its not like you dont watch a AI tank collapse before your pikemen every now and then. Wars are harder now, witch is what we (The oldies) asked for on "the list".

combat is good. i like the way they designed it. outcomes are really great. i just carefully watched my battles over the weekend, every time i lost a battle i knew beforehand i was sacrificing a unit. it was very very realistic.

[Libertarian]

Nothing's wrong with it. There are a couple of bugs that are being fixed.

You'll notice that the reviews, featured on Apolyton's front page, run 10 to 1 as near perfect scores. What you're seeing in here in the forums are a couple of cry babies launching hordes of duplicate threads, some of which the admins close when they see them. These same whiners might likely complain if they were given a thousand dollars on account of it not being two thousand.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Nothing's wrong with it. There are a couple of bugs that are being fixed.

You'll notice that the reviews, featured on Apolyton's front page, run 10 to 1 as near perfect scores. What you're seeing in here in the forums are a couple of cry babies launching hordes of duplicate threads, some of which the admins close when they see them. These same whiners might likely complain if they were given a thousand dollars on account of it not being two thousand.

And you whine about the whiners, much more than they do whine about the game. I suppose it makes you a whiner² and then you must be a cry baby according to your own description.

[Libertarian]

Uh huh. And you're whining about the whiners whining about the whiners whining about the whiners. So there, nyah!

[Phalanx2000]

The combat is FLAWED and there is no excuse for it. Hide behind accusations all you want, but at the end of the day:

1) You didn't code an iota of the game, so quit defending it like you did
2) I paid +$45 for it, I expect a better game than this
3) The combat is flawed

[Akka]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Uh huh. And you're whining about the whiners whining about the whiners whining about the whiners. So there, nyah!

You get the idea

So let's forget the whine stuff and let's talk only about constructive critics. And well, let people shout their frustration/disapointment, sometimes you have to relax by speaking out loud what's bugging you.

[Libertarian]

I don't disagree with you. I'm not talking about people who have complained. As I've explained repeatedly, there is a difference between someone who complains and someone who can do nothing but complain and feels that he must take over the whole forum launching redundant complaint threads.

Wouldn't you agree that a complaint is more effective when (1) it is stated in a civil manner, (2) it targets the software, not the developers, and (3) it offers up a practical alternative or solution? Compare Venger and Yin. Both are complainers. One is reasonable; the other is not.

[Th0mas]

Originally posted by Phalanx2000
The combat is FLAWED and there is no excuse for it. Hide behind accusations all you want, but at the end of the day:

1) You didn't code an iota of the game, so quit defending it like you did
2) I paid +$45 for it, I expect a better game than this
3) The combat is flawed

NO IT IS NOT! ...

1.
I think people are actually defending their opinions. They happen to like the game...you obviously don't. Just as you can be passonate, so can others with a different opinion from yourself. Me included.
2.
Don't know what you expected...but for my £32 I got exactly what I was expecting..the game needs patching, true, but it is still very much Civilization and I am really enjoying it.
3.
No, I believe you are wrong! (Assuming that you are not just referring to Air superiority). The CIV III combat model is attempting to model combat in terms of strategic results. Yes, Spearman can occationally defeat Tanks and this certainly sounds ludicrous from a tactical perspective - especially if this was a 'squad based game' ...but it is not.

War is about logistics and supply chains, attrition, communication, surprise, poor leadership and occationally Firepower - the Civ III Macro-combat model has translated this into giving primative units a chance to defeat more advanced units.

[LaRusso]

after 6 full games on regent, i have yet to see a spearman or phalanx defeat my tank. might it be that i am using air and artillery too?

[Herder]

Most of the problems are late game issues. Air issues and such.

The biggest disappointment for me is a lot of little things...

No sentry mode?
Can't see units in a stack without having to click?

Also, the AI, while powerful early really starts to show its incompetence in the late game. The diplomacy rocks and that is the best part of the game IMO.

Not upgrading units, focusing on expanding to areas it can't hope to control, staying in expansion mode when enhancing its current base of power is clearly a better option, etc.

Late game is a morass of moving units one at a time by click, scroll, click, scroll, rinse repeat 500 times per turn. Checking each city every turn to make sure the governor isn't producing Musketeers when you have mech infantry available.

The late game tech tree is sort of a mess and winning diplomatically is pretty much cheesy because you can't "fight it out" if you disagree with the majority (ie you lose the vote but you and anyone else that votes for you takes on the rest of the world.)

While the graphics are nice they aren't great and the lack of atmosphere enhancing movies and "historical" text to back up why we build these things is very disappointing.

Doesn't anyone get tired of pounding the AI's spearmen with tanks and bombers?

When I first got Civ III I played it extensively and did quite a few double takes on things that didn't make sense. Civ III has the potential to be a great game but after a certain point becomes more of a chore than pleasure.

It is very clear to me that the game isn't complete.

[Libertarian]

Try Myst.

[bahoo]

I can deal with numerous bugs. Although I'm not happy being a beta tester, if they do in fact patch out all the bugs I would have to say the game is not majorly flawed except for one thing:

1. Cities peacefully deposing without the troops in them putting up any sort of fight is both ridiculous and historically inaccurate.

[Frito]

Originally posted by bahoo
1. Cities peacefully deposing without the troops in them putting up any sort of fight is both ridiculous and historically inaccurate.

maybe so, but it make for interesting game play.

[Be Quicker]

While I am of the opinion that the combat system is not broken, I think that the solution for the "more difficult" combat, is to use many more units for effective combat, which means more tedium: even in the ancient age it means, moving a stack of 3 spearman, 8 horseman and some catapults (although these things hardly do any damage at all) from city to city to conquer them. This is not added complexity. This is added tedium.

[splangy]

*Bump*

[Phalanx2000]

Yesterday, I had an AI regular warrior (pic depicts him as a club user) come from a plains tile to attack an already FORTIFIED veteran musketman on a hill (not a mountain).

My musketman reduced the warrior to a single red bar, then the warrior proceeded to deprive me of all 4 of my bars until I was dead.

That is bu*****t. The combat system is flawed and there is another post on this forum (dealing with the random seed number) that proves it.

You cannot invoke any realistic argument here. If each icon represented a single, 4-man fireteam or if each icon represented a full army of 10,000 men, the regular (read: green club swingers in animal pelts) warriors would lose 98 times out of 100 to my veteran (read: trained slugthrowers) musketmen. And my incident isn't a "chance" thing - I have witnessed this type of event on no less than 4 separate computers now PLUS I'm not the ONLY person posting on it!

I may be beating a dead horse, but I spent my / HARD EARNED / money on this game. By God, I rightfully expect the f*****g thing to work right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Allemand]

They must be using the same random number system that Risk uses.

One other thing I don't like: the game management tools in Civ3 are not as good as those in Civ2. It's harder to use the map editor; there is no easy way to know how many cavalry, infantry, bombers you have; hard to tell which cities are revolting (in fact, it would be nice if the game paused so you could handle the revolt, like in Civ2); would be nice to see where the pollution is when you want to send a worker somewhere (like in Civ2), etc., etc., etc. Game management is where Civ3 falls down relative to Civ2.

Nevertheless, it's a good game, with some big improvements, despite the bad things.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Phalanx2000
Yesterday, I had an AI regular warrior (pic depicts him as a club user) come from a plains tile to attack an already FORTIFIED veteran musketman on a hill (not a mountain).

My musketman reduced the warrior to a single red bar, then the warrior proceeded to deprive me of all 4 of my bars until I was dead.

That is bu*****t. The combat system is flawed and there is another post on this forum (dealing with the random seed number) that proves it.

You cannot invoke any realistic argument here. If each icon represented a single, 4-man fireteam or if each icon represented a full army of 10,000 men, the regular (read: green club swingers in animal pelts) warriors would lose 98 times out of 100 to my veteran (read: trained slugthrowers) musketmen. And my incident isn't a "chance" thing - I have witnessed this type of event on no less than 4 separate computers now PLUS I'm not the ONLY person posting on it!

I may be beating a dead horse, but I spent my / HARD EARNED / money on this game. By God, I rightfully expect the f*****g thing to work right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i am still waiting to witness such an event. perhaps you 'saw' this at 5 a.m., when your eyes were really tired from playing a broken game?

[Be Quicker]

while we're at it.

I have observed for sure and not at 5 AM that some of my horsemen that should retreat (i.e. others from the same stack do retreat) do NOT retreat when they are wounded in the red during their attack. So what is up with that? Do units do double damage when they roll 20 or something?

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Be Quicker
while we're at it.

I have observed for sure and not at 5 AM that some of my horsemen that should retreat (i.e. others from the same stack do retreat) do NOT retreat when they are wounded in the red during their attack. So what is up with that? Do units do double damage when they roll 20 or something?

no, this is a feature....charge of the light brigade. if both units are in red, cav keeps on fighting

[Be Quicker]

LaRusso, thanks for the info!

I guess it's ok... but, since those situations cause almost all my losses, I cannot help but feel that such charges are stupid. Although on the other hand they make the retreat ability less broken.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Be Quicker
LaRusso, thanks for the info!

I guess it's ok... but, since those situations cause almost all my losses, I cannot help but feel that such charges are stupid. Although on the other hand they make the retreat ability less broken.

well, it does balance a bit cavalry and other mobile units, otherwise they may get too powerful. if the outcome of the battle is close, they just keep pressing and whatever happens happens....

[Aurochs]

Originally posted by Allemand
there is no easy way to know how many cavalry, infantry, bombers you have;

Press F3 (Military Advisor), look near the top of the list, you'll see two words 'City' and 'Unit'. Click 'Unit', and it will list all the units by type, with the total number of units of each type in parentheses. (When you have spies planted you can also see the total number of enemy units of each type...for free.)

I almost always do it that way because the 'by City' listing... doesn't list the units which aren't in cities! There should be a 'Wilderness' or 'No City' entry in the city list.

[Th0mas]

Originally posted by Phalanx2000
You cannot invoke any realistic argument here. If each icon represented a single, 4-man fireteam or if each icon represented a full army of 10,000 men, the regular (read: green club swingers in animal pelts) warriors would lose 98 times out of 100 to my veteran (read: trained slugthrowers) musketmen. And my incident isn't a "chance" thing - I have witnessed this type of event on no less than 4 separate computers now PLUS I'm not the ONLY person posting on it!

You're still viewing this from a tactical perspective - CIV III is a Strategy Game with some Tactical bits. This means that occationally a totally inappropriate unit will win a very uneven combat.

Now, you don't see the actual battle take place (representative animations aside) you just get the result. The two sides are NOT lining up neatly at either end of the battle field and taking turns to attack each other.

CIV III combat is modelling things like poor moral, bad communication, the local environment, the uncertainty of war etc etc etc..In many cases it is the tactical commander who makes the least amount of mistakes wins the encounter.

With this Strategic perspective in mind the combat result (although irritating) can be seen as fair. It means that you can't rely totally on anything in CIV III combat - this leaves the Strategic commander feeling permanently uncertain or nervous - just like in Real Life.

That is bu*****t. The combat system is flawed and there is another post on this forum (dealing with the random seed number) that proves it.

On the contrary, nothing has been proved.

I may be beating a dead horse, but I spent my / HARD EARNED / money on this game. By God, I rightfully expect the f*****g thing to work right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

..and you got a fabulous product, with a few bugs (patch out by Saturday - hopefully).

Enjoy it or you will be waisting your money.