The end of civilization as we know it

[StrategicKing2]

Recently, at a local computer show, I found civ 3 on the $15- table and relented and purchased it. Wow, does this game suck!
One of the slowest moving games I have ever played.
Over a year ago I posted on what Civ 3 had to acomplish to be a good game. They failed misserable on each and every point I made. This made me wonder :Why did they have a Civ 3 suggestion forum if they were not going to listen and adapt to what some of the most expierenced Civers around suggested such as myself and Eyes and Markus?
I was, like many of you, looking forward to an improved version of Civ 2, a little more improvements then a patch, but a game that looked and felt the same. I am so disapointed.
As for Civ being dead, I admit then I am getting bored with it myself. Nobody I currently play can match me on skill and will play on a board large enough to allow all aspects of civ to be used. Nobody I play uses advanced trade strategies, thus the only way they win is by sheer luck. I continuelly explain the value of trade and nobody listens and wants to learn and adapt.
Worse, trade in Civ 3 is now so obsecure, I hate it. The most fun I have in Civ was delivering caravans to optimum efficency.
I sure hope I win the damn lottery so I can build a civ style game myself and put these incompatant bastards out of business.
In lew of that, mister fireaxis, next time you attempt constructing a game, why not hire me, 28 years of game playing expierence.
(By the way, Avalon Hill used to send me there new games as I was an official play tester and had many articles posted in The General and contributed greatly to games such as : Rise and Decline of The Third Reich (3rd edition) , Russian Campaign, The Civil war and that nightmare of complexity-The Longest Day.)
Just a little Resume by The King.

Strat how many times do I have to tell you not to post on my threads?

"They failed misserable on each and every point I made. This made me wonder :Why did they have a Civ 3 suggestion forum if they were not going to listen and adapt to what some of the most expierenced Civers around suggested such as myself and Eyes and Markus?"

Actually I never made an attempt to post on the civ 3 suggestions forums. I've known for a long time that civ 3 wouldn't be any good and that no amount of suggestions would ever make it good. To understand one needs only to look at the other games that were released.

"Nobody I currently play can match me on skill and will play on a board large enough to allow all aspects of civ to be used. Nobody I play uses advanced trade strategies, thus the only way they win is by sheer luck. I continuelly explain the value of trade and nobody listens and wants to learn and adapt."

If it weren't for the fact that I don't care, and nobody else does either, I would go ahead and make a fool of you. But again, nobody is watching, the game is dead and I have no audience.

"I sure hope I win the damn lottery so I can build a civ style game myself and put these incompatant bastards out of business."

Why trade one incompetence for another?

"In lew of that, mister fireaxis, next time you attempt constructing a game, why not hire me, 28 years of game playing expierence."

Why hire a computer geek that works from his home on a computer and has no life and finds it cool to brag on the zone about going to the local bar? Tough question. What they really needed were people like Markus who have the programming background as well as the gaming background. I'm not even saying I should have been a play tester, but I sure as hell would have made the game ten times better than this. No amount of patching can ever make this game good. It is fundamentally flawed, the basic rules have destroyed the game. Even if they gave us a million options to edit the game, it would only further destroy any chance it had at popularity. Nobody seems to understand that. Mods are only good for SP, same with editing tools. MP has to have a set standard if it is to succeed. No game can survive that has to be heavily moded in order for it to be enjoyable. I can't find the words to explain just how bad this game really is.

[deity]

This is hard to say but I've given up on Civ3!

After 1000AD the AI turns take SO long. I even over-clocked my PIII to 600 and boosted Ram speed but it was not much better.

I miss Civ2 MP and would rather wait an hour for others to take turns than 3 to 10 mins or more for the AI in Civ 3 SP.

I'm so depressed. But others say it runs quicker for them, so what gives?

All the same there are many issues in this thread that highlight the problems of Civ3. I don't think we will see MP.

I wish someone would fix up the critical bugs in Civ2 so we could get back to playing it properly. That is, as the best MP game I evrer played.....

[rah]

Let's all have a moment of silence for all those obsolete self proclaimed masters of CIV II.

Who upon trying CIVIII, found that their normal scripted stratagies won't work. And since there is no MP yet, can't even claim that they are the best in the world. Those that whine that horror of all horror's "LUCK" has been introduced into the game.

Of course these are the same people that when getting a bad starting position in CIV II would find an excuse to back out of the game and wouldn't acknowledge it as a losing effort. It was "luck".

I'm not hearing about how easy civIII is from them, just that it's boring hmmmmm broke. These are the same people that thought CIVII SP was boring. BECAUSE SP BY DEFINITION IS BORING>

It took how many years for CIVII to go MP, yet in less than two months they've already proclaimed disaster and admitted defeat.

Past Glories mean zippo, future glory is what we strive for.

The old heros are dead, Bring on the new.

Spend half the time developing new strats instead of whining about how hopeless it is for CIVIII. Then we may proclaim you as masters again.

But for now, we sing a dirge song on your behalf. The flame is flickering and is about to be exstinguished.


Of course the TRUE heros will be those that help make the suggestions that will help CIVIII be a good MP game. It hasn't been made yet. The FUTURE can be influenced. Granted a lot of ideas weren't used in SP, but their obvious effort to try to kill ICS (even though they were not successful) means they were readings something.


RAH
Even I don't know how much of this post was meant as sarcastic.
Ramblings of a madman.

[SlowwHand]

The reason III evidently blows is right in front of you.
Eyes didn't make any suggestions; it was doomed from the start.

[CapTVK]

Oh my, oh my, how much difference a month makes.

If people go back to CtP2 things REALLY must be amiss!


Glad i played the waiting game to see how Civ3 would turn out. I did play Civ3 for an hour in a store and it's...well.....it doesn't seem to have the spark of the original civ. Civ3 is by all means a good game but not as good as the original Civ1/2. It's just another variation on the theme -an unfinished variation at that- Seen the patching problems. The worrying thing is that Dan also stated that he doesn't even know if the editor will be upgraded. No proper scenarios for the foreseeable future...

Despite lacking MP I was still looking forward to Civ3. Maybe it would open up some possibilities with the resource/culture model and the diplomatic/trade system. Sadly this doesn't seem to be the case as the truly game critical resources are a hit&miss affair. If you get 'em you're in, if not you're SOL. While you can do something negotiating with the AI this isn't very likely in a MP setting. The current ruleset would only be suited for diplogamers .

But my personal gripe, the reason why I decided not to buy, is the way Infogrames dealt with the german translation mod. This has set a nasty precedent for future MOD's and homemade scenario:

What if... Firaxis DOES release a scenario disk with some flaky scenarios?
What if... someone tried to improve those scenarios with better graphics, realistic units etc.. but still uses some parts of the orginal Civ3 scenario?
What if... the creator wasn't allowed to post this updated scenario because Infogrames feels it's infringing on their 'copyrights'?


And before anyone tries to answer that question. Think what would have happened if Microprose had pulled the same trick with Civ2. A lot of the scenarios at the start used the standard Civ2 units. So there was ample reason for MPS to go after them. Would we have had the same sort of high quality scenarios we know now?

I don't think so


Open source creations like FreeCiv and Civ evolution seem to make far more sense now

"Who upon trying CIVIII, found that their normal scripted stratagies won't work. And since there is no MP yet, can't even claim that they are the best in the world. Those that whine that horror of all horror's "LUCK" has been introduced into the game."

Don't be stupid rah, please. I no longer enjoy making people look like morons as much as I did, but in this case I'm going to make an exception. The AI is far far easier to beat in civ3 than it is in civ2. It doesn't even change gov. until you finally change gov. The only reason it's even able to keep up in tech speed is because there are caps on what you can do. Therefore a civ with 100 cities will research at the same rate as a civ with only 10 cities. Fun fun. They've taken expansion and war right out of the game. You don't get anything for having more cities, just alot more corruption. And war...the AI still builds warriors in the modern era. And the sad thing of it all is that the warriors have a very good chance at winning. Tell me what new strategies can be derived from this game? All I see is strategies that have been taken out. I see alot more outside factors that now influence the game and put "LUCK" as a far greater opponent than the AI. The only resources I find I truly want to colonize are cattle and wheat. Otherwise there's the nice expanses of desert, mountains, and forests that I somehow find useless to expand into. That too was part of a way to curb human expansion. Culture isn't even a strategy. How is clicking on temples and cathedrals a strategy? Wheres the strategy in wonder building? Whoever starts the wonder first builds first. Where is the thought in that? Where is the strategy in acquiring resources? Where is the build strategies in order to maximize city efficiency? The only place to build in this game is on grassland and anyone can see that. All I see from civ 3 is alot of things taken out, not alot of things put in. Strategy? You show me strategy because I sure as hell don't see the strategy in this game. All I see is a watered down civ2.

[StrategicKing2]

First: Its still the internet, a great bastion of free speach so Ill post any where I darn well feel like.
Second:I am a game player, a rules designer and critic of rules. I have tremendous history as this. The last thing FireAxis needed was some computer geek, which is not what I am as I barely can figure out how to turn on my computer or alter program files, he needed someone to help in rules design as he had access to some great programers with technical ability but lacking playability expierence.
Third: Rah, though you have never seen my Civ genius up close and I am positive you would be just another victem and as eleguantly as you wrote your post, you are delusianal if you believe that most civ games are not decided by huts or starting position between expierenced players. this was one of my biggest complaint because it need not be. There is a term which was stressed to me by thoose in charge of Avalon Hills play testing dept., that term is playability-in other words, make each player in the game a chance to win from the very start of the game. this does not exist in many of the starting positions I have seen. I had expectations of Civ 3, it failed to do what I thought it should. I am disapointed. Can it be fixed? Do i see new things I like? Answer is yes to both, but....a lot of work is yet needed to make it playable.
And , make no mistake- if it is fixed and multiplayer comes out, I will play and i will win and I will master it...Untill then i will continue to try and find a civ 2 player good enough to duel with me at med+, small land, cont, wet warm and 2 x 2. I have yet to meet my equal, and pray ever day that I will someday as I thrive on competition. The more i think I am going to lose due to being out played, the more i try, and the more I enjoy the thrill of the hunt.

Has anyone here ever seen me whine about huts? Has anyone here ever seen me whine about start location? Amazing how you consider luck such a big factor in civ2 while I on the other hand don't. I guess that's the difference between me and you. I accept that luck is a factor and find ways to deal with it or move on. You on the other hand base your entire game around it and find a new setting each week to call yourself the best at. Now stop filling my thread with your garbage and get lost.

[SlowwHand]

Concise- Brief and to the point.
Repeat to yourselves until the meaning clicks.
Unless you're paid by the word.

[rah]

The only reason I support luck is that it makes people change their strat (because **** happens). I addept well, so I like to see it included. It keeps things fresh. If they could equalize starting positions in mp III it could be a fun game.

RAH

"I addept well, so I like to see it included. It keeps things fresh. If they could equalize starting positions in mp III it could be a fun game."

So in other words you suck and you need some sort of other influence in order to keep the playing field level so that you don't lose to everyone? I understand.

[HalfLotus]

Seems that the very best civ2 players, and in some cases the least mature, dont like civ3.

I hear alot of "I played civ3 a few times, and I hate it." This leads me to believe that people are getting frustrated that their old strategies aren't relevant to civ2. It takes more than a few times playing to get the hang of civ3 after playing civ2 for awhile.

EG & SK2 don't like playing unless they are completely dominating their opponent. I suspect that they got pissed when their old strats didn't work so well.

Ah, a sep 2001 newbie. How nice. First of all, it's not really possible to dominate anyone in civ3. There are caps on everything. Second, I think I specifically stated that the AI in civ3 is easier than the AI in civ2. I would suggest learning how to read. All the old strats work, there's just caps on them now. There's a cap on the amount of cities, the tech rate, how fast you can build a wonder, how fast you can expand, etc.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by EnigmaticGod
"I addept well, so I like to see it included. It keeps things fresh. If they could equalize starting positions in mp III it could be a fun game."

So in other words you suck and you need some sort of other influence in order to keep the playing field level so that you don't lose to everyone? I understand.

Another definition you need to learn is obnoxious.

[ColdWizard]

if rah = sucks, then coldwizard =

[StrategicKing2]

I hear this all the time by you people..."adapt to the games situation"....Bull....I get 2 free citys by 3700 bc and you warior code , adapt then big fella..You will lose everytime no matter what you do. You get stuck behind 3 rungs of forests with no resources and I start with a gold mine and lots of huts around, you lose, everytime, again, no matter how you adapt.
Put simply, the programing of this game is so bad, that from the very start of the game you sometimes will have no chance to win no matter what you do. I can accept this, however a win when the other player is put at such a dismal disadvantage is empty. Losing knowing you never had a chance is frustrating. And worse yet you play for hours only to find in the end that skill was not a factor in the game. My point is simple, civ 3 with a few changes to civ 2 could have made each game playable (each side having a chance to win from beging and game decided by skill) but it failed to do this and only created a game flawed with the same old problems.

[rah]

I sometimes get the most satisfaction out of games where I'm not awarded "LUCK" . If I can hold my own or actually pull out a win with bad luck, I know I did something right. That's why I kinda like Civ III. It's not that I need luck to win, I think it adds a little extra flavor to the game. And there are those nights that nothing goes right and you get your butt kicked.

Without zoc, a lot of the old strats have to be modified. You can't block fortified on that mountain.

The limits in the game also take some of the old strats out. Rushes still work but sometimes (with the civI type combat) they don't. It keeps you always changing. To some people, that's fun. It doesn't mean we suck.

RAH

[Species8472]

Originally posted by rah
Without zoc, a lot of the old strats have to be modified. You can't block fortified on that mountain.
RAH

uh... there is no effective zoc in civ2?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Species8472
uh... there is no effective zoc in civ2?

He was refering to Civ III

[Carolus Rex]

As there always are, when some Apolytoners are involved...

Speaking of which, EnigmaticGod, which is the game you have moved on to? Something that can be fun picking up for other die hard civers?

Carolus

Age Of Empires 2: The Conquerors. That game is light years ahead of civ3 in terms of graphics, programming, support, every possible thing I can think of. And it came out about 3 years earlier than civ3. You should see the screen shots for Age Of Mythology. They make age of empires 2 look like ****. So you can imagine comparing civ3 to AOM.

[War4ever]

its not that the starting positions in civ3 are any more uneven in civ3 than they were in civ2, its just that unlike civ2 where you could wander until you found a better spot, you can't really affoard to in civ3. Some might say this prevents the human from acquiring alot of NON units.....and this could be viewed as a good thing.

civ2 has poor starting locations, which if your opponent has a decent or good one, means game over against worthy opposition. The same in civ3 so this bone of contention with many players hasn't been fixed which is a shame.

huts don't factor into play as much in civ3, which could be viewed as a good thing.

the only early difference in civ3 for buildings , is that i build temples earlier than i would if i were playing civ2.

However due to caps on science and some nasty corruption flaws, the idea of infastructure is based mainly on culture, not trade in civ3

Culture is a weapon that is a fresh idea, but not implemented the way it should have been. A culture victory on deity is tough to achieve, but its too easy to absorb enemy cities within your lands.

Many buildings are rendered obsolete by the unrealistic corruption calculations. You are punished too severely for expanding too far from your capital.

REX (ICS) has been hampered..... many would say this is a good thing. However on standard maps, you can easily put 12 cities around your capital, many shariing borders and still be fine. Just because culture has expanded your borders, it doesn't mean your going to use all the squares. In fact most cities only need 3-4 squares to properly rush in despotism, which you will be in for a long portion of the game.

Monarchy is just useless

Razing cites is interesting and at times necessary. However razing a whole empire would cause panic and this seems a tad unrealistic/bad for gameplay.

leaders.....those who get the early ones are laughing all the way to the bank, those who don't , your out of luck. This isn't a good concept either. Though i suppose for diplo purposes, being able to write your nations history and state that Darius led your troops to victory is kinda cool

Diplomacy is good for diplogaming, i like the idea of sanctions and such, but they should be allowed ealier in the game. The cost of subversion is very high....again some might say this is a good thing. Many of you will just say its too expensive.


There are other points i could make too but i am running out of gas......

Personally i don't like the game the way it is right now..... i feel as though i am playing an activision game, not a sid meier game.

With alot of hard work, flaws can and will be worked out.....

However that said, i will never like the look of the terrain, ever!

Merry Christmas and heres to hoping no one gets civ3 ... i mean coal in their stockings

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by EnigmaticGod
Has anyone here ever seen me whine about huts? Has anyone here ever seen me whine about start location? Amazing how you consider luck such a big factor in civ2 while I on the other hand don't. I guess that's the difference between me and you. I accept that luck is a factor and find ways to deal with it or move on. You on the other hand base your entire game around it and find a new setting each week to call yourself the best at. Now stop filling my thread with your garbage and get lost.

HA HA HA HA HA

Eyes. you seem to have a selective memory.

When we would play you'd quit the game after 5 turns or so complaining about the huts or your start position or some other factor. Cursing the stupid luck of the game and refusing to play a game out unless the luck favored you.

The more particular a player becomes and the more specialized they are when they get to the point they have to choose specific settings and know they can beat anyone that way then their ability to adapt to new situations is erased. Thats why the "great" players like Strat or Eyes or whoever are pissed at anything that changes their precious formulas.

I agree with Rah, if you all can't adapt then your skill is an illusion and your crown will rust away as you fade away.

[OzzyKP]

And from what I've heard Civ3 still sounds excellent for Diplogaming, which is the only thing i really care about anymore. If it is a piece of crap for everything then it doesn't affect me, I'm still boycotting the thing until MP comes out and the Diplogame can explore a new format.

Ozzy you are one stupid ****.

When we would play you'd quit the game after 5 turns or so complaining about the huts or your start position or some other factor. Cursing the stupid luck of the game and refusing to play a game out unless the luck favored you.

Nice try, I don't think I remember those games. If you'd like to prove this, you know how to reach me. As for the whole "forumla" thing, did you not read a thing I wrote? Obviously not hence my first conclusion, you are one stupid ****. Now stupid ****, go re-read what I said. I said the AI is easier in this game than the last. That means that I have already crushed the AI and have found it completely unworthy. So tell me stupid ****, how does that mean I can't adapt? There's not that much to adapt to, but you wouldn't know that because you haven't played the game. The game is the EXACT same thing as civ2 except now there are caps and other little things to slow you down. That's all. This game's only update was to make the graphics worse, screw up the combat system, and to slow the human down to the AI speed. But again, you're a stupid **** and can't read nor have you played the game so how would you know?

[CapTVK]

Civ3 wasn't all we hoped to be but you can still count on good 'ol Eyes to get you in the mood.

[General Maximus]

i do have to agree with eyes on THIS one, you really need to play this game to see the flaws. you can't just read about it from others.

some people like shoving red hot pokers in their arses....and some people like Civ3 the way it is now....those people are probably the same 5 people...

i have uninstalled this game, and went back to earlier, better games, like pong.

[rah]

Yes the game does have considerable flaws. I posted 8 or 9 changes that will have to be made for MP.

A lot of the complaints that I have seen here, refer to the limits that slow the human player down so the AI can keep up. As far as I'm concerned those are not important if there is no AI in the game.

This does give me hope that a good MP game is possible. (if all my suggestions, with a few others that I missed are incorporated)

It's important that all of us diehard MPs try this game and figure out what needs to be done. I look to the "Eyes", "GMs", "War4",
"Xins", "SKs", "Mings" and many others to provide the suggestions that will FIX the game for MP. Don't just dismiss the game, provide constructive suggestions. Whether they'll listen is immaterial, if we don't make suggestions.

I may dissagree with many of you on how much luck should be in the game, but it's just that, A preference. Don't use it as an excuse to dismiss any of my other ideas.

Let's get cracking here. Time is running out.


Rich

And on a side note, we only have ourselves to blame for the sorry state of SP because the developers were aware how badly we trashed the AI in II, and were forced to the drastic and sucky programming changes to slow the "EXPERTS" down. While they only partially suceeded, the cost to the "Lack of FUN" in Civ was payed.

[General Maximus]

one of my favorite games is NeedForSpeed3 HotPursuit.

having said that, here's my point. you can race against the computer players, then save your race as a "ghost" to race against. you can then race against yourself, with the game improvising...

if we had, say eyes and strat and deity and rah...etc... as "ghost" players, then the AI would be smarter? the answer is yes. the AI would have to improvise according to land mass, attacks etc...

what do you think???