Every civ game ever sucks!

XPav · December 12, 2001, 16:49

That right, according to usenet and thanks to Google's new back to 1981 archives, every civ game ever sucks.

Civnet:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...40cdc2.cdc.net

Quote:

The problem here, as always, is the shoddiness of the code that MicroProse releases in all their games. They should fire all their beta-testers, or get some, because I don't think they have ever released a game in their history that wasn't full of bugs.

Civ1:http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...40kielo.uta.fi

Quote:

-A chariot got killed by a barbarian diplomat

Also, reference my previous "Civ2 sucks" post.

For that are literal minded, this post is not really implying that all civ games suck. This post is to beat those the rose colored sunglasses off of those who think that previous Civ games were perfect from Day 1.

Velociryx · December 12, 2001, 18:17

What?! Unrealistic combat results in Civ2?! Unheard of! Never happened! That is a problem that is ENTIRELY in the domain of Civ3, and you blaspheme to say otherwise!

-=Vel=-
(who really enjoyed those blasts from the past....thank you)

Smash · December 12, 2001, 18:28

Nobody ever said it anything was perfect.The final verison of Civ2(MGE) was left with a very hostile AI.

The combat system was redone from 1>2 just for the reasons we are seeing.Strange results were very rare,even on highest difficulty levels in civ2.Civ3 returns things to the state of civ1.It was unpopular then..its unpopular now.

Akka · December 12, 2001, 20:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Smash
Nobody ever said it anything was perfect.The final verison of Civ2(MGE) was left with a very hostile AI.

The combat system was redone from 1>2 just for the reasons we are seeing.Strange results were very rare,even on highest difficulty levels in civ2.Civ3 returns things to the state of civ1.It was unpopular then..its unpopular now.

Amen.
(though I won't say that the combat system in Civ3 is as bad as in Civ1, but it's definitely worse than Civ2's).

Jaybe · December 12, 2001, 22:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Amen.
(though I won't say that the combat system in Civ3 is as bad as in Civ1, but it's definitely worse than Civ2's).

AHem,
Overall, the PLAY (which includes the combat system) is much better than Civ2's.

Ya gotta remember, it's still made up of people. It's not the technology, it's the people using the technology and training. When you lose an advanced unit to a small unit of somewhat less advancement (e.g, tank vs. militia aka spearman), you are actually weeding out the deadwood in your army -- those commanders that had turds for brains!

(Or commanders that just read the situation totally wrong due to lack of battlefield intelligence, and very wrong intuition.)

JB

Smash · December 13, 2001, 01:26

When I play a game,I don't want to have to think about some obscure scenario involving human nature.I want to build stuff and have it perform like it should.
When my modern armor gets smoked by a pikeman I don't think "oh that was Crazy Joe.He is a terrible tank commander and that pikeman was William Wallace fighting for his murdered lover"

H Tower · December 13, 2001, 01:53

of course there are a few crackpots living in caves somewhere that don't like civ2, probably in Afghanistan, but to find the nearest civ3 hater, you only need take a walk outside your dorm room

Badtz Maru · December 13, 2001, 02:31

Are there really people who believe that a tank in-game represents a single tank, or a pikeman a single guy with a long spear?

Mannamagnus · December 13, 2001, 02:33

deja vu

N. Machiavelli · December 13, 2001, 02:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
Are there really people who believe that a tank in-game represents a single tank, or a pikeman a single guy with a long spear?

Yes, these are the same people who think that combat outcomes that have a 3.67% probability should naturally occur 3 out of every 5 combat rounds.

Smash · December 13, 2001, 05:14

When my modern armor gets smoked by a pikeman I don't think "oh that was Crazy Joe.He is a terrible tank division commander and that pikeman unit led by William Wallace was fighting for his murdered lover"

happy?

Thomas Paine · December 13, 2001, 06:19

I usually see my modern armor as a nine year old girl dressed in a pink tutu, and the pikemen as an ivory croquet mallet. Perhaps I need to adjust my resolution...but as is, I think it works out.

Look for my Pink Tutu Mod available at a fansite nearest you. Check local listings for details. All rights reserved.

Grim Legacy · December 13, 2001, 07:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Smash
When my modern armor gets smoked by a pikeman I don't think "oh that was Crazy Joe.He is a terrible tank division commander and that pikeman unit led by William Wallace was fighting for his murdered lover"

happy?

LOL.

Though seriously, a little unpredicatability of combat outcomes is ok. I do agree that Civ3 takes it quite far though. [remembers single HP infantry beating Elite Tank army...]

rwprice · December 13, 2001, 14:50

In the previous "Civ2 Sucks" thread, I believe it was yin who pointed out the tedious nature of having to move so many units each turn, especially in the endgame. That got me to thinking...isn't that the very nature of Civ? I'm curious to hear what people think, since it seems to me that this is something you must either accept or reject about Civ, isn't it? I haven't used the stacking function yet, so I may be missing something here, but the tedium of moving too many units was something that struck me while playing Civ2.

I ask this because I've seen some people mention it as ding against Civ3. I think it's been an issue all along. What am I missing?

Grim Legacy · December 14, 2001, 18:26

Quote:

Originally posted by rwprice
In the previous "Civ2 Sucks" thread, I believe it was yin who pointed out the tedious nature of having to move so many units each turn, especially in the endgame. That got me to thinking...isn't that the very nature of Civ? I'm curious to hear what people think, since it seems to me that this is something you must either accept or reject about Civ, isn't it? I haven't used the stacking function yet, so I may be missing something here, but the tedium of moving too many units was something that struck me while playing Civ2.

I ask this because I've seen some people mention it as ding against Civ3. I think it's been an issue all along. What am I missing?

This time around you need more units to actually win. In civ2 you could just save and load with a handful and lay waste to anyone. Not that anyone save/loaded of course! Naaah!

DarkCloud · December 16, 2001, 16:13

Good research, now we know that Civ I and II got criticism when they were released- people HAD BEEN complaining that the compalints here were uncalled for