Here's why we complain of things in Civ III that were in Civ II

[Barnacle Bill]

Most of my problems with Civ3 are more in what it failed to reapply from Civ2 than in what it failed to change from Civ2. I expect and desire an iterative approach to sequels. I prefer the changes to be incremental, with new versions coming out instead of just patches/expansions because they have to pay the bills by shipping something new. I want every feature in the final version of the last one to be in the first version of the next one, except where it has been replaced with a different (hopefully better) feature covering the same ground. The rest of my gripes are where they did something new but it was poorly implimented. If Civ2 is tedius, then you must not have liked Civ2 so why would you expect to like Civ3. I don't like RTS games like AoE, so I don't gripe that AoE2 is still like AoE - what else would it be like, EU?

So, my gripe list for Civ3:

1) Everything I could change in Civ2's Rules.txt is not changable via the editor.
2) Pretty much loss of all of Civ2's scenario editing capability except for maps. Civ2's capability should have been the starting point.
3) All of Civ2's spare techs & units are gone.
4) Resources are a good idea, but the implimentation is bad - if they were going to do it it should have been more realistic - how much you have matters in real life - maybe something on the order of many more sources but every city using it needs its own source (not necessariliy in the city area, but under your civ's control).
5) Ancient units should not be remotely viable in the modern era - rationalizations about it isn't really a spearman its just called a spearman and looks like a spearman aside. If that is what the designers meant, they should have given it a more generic name and had its appearance change in each era as Workers do. If not, they should make them hopeless against anything after machineguns were invented, make the AI upgrade if it has the tech, and come up with a realistic way to tie resource availability to what you can build (see #4, plus the idea of a basic resorce-free unit in each combat era and/or you can build 'em but it costs wads more).
6) The new airpower model is a great improvement, but again the implimentation is bad - modern units should be able to shoot back if getting bombed, and aircraft should be able to sink ships.
7) Culture/borders is a great idea but again the implimentation has problems - borders should be "hard", i.e. can't violate them without a declaration of war - AI should put expanding its culture until its cities link up as a higher priority than building new cities, and select city sites with this in mind - borders between civs should never move except if a city changes hands/gets destroyed (Canada can't annex half of North Dakota by building a city on the border) - better implimentation would be for cultural influence to change the nationality of citizens in border cities and make cities with majority population "on the wrong side of the border" likely to rebel.
8) The basic concept of the new airpower model should have been reapplied to naval units (with much longer operational radii, of course).

[cutlerd]

Because of the tautological nature of epistemology. At the root of every thought is an assumed truth that cannot be proved.

What does that have specifically to do with a bifurcation? That basically says that everything is random and arbitrary. That's fine and dandy, but if EVERYTHING is random and arbitrary, it is hardly meanginful in any context to point out that my specific statement or a bifurcation in general was random and arbitrary since it goes without saying. That's like diving into the middle of a school of fish and pointing at one of them and exclaiming "Wow...look....a fish!".

I'm familiar with historical, logical, and scientific determinism. I've never heard of "positive determinism". Can you give a link?

Determinism. Same stuff, different mustache and funny glasses. You get the idea even if you don't buy it.

Devin

[Libertarian]

You presented your dichotomy as though it made a significant point, when in fact it split existence into two meaningless branches.

With respect to determinism, your capitalization seemed to imply a particular school of philosophy. I have no idea what you mean by "Positive Determinism" unless you mean logical determinism, which is unpredictive of future events.

[Calvin Vu]

Originally posted by cutlerd
CIV3 has thrown a monkey wrench in their comfortable CIV2 domination fantasies. They can no longer tech blitz. They can no longer blitz through enemy territory with armour and spies. They can no longer build every unit in the game willy nilly with no thought of resources. They can no longer take city after city with nary a garrison in them. They can no longer build the UN and constantly start wars of aggression as Republics or Democracies. They can no longer build massive world spanning empires and not worry one whit about the difficulties of running such a huge sprawling mess.
Devin

So the beauty of Civ III is based upon a "CANNOT" design ? How innovative !!! Anyway, you only assume that people want a huge sprawling mess. It is much easier to play a perfectionist style in Civ II with only a few cities. Since gold is more easily obtained with trade and has more value in Civ II (for rush building wonders as well as military units as needed), there's no need to build tons of military units to defend yourself or to crush your neighbors.

Originally posted by cutlerd
In other words, they can no longer indulge their megalo-maniacial Napolean-complexed world domination mental masturbations unfettered from the needs of strategic planning.
Devin

Look like many people are still enjoying the so-called "mental masturbations" which bring the developers a lot of $$. Is it a bad thing ?

Anyway, what kind of "strategic planning" is involved in Civ III ? Looking at the science allocation at the end of each turn to check the minimum percentage needed to get a research every 32 turns ? Doing the Yes/No-choice braindead trades for researches, resources and luxuries ? Or spawning out settlers after setlers and mililary units after military units to win ? Or allocating scientists without being able to see what difference it makes ? Or displaying great diplomacy in dealing with the AI civs by giving them 100 gold to slaughter each others ?

Originally posted by cutlerd
"about things that were exactly the same in CIV2, but I guess are coloured through the nostalgic glasses of years gone by.
Devin

That's far from the truth. Figurative speaking, to me, starting a Civ II game is like standing in front of a blank canvas to paint a new world and I can paint it in whichever way I like. Starting a Civ III game is like being dragged behind an AI train along a railroad track. While I can still reach my destination (if the destination is defined to be the winner in this fake world), it's no fun.

[Zachriel]

[SIZE=1] AI should put expanding its culture until its cities link up as a higher priority than building new cities, and select city sites with this in mind

Why should the AI's strategy be limited? Certainly, it is a valid strategy. I use it myself, sometimes to great effect.

[cutlerd]

Libertarian,

Positive determinism is the supposition that there is no randomness in the universe. That with the proper (theoretical) tools one could, by observing the first few miliseconds of the Big Bang, predict all future events. The universe is one big cause and effect chain and randomness is simply a result of our lack of ability to perceive and understand the myriad interactions that bring about events.

In other words, with enough knowledge I could predict the throw of a die every single time.

Calvin,

So the beauty of Civ III is based upon a "CANNOT" design ? How innovative !!! Anyway, you only assume that people want a huge sprawling mess. It is much easier to play a perfectionist style in Civ II with only a few cities. Since gold is more easily obtained with trade and has more value in Civ II (for rush building wonders as well as military units as needed), there's no need to build tons of military units to defend yourself or to crush your neighbors.

Yes. One of the beauties of the entire CIV genre is operating under constraints and the balancing of often mutually exclusive parameters. In other words, a balancing act. Your supposition that, in and of itself, limitations are undesirable is just plain ludicrous. Would you perhaps prefer a CIV game where EVERYTHING is possible? Where you can perhaps research and discover nuclear fusion in 3000BC?

By definition ANY game starts with a tabula rasa of being able to do ANYTHING and then begins to restrict actions by way of rules. The very challenge of a game comes from its restrictions.

And yes, in CIV2 since money was so available by way of the stupid IDIOTICALLY DESIGNED Fundamentalist government type, you could basically buy your way to victory in it. Maybe you enjoyed spying everyone to death, but I found it tiresome.

In CIV3 I personally don't find myself needed armies any bigger than in CIV2. Despite whines to the contrary, even with CIV3's combat system a smaller technologically advanced force will defeat a more numerous technologically inferior force every time, especially when the former is played by the player and the latter by the AI.

CIV3 allows me the option of actually taking over territory peacefully. I find that in and of itself a major boon to opening up different avenues of playing style.

Look like many people are still enjoying the so-called "mental masturbations" which bring the developers a lot of $$. Is it a bad thing ?

Depends. Since I don't enjoy that style of play it IS a bad thing from my point of view. Since CIV2 is open to that style of play, my feeling is the dominators can go back to playing their beloved CIV2 and I can enjoy CIV3. Seems like now there is a game for each of us. As far as from the developer's point of view...it seems CIV3 is selling just fine. I don't think they have much to worry about.

Anyway, what kind of "strategic planning" is involved in Civ III ? Looking at the science allocation at the end of each turn to check the minimum percentage needed to get a research every 32 turns ? Doing the Yes/No-choice braindead trades for researches, resources and luxuries ? Or spawning out settlers after setlers and mililary units after military units to win ? Or allocating scientists without being able to see what difference it makes ? Or displaying great diplomacy in dealing with the AI civs by giving them 100 gold to slaughter each others ?

Gee...perhaps you'd care to name the strategic planning involved with CIV2? But to avoid solely answering a question with a question, I will limit my list to areas of strategic planning required in CIV3 ABOVE AND BEYOND those required for CIV2:

1. Acquisition of strategic resources
2. Acquisition of luxuries
3. Differing strategies based on what civ you are playing and what civs oppose you due to civ based characteristics and special units
4. Having to plan short, sharp, defined wars when playing a Democracy or Republic
5. Having to plan how to garrison newly captured cities
6. Having to deal with corruption as you expand your empire....where to build the Forbidden Palace.
7. Whether to go for a UN victory or a cultural victory
8. Whether to try and take a city militarily ot culturally
9. Whether to invest in bombarding units or attacking units and in what proportion
10. Whether to wage infrastructure warfare against an opponent or traditional warfare
11. Manipulating alliances and MPPs
12. 16 civ games (which in and of themselves requires different strategies than the 8 civ game limit in CIV2)

That's a short list compiled in 5 minutes off of the top of my head. I routinely play some of the most complex and strategically involved table top wargames ever devised, and until CIV3 I was never strategically challenged by a CIV game, CIV2 included.

That's far from the truth. Figurative speaking, to me, starting a Civ II game is like standing in front of a blank canvas to paint a new world and I can paint it in whichever way I like. Starting a Civ III game is like being dragged behind an AI train along a railroad track. While I can still reach my destination (if the destination is defined to be the winner in this fake world), it's no fun.

Then what you really need is a SIM game like Sim City. I am not interested in an art program (I know you were speaking figuratively). I want a game that challenges me and provides me with interesting strategic problems to solve and overcome. After all...isn't that the difference between a game and a sim?

Devin

[Calvin Vu]

Originally posted by cutlerd
Yes. One of the beauties of the entire CIV genre is operating under constraints and the balancing of often mutually exclusive parameters. In other words, a balancing act. Your supposition that, in and of itself, limitations are undesirable is just plain ludicrous. Would you perhaps prefer a CIV game where EVERYTHING is possible? Where you can perhaps research and discover nuclear fusion in 3000BC?
Devin

If it's a "the sky is the limit" system, then the limit will be "how high can you jump ?" and it will be great fun to compete, even with yourself, to see how high you can make it, since the only limitation will be yourself. If it's a system of "max. of five inches, please" then there's no point in jumping up-and-down like an idiot when there's no difference between the good, the bad, and the ugly, so to speak.

Anyway, "nuclear fusion" is just a name for a technology and 3000BC is just a name for a year. In a game, any name is fine with me. Doesn't SMAC start "history" in the year 2020 or something ? No sweat.
I don't have to match a game with a real world. If you can reach AC in the year 3000 BC in Civ II because it had no limits then you could show the rest of us how to do it. If not, then I had no idea what you were talking about.

Originally posted by cutlerd
And yes, in CIV2 since money was so available by way of the stupid IDIOTICALLY DESIGNED Fundamentalist government type, you could basically buy your way to victory in it. Maybe you enjoyed spying everyone to death, but I found it tiresome.
Devin

You like to make this assumptions about using Fundamentalism all the time and then paint everybody with it, don't you ? FYI, in the several years that I play Civ II, I have never used Fundamentalist even for a few turns since I have never been in the mood for it. I still like the fact that it is available though. The more choices, the better. If somebody likes to play it all the time to flatter himself, I have no qualm with the fact that he is happy. If it is abused in MP games, then reduce its benefits to make it more balanced, not really that hard to do. It was a good (but somewhat technically-flawed) idea which was repeated successfully with Miriam in SMAC.

Originally posted by cutlerd
In CIV3 I personally don't find myself needed armies any bigger than in CIV2. Despite whines to the contrary, even with CIV3's combat system a smaller technologically advanced force will defeat a more numerous technologically inferior force every time, especially when the former is played by the player and the latter by the AI.
Devin

You seem to assume an offensive army and it's true that the size of the army would be not much difference. But just to defend yourself, since you can rush buy units faster in Civ II (with more golds from trades), you can afford to have just fewer units for defence up until the point where you are about to be attacked.

Originally posted by cutlerd
Gee...perhaps you'd care to name the strategic planning involved with CIV2?
Devin

In my book, strategic planning would involve actions which, potentially, give overwhelming future benefit, even if the benefit might not be clear at the time it is done. Setting up huge metropolises in far-away places to improve trading benefits with caravan is one example in Civ II, setting up choke point cities to avoid sudden attacks from neighbors is another. The most complex strategic plannings in Civ II, for me, involves caravans, not military units nor taking other cities though. Things which improve your strengths, infrastructurally, so you can cope with any changing situation and still come out a winner.

[SIZE=1]
1. Acquisition of strategic resources
2. Acquisition of luxuries

Unfortunately, both are "planned" by building military units and going into war to get them if you don't have them. It's more like land-grabbing for the obvious benefit to me. I "plan" for this by researching "The Wheel" as the very first tech, hoard the horse resources and then destroy everyone else on the same continent to get whatever other strategic resources which might pop up later when later tech has been researched. Is this "strategic planning" ?

I would call it a good "strategic planning" if there exists a very clear and quantifiable system of "honor point" and you will lose or gain your honor points depending on what actions you take (similar to Baldur's Gate). In that case, it could be a good "strategic planning" to give away a city with a strategic/luxury resource city to gain a good and faithful ally, for example, since foresight, and even a bit of a gambling guess, as to what the future will bring, is required. Otherwise, it's just a matter of grabbing whatever you can and there's no "balancing act" as you said.

In fact, I would like this game if there's a good alliance scheme based in a good/bad guy honor points. That way, when I'm in a dark kill-them-all mood I can still ally with some bad guys and go all out and beat the good guys ).

[SIZE=1]
3. Differing strategies based on what civ you are playing and what civs oppose you due to civ based characteristics and special units

Other than cosmetic differences, the men on horses still rule.

[SIZE=1]
4. Having to plan short, sharp, defined wars when playing a Democracy or Republic

I thought the Senate in Civ II was more meddling and, even with the UN, they could still stop you 50% of the time. What stops you from planning short, sharp, defined wars in Civ II anyway ? It does make the citizens happier if that's all you want to do. Do you only feel happy if something is forced upon you rather than a free choice ?

[SIZE=1]
5. Having to plan how to garrison newly captured cities

So you do need more units than in Civ II as a garrison requirement, don't you ?

[SIZE=1]
6. Having to deal with corruption as you expand your empire....where to build the Forbidden Palace.

Unless you have the patience to wait a few hundred turns for a one-shield one gold city to build the Forbidden Palace, it's more like praying for a leader to emerge so you could build the Forbidden Palace where it is needed. Strategic planning ? More like a hopscotch hurdle in which you're wishing very hard that an angel would come down and give you two legs instead of one so you could play it.

[SIZE=1]
7. Whether to go for a UN victory or a cultural victory
8. Whether to try and take a city militarily ot culturally
9. Whether to invest in bombarding units or attacking units and in what proportion
10. Whether to wage infrastructure warfare against an opponent or traditional warfare
11. Manipulating alliances and MPPs
12. 16 civ games (which in and of themselves requires different strategies than the 8 civ game limit in CIV2)

Hmmm, I don't see much differences yet. I don't think I could live through the boredom to get to a cultural victory. I usually disband the captured bombardment units for a few shields as there are little use for them [I do use them a lot in SMAC since they can bombard the whole stack of units, not just having something like a 30% chance of doing a little damage to a single unit as with Civ III].

[SIZE=1]
That's a short list compiled in 5 minutes off of the top of my head. I routinely play some of the most complex and strategically involved table top wargames ever devised, and until CIV3 I was never strategically challenged by a CIV game, CIV2 included.

To a perfectionist, the challenge is in themselves, not in the game. The game is just providing a little fun tool for them to think to see if they could do better and better. If it's no fun, then there are plenty of real challenges to tackle for real benefit in the real world. The main question to a game designer should be "Is it fun to play ?", not "Does it have enough arbitrary, and even annoying, limitations to make it a challenging system to beat ?".
If you like challenges for its own sake then maybe you should try Seven Kingdoms. There are tons of strategic decisions to be made in managing the kingdom to avoid being crushed mercilessly like a bug.

[Zachriel]

Unless you have the patience to wait a few hundred turns for a one-shield one gold city to build the Forbidden Palace, it's more like praying for a leader to emerge so you could build the Forbidden Palace where it is needed. Strategic planning ? Calvin Vu

You can pray for a Great Leader, and I do believe in prayer, but you should plan too. (That's called strategy.)

First, always husband your elite units and feed them victories. This will maximize your chances of a Leader emerging. I have played many games and I always get Leaders. If you have trouble with this, then try a military civ.

Once you have the Leader, you have to make an important decision in how to use him. In my current game, I used the first Leader to conquer my continent, and then I saved the second Leader for a couple thousand years. I finally used him for the invasion of the other continent. No, I didn't use him to create an army; I have the Military Academy for that. No, I rushed my Forbidden Palace on the other continent.

[cutlerd]

If it's a "the sky is the limit" system, then the limit will be "how high can you jump ?" and it will be great fun to compete, even with yourself, to see how high you can make it, since the only limitation will be yourself. If it's a system of "max. of five inches, please" then there's no point in jumping up-and-down like an idiot when there's no difference between the good, the bad, and the ugly, so to speak.

The only game with "sky's the limit" is one with no rules. That by definition is not a game...its a daydream. It is obvious that what you want is a sim. I suggest playing Sim City, though even that has rules.

Better yet, try legos. Though gravity still might rear its ugly head.

CIV 2 has plenty of rules. I cannot start the game with air units. I can't push a button and change every mountain tile to grassland. I can't build a spy that can espionage Democratic cities. The list goes on.

You want to argue that CIV3 is too restrictive for your tastes...fine...I'm listening. But you want to argue that somehow CIV2 had no limitations at all and that your ideal for the genre is no rules whatsoever....then yer crazy.

Anyway, "nuclear fusion" is just a name for a technology and 3000BC is just a name for a year. In a game, any name is fine with me. Doesn't SMAC start "history" in the year 2020 or something ? No sweat.

You must find the fact that you can't see the entire map in CIV2 from the start galling right? And the fact that you can't sail away from the coast safely before certain advances to be extremely limiting eh?

Doesn't SMAC start with a premise that allows it to start with future techs? If CIV2 and CIV3 had shipped with a known bug that allowed you to build stealth aircraft as your first tech advance in 4000BC and you would have no problem with it....then I actually feel pity for your lack of standards.

You like to make this assumptions about using Fundamentalism all the time and then paint everybody with it, don't you ? FYI, in the several years that I play Civ II, I have never used Fundamentalist even for a few turns since I have never been in the mood for it. I still like the fact that it is available though. The more choices, the better. If somebody likes to play it all the time to flatter himself, I have no qualm with the fact that he is happy. If it is abused in MP games, then reduce its benefits to make it more balanced, not really that hard to do. It was a good (but somewhat technically-flawed) idea which was repeated successfully with Miriam in SMAC.

Good for you. Who said everyone uses Fundie? I pointed out that CIV2 was basically brain dead strategy-wise. The fact that you choose to enjoy hampering obvious strategies is relevant only to you.

As far as more choices being better, that's very easy to deflate. Why aren't you crying out for a civ game where all techs are available at all times in the game instantly? After all...that's more choices ain't it? I mean...having to learn Theory of Gravity in Civ2 before you learned Flight....that was such a pain wasn't it? It really limited your choices didn't it? All strategy games are about working within limits and the choices for a strategy game usually involve opportunity costs.

So I am not sure exactly what the heck you are arguing for....the abolition of ALL rules in ALL CIV games?

You seem to assume an offensive army and it's true that the size of the army would be not much difference. But just to defend yourself, since you can rush buy units faster in Civ II (with more golds from trades), you can afford to have just fewer units for defence up until the point where you are about to be attacked.

And since in CIV3 enemy units are slowed down when penetrating hostile territory, the fact is that you need fewer defensive units because YOU have the advantage of mobility within your own territory, which means since you move much faster than your opponent, you need fewer troops to stand around garrisoning places your opponent cannot reach. In CIV2, once you had rail lines you had to garrison every single city because an enemy could arrive anywhere in one turn.

Chew on that.

In my book, strategic planning would involve actions which, potentially, give overwhelming future benefit, even if the benefit might not be clear at the time it is done. Setting up huge metropolises in far-away places to improve trading benefits with caravan is one example in Civ II, setting up choke point cities to avoid sudden attacks from neighbors is another. The most complex strategic plannings in Civ II, for me, involves caravans, not military units nor taking other cities though. Things which improve your strengths, infrastructurally, so you can cope with any changing situation and still come out a winner.

Clintonesquely done my friend. Choke points are just as valuable in CIV3...arguably more valuable with the fact that there are no ZOCs in CIV3 and with cultural borders.

The only other example you give is caravans. If that is the epitomy of strategic planning for you in CIV2 I feel for you. I don't think I have seen a single person decry the loss of caravans from CIV2 before you.

Unfortunately, both are "planned" by building military units and going into war to get them if you don't have them. It's more like land-grabbing for the obvious benefit to me. I "plan" for this by researching "The Wheel" as the very first tech, hoard the horse resources and then destroy everyone else on the same continent to get whatever other strategic resources which might pop up later when later tech has been researched. Is this "strategic planning" ?

Wrong. You can also gain them by culture. And by trade. You can even back handedly get them by manipulating the owner into a war with someone else and then claiming the vacated territory after the city owning the resource is razed or taken with less of a border radius.

You also have to adjust your entire strategy based on resources. If there is no iron anywhere on my island and I am neighbour to the Romans, they are far FAR less a threat to me than if I am on an island next to the Romans and they have access to Iron. I would play the game two entirely different ways depending on my access to iron. That in itself creates two different strategies where in CIV2 there would be one.

Look at it this way.

In CIV2 I start the game and I end up on an island next to the Romans. There is no divergance of corcumstances after that point. The island itself doesn't matter. The fact that my neighbour is the Romans doesn't matter. Once you determine the size of the island and its terrain, every CIV2 game with those parameters is like every other one with those parameters.

But in CIV3, that same island and same terrain and same neighbour now transform into a huge variety of different circumstances each requiring different strategies. Does the island have iron or horses? What civ are you? Do your ancient units depend on iron or horses? Who are your neighbours? Do their ancient units depend on iron or horses?

What in CIV2 is a single circumstance becomes a matrix of thousands of unique combinations of circumstances in CIV3.

You hoard horse resources? What if you don't have any? You discover wheel? What does that do for you? Chariots aren't that great. War chariots aren't either.

I would call it a good "strategic planning" if there exists a very clear and quantifiable system of "honor point" and you will lose or gain your honor points depending on what actions you take (similar to Baldur's Gate). In that case, it could be a good "strategic planning" to give away a city with a strategic/luxury resource city to gain a good and faithful ally, for example, since foresight, and even a bit of a gambling guess, as to what the future will bring, is required. Otherwise, it's just a matter of grabbing whatever you can and there's no "balancing act" as you said.

The AI DOES deal with you based on your past actions. No there isn't a little honor point readout for you to say "I have 25 honour points" but it should be painfully obvious after a few games that if you are a backstabbing bastard in the game you are not going to win any friends and the AI reacts accordingly. You CAN give away a city for goodwill and to gain alliances. Did you somehow skip the entire diplomacy feature of the game in your made desire to conquer the world with chariots?

Other than cosmetic differences, the men on horses still rule.

What men on horses? Have you tried playing the Persians? I find that each of the civs has its own unique advantages with its special units. I also frankly find that horsemen are hardly very powerful.

I thought the Senate in Civ II was more meddling and, even with the UN, they could still stop you 50% of the time. What stops you from planning short, sharp, defined wars in Civ II anyway ? It does make the citizens happier if that's all you want to do. Do you only feel happy if something is forced upon you rather than a free choice ?

Because I don't want to play with myself. I feel happy when I overcome obstacles to win a game. In CIV3 I am forced to fight short sharp wars or suffer the consequences of war weariness. That is a good challenge...a nice obstacle to overcome.

Do you only feel happy if you are essentially playing a game with all the challenge of an etch-a-sketch?

So you do need more units than in Civ II as a garrison requirement, don't you ?

In captured cities...probably. So what? That has nothing to do with unit requirement overall.

Unless you have the patience to wait a few hundred turns for a one-shield one gold city to build the Forbidden Palace, it's more like praying for a leader to emerge so you could build the Forbidden Palace where it is needed. Strategic planning ? More like a hopscotch hurdle in which you're wishing very hard that an angel would come down and give you two legs instead of one so you could play it.

I'm so sorry the game requires you to actually put some effort into things. Get a leader. It ain't that hard. Pump up your city so that it is producing more than 1 shield per turn. It's not THAT hard to do. I can show you how if you are really that clueless. You should be able to get a FP in any city in 50 turns or so.

To a perfectionist, the challenge is in themselves, not in the game. The game is just providing a little fun tool for them to think to see if they could do better and better. If it's no fun, then there are plenty of real challenges to tackle for real benefit in the real world. The main question to a game designer should be "Is it fun to play ?", not "Does it have enough arbitrary, and even annoying, limitations to make it a challenging system to beat ?".

Doing better requires, de facto, something to measure against. And that requires, de facto again, some sort of universe with rules to operate in.

If the challenge is in yourself, why the hell are you even playing the game? Open your front door....go outside....and ram your head into the nearest parked car at full speed until you fall unconscious. Then, when you recover...see if you can beat that record. Keep doing it and see what your high score is.

I prefer a game where I test myself against the obstacles inherent in the game and learn to best them. As an adjunct of that I then also see, once I best them, how well I can do so.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by cutlerd
The only game with "sky's the limit" is one with no rules. That by definition is not a game...its a daydream. It is obvious that what you want is a sim. I suggest playing Sim City, though even that has rules.

I'd say more that "sky's the limit" has the rule of gravity. Try to fly and you'll see... there's no limit since you always can build bigger planes, bigger spaceships, and etc.

[yin26]

Sim City, if anything, is *more* rules-confined that is Civ3. Quit saying otherwise. But the primary difference here is that Sim City understands the 'let's hook the player for another minute and another and another' without intruding on him MUCH better than does Civ3. By far.

Ever wonder why Sid is following Will Wright around like a lost puppy dog?

[Libertarian]

Positive determinism is the supposition that there is no randomness in the universe. That with the proper (theoretical) tools one could, by observing the first few miliseconds of the Big Bang, predict all future events. The universe is one big cause and effect chain and randomness is simply a result of our lack of ability to perceive and understand the myriad interactions that bring about events.

In other words, with enough knowledge I could predict the throw of a die every single time.

[...shrug...]

Sounds to me like nothing more than a rather simplified description of historical determinism. I've searched my own texts and the Internet in vain for any reference to a "positive determinism". Once again, do you have a link?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by cutlerd

I can show you how if you are really that clueless.

You had me engrossed right up till that point. Why ruin an otherwise excellent *dissertation* with ad hominems?

Salve

[Doc Paradox]

Another one of (ahem) These threads:

You know, in reference to all the end game issues, hasn't Civ been tedious in ALL it's incarnations in the end game? That doesn't prevent us from playing like rats pressing a bar for more cocaine but I've always found the end game tedious. The end is ALWAYS anticlimactic. It's like sex that way: all that effort and in retrospect you can't figure out what the big deal was about. But while you are in the thick of it, nothing anyone can say is going detract you from the big prize.

Lib? Cutlerd? Ayn Rand called, she wants her vocabulary (as well as her objectivist epistem) back, you wacky logical positivists!
The verbiage devoted to this issue, much like the silence between Pascal's infinite spaces, frightens me. Or wasn't it Derrida that said that...oh nevermind.

yin, are you ever going to find true love?, or are you going to be like the Monster and chase Frankenstein to above the arctic circle (where funny enough the AI has already built 10 cities) and then bemoan you luck when the good doctor dies after you have killed him.

You know this all reminds me of the other day when I bought me a Betty Blowup (TM) doll at the local Dildonics Boutique and after getting her home I was Shocked and Dismayed as a Consumer to find that her ***** or her ******* did NOT feel like the REAL thing as it was Plainly Stated on the Outside of the Box. How dare the sex toy industry make claims like that.

anywho...thanks for the infotainment

[Libertarian]

Lib? Cutlerd? Ayn Rand called, she wants her vocabulary (as well as her objectivist epistem) back, you wacky logical positivists!

Ayn Rand was a vacuous whore.

[Libertarian]

Trifna:

I attempted to respond to your PM, but you're not enabled. Kindly advise when you've changed your status.

[Doc Paradox]

Ayn Rand was a vacuous whore.

Agreed.
Sorry for the off-topic.
But other than the "My 50-cent word can beat up your 50-cent word" game, isn't it as simple as: the reason we complain about things in Civ III that were in Civ II is [are]:
(a) we forgave them in Civ II because of the improvements over Civ I,

(b) Civ III was posited as a Holy Grail solution (i.e., it would NEVER live up to Fan expectations ultimately, much like Deep Thought talking about "the computer that will come after me" in Hitchhiker's Guide, that is, the copout of 42

(c) we're all spoiled brats who should be doing something more productive than posting about about a computer game (e.g. Dilbert reading a strategy guide for a computer GOLF (!) game, or Amy's "Wow it feels just like I'm playing Virtual Skeeball" in Futurama), or is it,

(d) we're all really TIRED of the Civ franchise or TBS but like the aging beautyqueen afraid to admit it for fear that the admission presages our own mortality. (D) sounds like a whack theory to me. We WANT Civ III to be impossibly great, perfect even, like the guy who marries his fifth wife with the assumption that she'll HAVE to be an improvement over the other four.
Sorry for the mixed metaphors, but my own disenchantment with Civ III is becoming very much like a bad drug habit, i.e., I still play it even though I don't like it as much as I used to. I often wonder what I AM looking for in the game.

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Why should the AI's strategy be limited? Certainly, it is a valid strategy. I use it myself, sometimes to great effect.

Because as it is now, the AI plants cities randomly all over the place without regard to borders, and neglects culture to build military units and more settlers with which to found more cities randomly all over the place without regard to borders, and doesn't apparently enforce its own borders against settler expeditions from other AI's, either. I'll give you an example - I played a game on Marla's map with the utility that moves all the civs to their correct starting locations. What we think of as Siberia ended up as a patchwork quilt of cities founded by all the European civs plus China & India, almost none of which had even expanded their borders past the initial 1 tile radius so you could actually go anywhere you wanted without border violations by passing in between them. That is, frankly, rediculous - it looks rediculous and such cities are utterly indefensible because they are too far from each other or the core around the capital to be mutually supporting. So, the AI is currently limited - to do something that is stupid, ahistorical and annoying (to me at least). Fixing it so it is as smart and flexible as a human is probably not possible. Fixing it so it is still limited but is now limited to do something that makes sense most of the time is a huge improvement, and probably quite doable.

[Deathwalker]

Well I never, is that the reason

[Zachriel]

On the Siberia question, just rush-build a temple and the borders will expand to 2 tiles.

In any case, if the AI is making such dumb moves you should be able to exploit it and absorb or conquer those towns. And if I want to randomly place my towns, what is wrong with that again?

[Calvin Vu]

Originally posted by Zachriel
First, always husband your elite units and feed them victories.

How else do I get a leader ? Do you really think that I just sit and pray in my walled cities ? I do use my elite units and fight like everyone else.

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by Zachriel
On the Siberia question, just rush-build a temple and the borders will expand to 2 tiles.

Don't tell me, tell the AI.

Originally posted by Zachriel In any case, if the AI is making such dumb moves you should be able to exploit it and absorb or conquer those towns.

Yes, but it is more fun to beat the AI when it behaves in a reasonable manner than it is to exploit its stupidity.

Originally posted by Zachriel And if I want to randomly place my towns, what is wrong with that again?

If you want to do it, have a ball. I just don't want the AI to do it because it is stupid, ahistorical and annoying.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Calvin Vu
How else do I get a leader ? Do you really think that I just sit and pray in my walled cities ? I do use my elite units and fight like everyone else.

May I quote you?
"Unless you have the patience to wait a few hundred turns for a one-shield one gold city to build the Forbidden Palace, it's more like praying for a leader to emerge so you could build the Forbidden Palace where it is needed. Strategic planning ?

Yes, strategic planning. How many leaders do you usually get? If one, then save it for the Forbidden Palace. I usually get 2-3 and save one for a rainy day.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by cutlerd
CIV3 has thrown a monkey wrench in their comfortable CIV2 domination fantasies. They can no longer tech blitz. They can no longer blitz through enemy territory with armour and spies. They can no longer build every unit in the game willy nilly with no thought of resources. They can no longer take city after city with nary a garrison in them. They can no longer build the UN and constantly start wars of aggression as Republics or Democracies. They can no longer build massive world spanning empires and not worry one whit about the difficulties of running such a huge sprawling mess.

In other words, they can no longer indulge their megalo-maniacial Napolean-complexed world domination mental masturbations unfettered from the needs of strategic planning.

But that´s wrong! Where have you been over the last 6 weeks? Did you never hear about the pop rush?

What makes CivIII such a mess (among some other things) is that you can so easily win in Despotism by conquering everything with a totally boring Horseman-to-Knight-to-Cavalry-***-Forced-Labour 'strategy'. Therefore they omitted Multiplayer, because everybody would have seen immediately that there is only one way to win if you are serious about it. I am not a big fan of AoK, but it has zillions of viable strategies. CivIII has only one, if you do play to win. With MP, people will see how repetitive the game really is.

And that is another reason why a game must include Multiplayer: Because Multiplayer is the only serious way to test the game for balance issues! But they knew there are plenty such issues, and Multiplayer would have immediately revealed them; therefore no Multiplayer.

[ACooper]

FIRAXIS why don't you listen to me?

The only way I can win is by exploiting the game! I have no mind of my own!!!!!

Oh, I do hate moving units around, it doesn't facilitate me or my inner child!!!!!!! I want a stack!!! I want the interface to read my mind!!!!! I want to know the difference between a transport and a worker!!!!!!!!

And I won't tell you why I'm still here I've stated it a thousand times before!!!!!!!!!!!!! And I'll stay here until this game no longer SUX or I get a life!!!!!!!!

I'm an important person, I've posted the same old monkey Sh*t 500,000 times!!!!!!

I WANT MULTI-PLAYER BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY HUMAN CONTACT I CAN HAVE WHEN MOMMIE SENDS ME TO MY ROOM!!!



MY GOD! This is tedious.

[Calvin Vu]

Originally posted by cutlerd
The only game with "sky's the limit" is one with no rules. That by definition is not a game...its a daydream. It is obvious that what you want is a sim. I suggest playing Sim City, though even that has rules.

You've got limits, laws, and rules all mixed up. Limits are just arbitrary (and even temporary) restraints like, "You can buy 2-litre Coke bottle for 50c each today, but there's a litmit of 2 bottles per customer". Tech advancements must follow a RULE of tech progression, any reasonable rule will do and any set of names will be fine with me.

Originally posted by cutlerd
You want to argue that CIV3 is too restrictive for your tastes...fine...I'm listening. But you want to argue that somehow CIV2 had no limitations at all and that your ideal for the genre is no rules whatsoever....then yer crazy.

I said the limit was in yourself, not that there were no limits. You had your own limits and you had to operate within the game rules. You still need to get all the shields and gold and crank out all the settlers and cities adn satisfy the research requirement, for example. Somehow, I feel glad that you didn't put words in my mouth that I advocated that all techs would be available with no gold research requirement.

Originally posted by cutlerd
You must find the fact that you can't see the entire map in CIV2 from the start galling right? And the fact that you can't sail away from the coast safely before certain advances to be extremely limiting eh?

This is silly, isn't it ? Where did I remotely say that ?

Originally posted by cutlerd
Doesn't SMAC start with a premise that allows it to start with future techs? If CIV2 and CIV3 had shipped with a known bug that allowed you to build stealth aircraft as your first tech advance in 4000BC and you would have no problem with it....then I actually feel pity for your lack of standards.

Again you got game rules(i.e. those which stay thoughout the game and set the standard for the competition) mixed up with the arbitrary limits (like you can get only one tech research after 32/40 turns at the beginning regardless how much gold you throw into research).

Originally posted by cutlerd
As far as more choices being better, that's very easy to deflate. Why aren't you crying out for a civ game where all techs are available at all times in the game instantly? After all...that's more choices ain't it?
I mean...having to learn Theory of Gravity in Civ2 before you learned Flight....that was such a pain wasn't it? It really limited your choices didn't it? All strategy games are about working within limits and the choices for a strategy game usually involve opportunity costs.

It's not. More choices is like what you get with the different civ traits in Civ III. More choices do not imply no rules.

Originally posted by cutlerd
So I am not sure exactly what the heck you are arguing for....the abolition of ALL rules in ALL CIV games?

Where did I said that ? It's obvious you've got things mixed up.

Originally posted by cutlerd
In CIV2, once you had rail lines you had to garrison every single city because an enemy could arrive anywhere in one turn.
Chew on that.

I grant you this one point, when playing against a human opponent, of course. The AI civs are never that smart.

Originally posted by cutlerd
The only other example you give is caravans. If that is the epitomy of strategic planning for you in CIV2 I feel for you. I don't think I have seen a single person decry the loss of caravans from CIV2 before you.

Some do, they don't bother to come to the Civ III forum though.

Originally posted by cutlerd
Wrong. You can also gain them by culture.

Unless the resource is only a few squares away from you, by the time you get it by culture, it probably won't matter any more. Not that I don't do it. I regularly build a new city only one square away from another civ, across a resource, rush a temple and snatch the resource away by culture. I don't call it strategy, more like an easy tactics. Strategy, to me, is something that takes a few hundred turns to carry the plan out and see it to fruition.

Originally posted by cutlerd
You also have to adjust your entire strategy based on resources. If there is no iron anywhere on my island and I am neighbour to the Romans, they are far FAR less a threat to me than if I am on an island next to the Romans and they have access to Iron. I would play the game two entirely different ways depending on my access to iron. That in itself creates two different strategies where in CIV2 there would be one.

In CIV2 I start the game and I end up on an island next to the Romans. There is no divergance of corcumstances after that point. The island itself doesn't matter. The fact that my neighbour is the Romans doesn't matter. Once you determine the size of the island and its terrain, every CIV2 game with those parameters is like every other one with those parameters.

So, Civ II was somewhat boring because it has less alternatives/choices/divergences of circumstances. On the other hand, it gives you a little more leg room to play the game the way you enjoy it rather than forcing you into playing the game a certain way based upon
factors beyond your control.

Originally posted by cutlerd
But in CIV3, that same island and same terrain and same neighbour now transform into a huge variety of different circumstances each requiring different strategies. Does the island have iron or horses? What civ are you? Do your ancient units depend on iron or horses? Who are your neighbours? Do their ancient units depend on iron or horses?

So what if the Roman has access to both iron and horse plus a battalion of settlers looking for more camp grounds while you have none of these resources, what do you do ? Paying all the tributes and wait for a better time or restarting the game ?

Originally posted by cutlerd
You hoard horse resources? What if you don't have any? You discover wheel? What does that do for you? Chariots aren't that great. War chariots aren't either.

If I tell you that by the time I build the settlers, escost them to the horse sites, and set up the road to the bigger cities with barracks, I would be able to get
Horse Riding by that time, will you believe it ?

Originally posted by cutlerd
The AI DOES deal with you based on your past actions. No there isn't a little honor point readout for you to say "I have 25 honour points" but it should be painfully obvious after a few games that if you are a backstabbing bastard in the game you are not going to win any friends and the AI reacts accordingly. You CAN give away a city for goodwill and to gain alliances. Did you somehow skip the entire diplomacy feature of the game in your made desire to conquer the world with chariots?

Oh well, I just got curious about the mental health of the AI civs after the English changed their attitude from "magnanimous" to "furious", declared war and attacked me in ONE turn. I gave them some gold the previous turn and did nothing to harm them so I'm still clueless as to why they fell off the cliff and forced me into annihilating them. Needless to say, I need something more concrete, like an honor point system, before I could trust them again.

Originally posted by cutlerd
Because I don't want to play with myself. I feel happy when I overcome obstacles to win a game.

So you like the limit because it would make it harder for other human players to attack you while they are under democracy ? There's no MP version of Civ III yet as far as I know, so you can't be so sure here . I find the unhappiness problem much easier to deal with than the fact that all other AI civs would gang up on me if I am fight under Monarchy. BTW, I'm essentially a peacenik and I fight only because some neighbors think it's smart to declare war only.

Originally posted by cutlerd
Do you only feel happy if you are essentially playing a game with all the challenge of an etch-a-sketch?

With imagination, there's a lot you can do with an etch-a-sketch ?

Originally posted by cutlerd
Pump up your city so that it is producing more than 1 shield per turn.... I can show you how if you are really that clueless.

This must be a joke, right ? Actually, I never tried to get my one-shield one-gold cities beyond size 12. Are you saying that if I spend around 10,000 gold to buy all the improvements to control the unhappiness and get these cities to size 32, say, then I will be able to get like, 2 shields per turn ? What a deal, I must try it sometimes to get some clue.

Originally posted by cutlerd
Doing better requires, de facto, something to measure against. And that requires, de facto again, some sort of universe with rules to operate in.

That's true. But rules do not mean arbitrary and artificial limits that come and go for no logical reason.
Do you like a "rule" which says that in the year 1 AD, and in that year only, you can only have a max. of 20 military units and all those beyond 20 units will be automatically disbanded ? This is to prevent the military blitz just like the 32-turn rule is designed to prevent the tech blitz. Then a rule to prevent luxury resource hoarding, another to prevent strategic resource hoarding, etc. You will end up with a system where nothing you do will make much of a difference at all.

Originally posted by cutlerd
If the challenge is in yourself, why the hell are you even playing the game? Open your front door....go outside....and ram your head into the nearest parked car at full speed until you fall unconscious. Then, when you recover...see if you can beat that record. Keep doing it and see what your high score is.
I prefer a game where I test myself against the obstacles inherent in the game and learn to best them. As an adjunct of that I then also see, once I best them, how well I can do so.

I play the game for fun and I repeat it until the fun factor is gone. The good thing about looking for fun instead of looking for fake problems to solve is that it produces less stress and you're much less likely to spill out venom that way.
BTW, even Fixrasis fixed that corruption problem in the patches so it's not quite "obstacles inherent in the game" as you claimed. It just made the game tedious, pointless, and less fun.

[Libertarian]

I've posted the same old monkey Sh*t 500,000 times...

At least that much is true.

By the way, I'd like to remind you — again — that when I've selected the fourth worker on the list, but a transport activates instead, it indicates that the INTERFACE (the thing I clicked) is the one that cannot tell the difference between a worker and a transport.

Apparently, you can't tell the difference between an interface and a user.

[Deornwulf]

Cutlerd, you seem to avoiding responding to some of the most piercing criticisms to Civilization III. Perhaps you have not read any of mine so I will elucidate.

1. The game has no stacked movement. This feature has already appeared in other games and it is not unreasonable to have expected it in Civ III.

2. The social engineering model for government used in SMAC provided for a more interesting challenge in conforming a government to our particular playing styles. Instead, we get five choices that are clearly set up in a progressive manner insinuating that one form of government is superior to another. If not Social Engineering, I could at least be given more choices.

3. Further on government, the corruption model is totally unrealistic. Why should the distance of a city from the center of government affect the level of corruption? Aren't there more creative ways to throw corruption into the game? Why have government affect so few aspects of the game? IMO, the programmers choose the easiest way from a programming stance and could care less about player interest.

4. The game was/still is touted on the website as to having features that would put it beyond any of its predecessors

--More interactions, alliances and realistic artificial intelligence responses put players in the middle of negotiations, trade systems and diplomatic actions.

I have yet to see the realistic AI responses to my actions. And as for trade, why doesn't the computer ever think that three luxuries are better than one?

--Advanced trade system to manage resources, trade routes and spread of technology.

Resources are a great idea. I like the concept of imposing limits on a civilization that is without a resource but Civ III's implementation is poor at best. Why should one iron resource allow me to build swordsmen in all of my cities? Imperialism II had a much more realistic trade system.

--Improved combat options provide finer levels of control for enhanced war-making capabilities.

Ask Yin or Libertarian about this one, I get sick to the stomach when I think about it. The "enhanced war-making" comment kills your peaceful game argument.

--Technologies, Wonders Of The World and Great People expand the scope of the game.

How does eliminating technologies or wonders expand the game? And as for Great People, just what is that refering to?

--Easier-to-use interface for streamlined management and better control.

If it is so streamlined, why do people complain of it so much?

All of these are features promised by the website but not delivered to the satisfaction of some of the consumers. French fries and a burger can be a satisfying meal but not when you are told to expect a steak and baked potato. Civ II was a game that I would not stop playing, regardless of its flaws. I have stopped playing Civ III. I don't think the change was me, otherwise I would not own Civ, Civ II, CTP, CTP II, MOO, MOO II, EU, EU II, or any of my other Civ type games. So , my conclusion would have to be that Civ III is flawed. The designers have not capitalized on the advances available in programming. The features of the game do not represent a huge advancement in the series.

Deornwulf - The English Teacher

[Ironikinit]

Deornwulf

Fine post.

Stacked movement: I can think of a few instances where I would like to have it, such as escorting settlers with a defensive unit to a prospective city site or escorting bombardment units. Other than that I'm not missing it, and I fail to see the big deal in it being left out.

I agree that the social engineering model in SMAC was quite cool and maybe something similar would've been cool for Civ 3. I don't agree that Civ 3's government types are "clearly set up in a progressive manner insinuating that one form of government is superior to another" because republic can be attained before monarchy, for instance. No government type is a required tech, as I recall, and players have asserted that they can win the whole game never leaving despotism. I haven't checked that out, but if so, it's a throwback to the overpowered despotism of Civ 1. As an aside to the poster who asserted that MP was not released because of the imbalance caused by despotism: You are assuming a great deal. We won't know the extent of the imbalance until MP is released, and many of us won't know even then because we won't be playing multi player. In any event, you presume to know the cause of that choice without backing facts.

Back to Deornwulf. As to corruption, wasn't distance from the capitol the determiner of corruption in previous Civ games? While it may be unrealistic, it's not something new. What other aspects of the game would you like government to influence? Aren't commerce rate, corruption, and the ability to wage war enough? Consider all that commerce rate effects affects: tech advancement, happiness, need for luxury, etc. Small changes can cause a lot of chaos.

Some of us didn't read the hype about the game, and therefore weren't disappointed by it. However, given the number of highly positive reviews I read before I got Civ 3, my expectations were high. Those expectations were met.

I'm curious why I can't trade my 3 silk to 3 different AI players myself. Maybe it's not a bad thing, though, given how much time I spend trading as it is.

I played Imperialism 2, fine game. However, its resource system applied to Civ 3 might not work out. As to the idea of one iron source supplying an entire country being unrealistic, maybe a bit of suspension of disbelief is in order.

My guess is that "great people" = "great leaders". Typo.

I'm left guessing why people complain so much about the interface myself.

Every single one of the games that you listed that I've played had problems of their own (esp. EU). I enjoyed them, though, just as I am currently enjoying Civ 3. Many other people are as well, and professional reviews that I've seen are overwhelmingly positive. The change could be in you, or perhaps Civ 3 is different enough from its predecessors to not suit you. In the end, none of the criticisms of the game you have made strike me as particularly damning. Thanks for reading.

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by Deornwulf
1. The game has no stacked movement. This feature has already appeared in other games and it is not unreasonable to have expected it in Civ III.

I am generally critical of Civ3, but this one bugs me extrordinarily. "Appeared in other games" doesn't count. "Appeared in previous games in the series" counts. "Appeared in a feature list provided by the publisher/developer" counts. "Appeared in a previous game by the same developer but outside the series" sorta counts. "Appeared in a game in the same genre by somebody else" does not. The fact that the CTP series is a knock-off of the Civ series enabled by legal technicalities does not make Civ3 a sequel to CTP2. "It would have been nice" is valid - "it is a base expectation" is not.

Originally posted by Deornwulf
2. The social engineering model for government used in SMAC provided for a more interesting challenge in conforming a government to our particular playing styles. Instead, we get five choices that are clearly set up in a progressive manner insinuating that one form of government is superior to another. If not Social Engineering, I could at least be given more choices.

Here I can agree - whereas SMAC was by the same developer and was itself arguably a "sequel" to Civ from the story line perspective, it is at least a "kissing cousin" of the series, so major features from SMAC should be included unless there is a good reason not to (rooted in gameplay differences between the "historical survey" and "science fiction" subgenres, which the sMAC social engineering system is not).

Originally posted by Deornwulf
3. Further on government, the corruption model is totally unrealistic. Why should the distance of a city from the center of government affect the level of corruption? Aren't there more creative ways to throw corruption into the game? Why have government affect so few aspects of the game? IMO, the programmers choose the easiest way from a programming stance and could care less about player interest.

Nevertheless, this is the basic way corruption has always worked in Civ, so having it still work that way in Civ3 is perfectly valid.

Originally posted by Deornwulf
4. The game was/still is touted on the website as to having features that would put it beyond any of its predecessors

--More interactions, alliances and realistic artificial intelligence responses put players in the middle of negotiations, trade systems and diplomatic actions.

I have yet to see the realistic AI responses to my actions. And as for trade, why doesn't the computer ever think that three luxuries are better than one?

--Advanced trade system to manage resources, trade routes and spread of technology.

Resources are a great idea. I like the concept of imposing limits on a civilization that is without a resource but Civ III's implementation is poor at best. Why should one iron resource allow me to build swordsmen in all of my cities? Imperialism II had a much more realistic trade system.

As did Imperialism I. It was by no means mandatory that Civ3 include resources at all, but given that they did all criticism of how they implimented it is perfectly valid, as is comparison to the implimentation of the same feature in other non-related games. The resource implimentation, and the related compromise of combat system realism, is a major failing of Civ3 and rather easily avoidable given the available examples of better implimentations.

Originally posted by Deornwulf
--Improved combat options provide finer levels of control for enhanced war-making capabilities.

Ask Yin or Libertarian about this one, I get sick to the stomach when I think about it. The "enhanced war-making" comment kills your peaceful game argument.

This does not follow. Providing enhanced methods to win the game without warfare and enhanced capabilities for those who choose to wage war anyway are not mutually exclusive. That being said, a number of the new features were good in principle but foundered on the details.

Originally posted by Deornwulf
--Technologies, Wonders Of The World and Great People expand the scope of the game.

How does eliminating technologies or wonders expand the game? And as for Great People, just what is that refering to?

Probably to Leaders, who are named after arguably "great" people.

Originally posted by Deornwulf
--Easier-to-use interface for streamlined management and better control.

If it is so streamlined, why do people complain of it so much?

Because they have unrealistic expectations. "Streamlined" is a relative term. If the interface is in any way arguably "Easier-to-use interface for streamlined management and better control" vs Civ2, this promise is arguably delivered because this is a sequel. If they had said "revolutionary" or "genre redefining" or some such (as is in fact being said by the developers of MOO3), your objection would be valid.

Originally posted by Deornwulf
All of these are features promised by the website but not delivered to the satisfaction of some of the consumers.

Basically, "to the satisfaction of some of the consumers" is an unachievable standard. "Arguably" is a more reasonable one.

Originally posted by Deornwulf
So , my conclusion would have to be that Civ III is flawed. The designers have not capitalized on the advances available in programming. The features of the game do not represent a huge advancement in the series.

I agree wholeheartedly with the conclusion, but reject much of the reasoning behind it. IMO (for what that is worth), the minimum standard for a sequel is:

1) Includes without exception all the same features as the previous iteration (all patches & expansions installed) - substititution of a different implimentation of the same feature is OK if arguably an improvement, but mere simplification fails the test.
2) Updated to work on current gaming OS's if this has changed since the last iteration in the series.
3) Updated to current mainstream (not necessarily the same as "cutting edge" or "state of the art") graphics & sound standards WITHIN the same genre if this has changed since the last iteration in the series, with an excuse granted if the lack is due to maintaining the modability of previous games in the same series (the loss of which would constitute a violation of #1).
4) All known & acknowledged bugs from the previous iteration in the series which never got patched get fixed.
5) Any new features promised by the developer/publisher in any public forum are arguably delivered.
6) Any new (to the series) features which are present in other games of the same genre are arguably implimented in a manner that equals or exceeds the competition.

Civ3 does, as it stands today, fail miserably against this standard.