Some research on Civ3

[SlightlyMadman]

a
a
c

[Kinnie]

1.a
2.d
3.b

[GePap]

1.b
Got it as soon as it came out but had a dry spell between 98-99.
2.a
I like building huge empires through internal growth, not conquest. I also found some of the military management boring, specially early on (2000 years to cross asia? A bit much)
3.d
No scenerios ! Various other problems

Hey, look, it spells BAD, how interesting

[August Borms]

b
e
d

[moi]

abd

[Sze]

a - though I only played for a few months before giving up on it, I hated the way the AI responded in the end game
b
d

[cassembler]

b
c
b

[Screwball54]

1. A
2. A
3. C

[gachnar]

B
B
B

[EnochF]

A
B
D

[Alex]

1. B
2. B
3. B

No, Civ3 is not perfect, but I like it.

Old civ formula, that may be the problem, but I intend to discuss this later...

[RichM]

1) a
2) c
3) d

I think that civ3 improves some of the gameplay, but greatly lacks atmosphere. It's a little too much like work rather than conquering the world.

[gremalkin]

1) a
2) d
3) c

Gotta do something about the end-game..

[Steve Clark]

1. b - 3 years this month

2. none of the above - goal is usually to achieve a Major Victory in the scenario's objectives

3. none of the above - ask me when we start playing Civ3 scenarios

[DilithiumDad]

1. e --I believe I am the first to answer this way. Was playing Deadlock and Deadlock2 while you guys were playing Civ, then I went to Starcraft and SMAC/X.
2. Not applicable! I guess Alpha Centari because of SMAC playing!
3. b --Only significant problem is late game and that long stretch in the Industrial Era before Tanks where you research techs that have no impact.

[techumseh]

Here's the report: There were 43 responses (I included mine: a,e,d). 3 were incomplete and were therefore discarded.

The respondents were a veteran group: 57.5% had played Civ 2 for 5+ yrs, 37.5% for 3-4 yrs, 5% for 1-2 yrs and none had played less than 1 year.

Opinions on Civ3 were very evenly distributed. 32.5% were either extremely or very satisfied, 35% were somewhat satisfied and 32.5% were either not very or not satisfied.

Player strategies for Civ2 were interesting. 42.5% of respondents either always or usually went for Alpha Centauri, 35% were always or usually bent on world conquest and 22.5% used both strategies. Players are most likely to have a clear preference of Civ2 strategies.

Of those who had played for 5+ yrs, 22% were either extremely or very satisfied, 43% were somewhat satisfied and 35% were either not very or not satisfied. Of those who had played less than 5 years, 47% were either extremely or very satisfied, 24% were somewhat satisfied and 29% were either not very or not satisfied. Those who have played Civ2 from the time of its' initial release are significantly less likely to be very or extremely satisfied with Civ3 than those who have played for a somewhat shorter time.

Of those who are extremely or very satisfied with Civ3, 38.5% always or usually use the Alpha Centauri strategy, 23% are 50/50, and 38.5% usually or always try to conquer the world. Of those who are somewhat satisfied, 43% always or usually use the Alpha Centauri strategy, 21% are 50/50, and 36% usually or always try to conquer the world. Of those who are not very or not satisfied with Civ3, 46% always or usually use the Alpha Centauri strategy, 23% are 50/50, and 31% usually or always try to conquer the world.

My initial theory was that players who liked to conquer the world in Civ2 would be LESS likely to enjoy Civ3 because of late game tedium (too big an empire and too many units) The data, while not statistically significant, tends to indicate the opposite. Slightly more of those who are more or less dissatisfied with Civ3 use the AC strategy (46%) as opposed to 31% who try to conquer the world.

Because of the small sample size and self selecting group of respondents, no clear conclusions can be drawn from this. But it was fun.

[Venger]

A
E
D

Venger

[Capt Dizle]

A
C
K

[techumseh]

I
?
U

[Asmodean]

[Calorman]

clap clap