Fun

[series0]

Q. Why is CivIII no fun?

A. ( my perspective )

1. Difficulty levels just give all kinds of stuff to your enemies instead of wha they SHOULD do: make the AI controlling them smarter only ( like chess ).

2. Much attention to graphics and animations. Very little if any to AI code and depth of interactions between nations, etc. Most strategy players would happily ditch the graphics for more realism and depth in the functional code. CivIII is pretty but DUMB!

3. Same useless interactions screens between nations as have plagued this genre of games forever now. How about this as just one example: Declare national Boundary so potential allies will know not to cross it. ( Manifest Destiny ). Also make the other nations make some sense and have a possibility of being a friend or even a tried and true ally over the course of the game.

4. SLOW - No excuse for the tedious time it takes to do the enemy turns. Again, who cares about the interface just do it!

5. Building empires is too slow with the 2 population per settler rule and 1 per worker. I would like to build a respectable empire with a dozen or so units before the game would even expect civilizations to meet. I should have a promising capital city and 4-6 satelite cities and then start encountering the enemy. I am lucky to have 3 cities as it is.

6. No barbarians when taking huts inside the first 30-45 turns. It's just pointless!

7. Unit stacking and total army stacking and total army strength rules needed badly!

[TheHobbit]

Originally posted by series0
Q. Why is CivIII no fun?

*Civ3 is fun though!

( my perspective )
1. Difficulty levels just give all kinds of stuff to your enemies instead of wha they SHOULD do: make the AI controlling them smarter only ( like chess ).

*I agree to a point but you have to realize that humans aren't able to make computers actually think. They give the AI stuff to simulate the advantage a good player would have in place for what modern technology cannot yet do. But the AI isn't as good as possible, it is good enough for me but thats my opinion.

2. Much attention to graphics and animations. Very little if any to AI code and depth of interactions between nations, etc. Most strategy players would happily ditch the graphics for more realism and depth in the functional code. CivIII is pretty but DUMB!

*It isnt dumb, it isnt pretty either. The graphics are good and the AI is far from stupid....

4. SLOW - No excuse for the tedious time it takes to do the enemy turns. Again, who cares about the interface just do it!

* Its a matter of computer speed. The top time for the computer to think on huge map 16 civs later in the game is 20 seconds..

5. Building empires is too slow with the 2 population per settler rule and 1 per worker. I would like to build a respectable empire with a dozen or so units before the game would even expect civilizations to meet. I should have a promising capital city and 4-6 satelite cities and then start encountering the enemy. I am lucky to have 3 cities as it is.

*I wouldn't know if its true or if I just suck at the game

6. No barbarians when taking huts inside the first 30-45 turns. It's just pointless!

*I've run into barbarians a lot in early game. Especially in huts!

7. Unit stacking and total army stacking and total army strength rules needed badly!

*Patience, things don't come to those who wait. But hey if you have patience waiting out eternity is that much easier.

[series0]

Granted I am playing an unpatched version but I am a developer and I have a great system and still AI turns take 1-2.5 minutes and I have never gotten out of the golden age.

I admit patience was never counted among my talents. I think of impatience as a virtue regarding quality and efficiency analysis.

I just played a game where 5 elite archers couldnt beat 2 veteran spearmen on a plains square attacking from the hills. Pleh!

[Darth Sidious]

4: no problem for me, but i only play standard sized maps

5: go play sim city, i like it the way it is.

6: they are good to make your units leet, though i'd prefer to get techs out of every hut as well ^^


the rest i MORE OR LESS agree with.
Yes there are things to dislike, but overal it is an ok game IMO.

[reds4ever]

series, in answer to question 5, the easiest winning tactic in Civ2, was to pump out settlers and build cities everywhere in the early game (they cost 1 pop point and could build roads, mines etc). you would end up with a lot of empty size 2 or 3 cities, which ultimately would probally win you the game as the higher difficulty levels penalized bigger cities early on anyhow.

i'm glad they put a stop to this as it's not,IMO, in the spirit of building a "Civilization", which is also why they put the concept of 'culture' in. You must expand carefully and not overextend yourself.

the early game does seem to give the advantage to the defensive units, but this again is probally due to Civ2, where a good MP tactic was to build as many horsemen as soon as possible and walk (ride) through your opponents, they were too powerfull offensively and even finding 2 or 3 in huts gave you quite an advantage.

also, in combat only the defenders terrian is taken into account, so the fact your archers were on a hill did not affect the outcome

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by series0
Granted I am playing an unpatched version but I am a developer and I have a great system and still AI turns take 1-2.5 minutes and I have never gotten out of the golden age.

I admit patience was never counted among my talents. I think of impatience as a virtue regarding quality and efficiency analysis.

I just played a game where 5 elite archers couldnt beat 2 veteran spearmen on a plains square attacking from the hills. Pleh!

but you surely rejoice when those are YOUR spearmen, eh?

[Dis]

that's not the point. I wouldn't be upset if my spearman lost in that situation. serves me right for leaving them out in the open.

In fact my spearman routinely lose to archers. doesn't bother me in the least bit.

[series0]

If the spearmen archer situation were reversed my spearmen would each lose to 1 archer in turn. That is because of the hidden difficulty multiple added to enemy combat units. I do not think difficulty level should add to this, at least certainly not near as much as it obviously does. I find myself "afraid" to attack with clearly superior units. In war it is customary of smart commanders to avoid encounters you cannot win, period. Let's suppose I have one elite archer and one elite Impi on a hill. There are on a hill so the Impi gets the hill bonus to defend BOTH units. The archer is there to attack passing units it SHOULD be able to kill with relative certainty. My issue is that enemy spearmen and even warriors and archers who should likely be beaten if they are veterans or regulars are ALMOST NEVER beaten by one elite archer. I find myself thinking about letting them pass to save my units! That is ridiculous. It cost me Soooooooo much more to produce that unit than it did them on diety level, and then they also get a hidden combat multiple? Give me a break! I firmly believe there should be no hidden difficulty level multiple for combat. That alone would make the game playable. I want a challenge but not stupidly impossible. I can cope with all the difficulties up through the emperor level. At diety it is just stupid. I guess Ill back off and just play emperor.