Why I like Civ 3 (and why I don't), a really long post...

[Albert B]

There has been a lot of discussion about Civ 3's good and bad qualities. I have started to respond to several threads in the civ 3 forums that were turning into quite the lengthy narrative. Thus I decided to write it out as a document and then create a new thread to post my long winded babble for all to behold…

First, I would like to give my Civ 'career' resume, because this appears to make a difference to many on the message boards. I have been playing the Civ series of games since sometime shortly after Civ 1 was available (I am pretty sure it was it was the summer of '91 that my obsession began). A friend introduced me and another friend to the game early in the summer after a college buddy introduced him to the game the previous winter/spring. The 3 of us played many a night with a case of beer and civ. We even missed a few good parties due to starting a game early in the evening to kill some time and then being sucked in by the 'just-one-more-turn' syndrome that Civ is (in)famously known for spreading. I have continued to be addicted to the Civ series, playing countless games of Civ 1 and 2 (MGE only) and several Civ 3 games. However, since the early days of playing, I have (arguably) grown up, gotten married, acquired a 'real' job and started a family. Therefore, the all-nighter games are a very rare occurrence. I consider myself to be a very good Civ player, nowhere near the top as I have learned by finding this sight, but very good. For reference sake, I almost always play(ed) Civ 2 on Emperor level and always won easily. I have defeated deity but never embraced the massive unhappiness issues presented by this level. Instead I would impose certain limitations on myself during my games to try to keep them competitive and interesting. My play-style is probably best described as 2/3 perfectionist, 1/3 other (expansionist, warmonger, etc). I never got into playing games to see how fast I could conquer the world or land my spaceship but rather to develop a Civ that had a 'compelling history'. Due to the ease of purchasing the rest of the world once I became powerful, my endgames usually consisted of me launching a massive diplomatic (spy) assault on the world as my spaceship was on its way, which, however, I found to be quite the boring game. As a last point before I move on to the meat of this article, I wish to restate and emphasize (for those that care) that I have never played SMAC, CtP or any other alternate version of the Civ series. Anyway, on to the point...

Why I like Civ 3 (and think it is a vast improvement over Civ 2):
Below is listed the reasons I really like the latest installment in the Civ series of games. They are listed in a pseudo-ranked order of favorite improvement first, but several of the ideas were just added as I thought of them and are not necessarily in order. A common thread in many of the concepts I like is that many building are no longer useless or it has become more important to build them earlier. See individual items below for more detail. Also, I will try to limit the use of 'real life' examples to support game play improvements for 2 reasons: First, this is a game not a sim and thus realism can and should only go so far. Secondly, the 'realism' arguments are really a double-edged sword, because for every example of support they offer, there is usually at least one equally valid example to be used against it.

1. Cultural/national borders - an incredible improvement to game play and a much better method of controlling territory than having to establish ZOC's with a mass of units and forts, which had several documented work-arounds that rendered ZOC's virtually ineffective (at least for the AI and against other human opponents). Please note that cultural flips have happened rarely in my games meaning that either I have been very lucky or possibly just more tolerant/acceptant of such game play mechanics. Also, building temples, cathedrals, libraries and other culture scoring improvements becomes more of an early game priority to help expand your borders and/or join your cities.

2. Strategic and luxury resource system - people argue that it adds luck into the equation but not much more than was already present with random starting positions, initial tech gifts, and other luck influenced factors. For me, this is a great game play enhancer that adds a lot of depth to the gaming experience as well as new goals to achieve.

3. Improved AI - Although accused of massive cheating by Civ 3's detractors, the improvements made in the AI's civ building, strategy and military tactics are tremendous. Some complain that the AI expands to quickly, however, I consider this tactic one of its strongest. In Civ 1 and 2, the AI civs always ended up being small, insignificant competitors because they too quickly became landlocked by smarter, more aggressive human opponents. The AI now stretches out its reach as far as possible and as quickly as possible and set itself up as a much more worthy competitor. Also, no longer does the AI continually attack useless units in undefeatable positions or send 1 unit at a time to die a useless death with no chance of accomplishing anything, but rather sends a group of warriors that at least has a chance of succeeding in causing you some discomfort and/or distress. These new military abilities, combined with the 'cultural flip' create a much greater need to develop a 'war plan' and wage strategic wars instead of the old method of just declaring war and then slowly assimilating the foreign cities into your own without regard to 'feelings' of the masses. I could go on and on about this point alone but instead I will summarize my opinions with this observation: I used to play civ 2 on emperor and always win easily, I now play civ 3 on monarch and feel challenged by my computer opponents. I freely admit (and totally appreciate) that a big part of this is due to having to learn a new playing style.

Also, for those of you that continue to complain about AI 'cheats', at the risk of inciting you to flame me and the rest of this article, I will respond by noting that programming an AI for any game is very difficult if cheats are not used much less something as complex as Civ. Also, pretty much all of the accused cheats I have read about are either minor things to improve the computers competitiveness or undocumented by the accuser with no solid proof of cheating (saved games, the ability to consistently reproduce the cheat, etc). If you can PROVE that an AI civ was given multiple techs in a turn that could not be traded, found in a hut, researched or any other valid way to be acquired or that the civ instantly receives a vast military, advanced cities or any other major cheat that adversely affects game play then maybe I'll change my mind. Otherwise, please try to learn to accept minor cheats as a way to keep things competitive and challenging.

4. Improved trade format (i.e. no more caravan/freight) - As has been well documented the caravan/freight units were (are) far too powerful in Civ 2. Although I miss the ability to stock pile these units and then either mass rush an important wonder or acquire mass amounts of gold/science by delivering my valuable goods to a big, foreign city, I more appreciate the fact that completing a wonder is a true accomplishment. I for one consider it a good thing that this crutch has been eliminated from the game. It is also an interesting new twist in game play to negotiate trade agreements for those important strategic and/or luxury resources your civ does not have access to.

5. Improved espionage system - Again, it is well known that the diplomat/spy units were (are) also too powerful in civ 2. It was such an easy way to win by delivering caravans to a particular city, acquiring mass amounts of gold and then buying that same city with a puny spy using that same gold just acquired. Or early in playing days, I would scrap virtually all science research in some games and just steal techs when I needed them. Now I barely make use of the espionage options available due to the extreme cost of carrying them out, except to investigate a particular city or too just before declaring war and using my spies to gather information about the other civs military, etc. I consider this a much more realistic and fun implementation of the concept anyway.

6. Corruption (yes, I said CORRUPTION) - First, I must state that I generally do not build extremely large multi-continent empires. My goals are usually to control most of my continent and exert my power in influence over the world in other ways. However, corruption is still a major issue for me to contend with. I just like the extra challenge. It brings yet another formally useless building, the courthouse, into play. I never built them in civ 1 or 2 unless I just wanted/needed to waste some shields and/or gold on something. In my current game, I have a fairly complex empire that spans about half of the continent I am on. I have my capitol on near one end of my empire, the forbidden palace near the other end and courthouses in many of my cities. Corruption is well under control even in the several former German cities on my farthest border. Also, as a limited reference to 'real life' that appears to fit here better than most places, anyone that does not believe that corruption and waste were not a massive problem in the out-lying areas of the Roman empire, the 'old west' of the United States or the colonies in the British Empire should revisit their history books.

7. New scientific research design/restrictions - The work done to keep a civ from being light years ahead of everyone in one area while completely neglecting another are quite commendable. The new science advisors screens are quite helpful to truly 'see the big picture' as the dialog box prompts. It may not be the perfect system but I like the balancing aspects of having to complete an age before advancing.

8. Building a wonder is a true accomplishment - As mentioned in the trade section, it is now a true accomplishment for a civ to complete a wonder. With the only ways to rush a wonder being a great leader (which I actually receive very rarely due to not being much of a warmonger) and the post patch cheat of starting a palace (which takes impossibly long to complete) in a city and then switching to a wonder once you have completed the required tech research, actually building a wonder is quite a piece of work in the new design. This also actually will show up again in my 'things I do not like' section due to it being nearly impossible to complete some wonders.

9. Increase in the number of available civs - Again, this will show up again later as a negative. Personally, this was not on my wish list of improvements before Civ 3 was released. However, after playing with 16 on a huge world, I became a huge fan of the option.

10. The return of the replay - I thought before playing I would have included the return of the palace but although nice, it ended up really not meaning much to me. The replay feature is another story! I truly missed this feature in civ 2 and think it is a great re-addition to the game. I love to click the play button and watch the rise and fall of all the nations of my alternate universe. I will occasionally retire from a game at the end of a session to see this (although I try to limit its use in this manner since I consider it to be a minor cheat because it can be used to identify the relative strength of each civ and possibly alter my game strategies for or against particular nations).

To be fair, I do think there is room for improvement with the game. Some of the issues I have are addressable in a patch, others maybe not because it probably take a bit of re-design work to implement and thus are not very feasible. Below are listed my complaints of what could be better and negative side effects of Civ 3.

1. Wonders are near impossible to build - I told you it was coming back... I only want a small tweak to this problem in one of two ways (or both). I want a way to get a great leader in a non-military manner since I usually try to only wage war against aggressive neighbors or if a particular piece of property has significant value (resource, choke point, etc). And/or I want to be able to share production resources between cities. I would like the option to send X number of shields from city A to city B to supplement their production of wonders and larger buildings. I would not even mind losing a portion of the shared resources to waste (supply costs, etc).

2. Stackable units - As previously stated, I am not a big warmonger so this is not a major issue for me. However, I do realize how much this could improve unit movement, particularly during periods of war. I include this as much for other peoples benefits as a kind of 'pre-emptive strike'.

3. CPU resource requirements - The incredible requirements needed to take full advantage of one of the games best features, 16 civs on a huge world, takes either a massive computer system or a certain degree of patience. I have developed the patience from dealing with my 3 year old but it definitely would be nice for the computer turns to move a little quicker. Of course I play somewhat slow and deliberate so my turns are not very speedy either which makes for quite a lengthy game especially since I only get to play for an hour our 2 at a time.

4. (Please read this in its entirety before deciding to bash me...) The degeneration of the message boards of Apolyton - First note that I fully appreciate each persons right to have an opinion and openly express it. Criticism has its place and generally leads to progress. However, my experiences in the civ 3 forums are nowhere near as satisfying or productive as I had in my early days on Apolyton in the civ 2 discussions. I first found this great resource of a website probably 3 or 4 years ago. Like many I only participated as a 'voyeur' for a year or so as I soaked up great insights, discussions, game logs and such as a purely passive user before signing up and becoming more active on the boards. I learned much about the game, found new challenges to test myself with and learned countless new strategies I had never dreamed of that helped me go from just winning the game to completely dominating it (which is somewhat of a negative of the board in a way). What do I get these days from the board? A few interesting discussions but mostly A LOT of moaning and complaining about how the game is not perfect, not good enough and/or completely worthless. Many of the things people complain about are things they asked to be modified from civ 2. Example 1: in civ 3 the computer spreads its empire like the plague but in civ 2 the small uncompetitive AI nations were quite inadequate. Example 2: it use to be too easy to win by ICS now the corruption and 2 pop settler cost make this more difficult but corruption is hated by many instead of embraced as a true challenge facing your civ. Example 3: spies and diplomats were too powerful being able to easily steal tech and cheaply buy cities and units now many complain that these methods of easy victory have become too expensive. I could go on with probably 15 more examples of things people wanted changed but now want back the old way or that were not changed exactly the way the asked for it to be but this is getting to be far too long winded a commentary.

I point these things out not to get anyone riled up or to ask anyone to stop posting their opinions. My point is that I would like for those of you that have been visiting and/or contributing to this site for a number of years to look back on what the site offered too you and what you brought to the table in those early days. Was any of this even close to the negative, uninformative nature of what the forums are like today? I use to use this site as a way relax at work during lunch, etc but find myself visiting less and less do to the fact that I have to dig through 6 or 7 rantings about why civ 3 sucks to find 1 or 2 that offer something constructive. I offer my thanks to those of you that have enriched my civ life with your thoughts and ideas over the years and I wish for a more positive outlook on life for those of you that have slid into constant civ bashing. I also wish to thank the creators and managers of the site and hope for their sakes the boards return to something of their former glory rather than to continue deteriorating and eroding away as so many past great civilizations have done over the course of time.

One final note, before you respond… please note the amount of time I put into creating this. It is not an idle accusation, a meager slam against anyone or any post in particular. It is plea to consider your goals of such a forum, to return to a prosperous time of information sharing. Also, take this to mean that I think that civ 3 is perfect or that I don’t find some of the discussions of its shortcoming to be both informative and valid. I also am a big fan of sarcasm, wit, satire, etc. Many times I have found myself all but laughing out loud at some of the posts by Libertarian, Yin and others as they poke fun at the game and/or other posters that attack them. However, the general tone of the messages in the forums has become quite negative and somewhat depressing.

I am now officially done rambling and return you to your regularly scheduled programming…

[Libertarian]

[...standing and applauding Albert B...]

In my opinion, you've poured your heart out into as fair and balanced an assessment as I've seen. You've certainly earned my respect. So much so that, if my repartee with Shaggy and the others serves as a distraction to your enjoyment of the game and the forum, I am willing to volunteer my restraint.

Just let me know.

[ACooper]

Very good post. Maybe the best I've seen so far.

Thank you.

[Detritus]

Great post. Read this entire (sic!) and could not agree more. I feel very similarily about the game and the Apolyton boards (I am a fairly new Apolyton reader, though). One small point - wonders are not "impossible" to buid - at least they are not at monarch level. You just need to develop a "feel" when it is worth it to start one - generally pretty early, and do your research strategically (and maybe trading techs). Personally, I like using a leader on Forbidden Palace - gives you instant boost to productivity in a number of cities due to suppression of corruption.

[Albert B]

Originally posted by Libertarian
[...standing and applauding Albert B...]

In my opinion, you've poured your heart out into as fair and balanced an assessment as I've seen. You've certainly earned my respect. So much so that, if my repartee with Shaggy and the others serves as a distraction to your enjoyment of the game and the forum, I am willing to volunteer my restraint.

Just let me know.

Thanks for the kind words and the generous offer. However, I rather enjoy the true repartee as can be found in threads like this one:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=40646

or this one:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=40669

My only request is that some real substance or CONSTRUCTIVE criticism be included as well instead of just bashing the game and using other non-effective means of communication that do more to hinder ones experience than to accentuate it.

[Libertarian]

Nebulous guidelines. But I will do my best, good sir.

[Alex]

Yes, Albert, a very good post. One can read a lot of genuine emotion through its lines.

And that is commendable on these days of sarcasm and negativity.

[FNBrown]

Good point(s), Albert... I feel the same way. CivIII is a pretty good game, but it has lots of room for improvement.

I have a feeling that there won't be much progress towards better overall gameplay in any future patch. My guess is that the game producers will only patch glaring bugs (and, honestly, there are few remaining that make the game entirely unplayable), and reserve the real improvements for an "expansion pack" that they can make a few bucks on.

Personally, I don't mind this scheme. They did the same thing with Age of Empires (which was good, but got a lot better with the Conqueror's Expansion). Fixing bugs is something they should do for an existing game; upgrading it will cost them money, and should cost us money. Most of the complaints I've seen are regarding things that make the game a bit tedious, but not entirely unplayable. Stacking units, sharing city resources (transferring shields to help wonder construction - brilliant idea), improving the AI... all these things would make it a better game, and would be worth paying for. Some cosmetic improvements would be nice, too... things like additional Civ's, more leaders to choose from (would love to play as Churchill rather than QE), new wonders, new techs, and more specialized units would also be a nice bonus.

Just my two cents...

[Albert B]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Nebulous guidelines.

Very true, but I am not looking to create the ground rules for a utopian society. I am just trying to help raise the level of content on the boards. I would say something like "let your conscience be your guide" or "use common sense" but in the world we live today, those are dangerous standards to establish for the general populace. However, I am confident that you are a very smart guy of good moral fiber and that you are more than capable of rising up to the challenge.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Albert B
I want a way to get a great leader in a non-military manner since I usually try to only wage war against aggressive neighbors or if a particular piece of property has significant value (resource, choke point, etc).

Couldn't agree more. Hopefully this will be added by Firaxis in a future patch, just as the non-military way to trigger a golden age was added shortly before Civ3 went gold.

BTW, great post!

[Ironikinit]

I really have nothing to contribute, but wanted to thank Albert for writing that and posting it. I don't entirely agree, but it was good reading.

[Libertarian]

Thank you, Ironik. A tip o' the hat to you for not hijacking this thread for your personal rants.

[SixArmedMan]

As you can see, Lib is stringently sticking to the guidelines set. If he can do it... Umm..
.
.
.
Well...