Why did Firaxis ruin the game for leiserly players?

watorrey · February 24, 2002, 22:08

In thier effort to please the few players who frequent these forums, who claim that it is too easy on higher levels, Firaxis has ruined the fun for us leiserly players. Where is the fun in playing a game of tech catchup with totally worthless cities????

Perhaps being the biggest civ is the ONLY way to keep ahead. But they screw you on that because being the biggest just means totally worthless cities. Domination shouldn't even be a victory condition with thier ideas of corruption. Maybe it makes more sense on smaller maps.... dunno.

The AI NEVER has any money anymore. Previously, there was always a few civs in each game that didn't have gold. But now it is the rule.

Even if they do have gold, (which just means they are in the tech lead), they won't give you squat for a tech (if you manage to get one first), and charge an arm and a leg to buy one from them, even if all the other civs have that tech (which they will one turn after it is discovered), because they give each other "deals".

I am the only one with Free Artistry. ST hasn't been finished yet. The best i can get is world map and 5GP with 6 other civs in the game???? In the meantime, all my money goes to buying industrial era techs.

Researching techs has become as totally useless as those cities you need to maintain a lead in the histograph. In thier effort to eliminate tech hording, (which i never did anyway) they made tech research a non-strategy.

Come on Firaxis... some of us like to have FUN while playing at say... monarch level.

It also seems the scale of the corruption isn't calculated properly for the larger maps. (i know... old and boring)

How about Firaxis assign someone to go thru the civilipedia and fix it? Seems to me a palace only costs 100 shields even after 2 patches.

As a rule, i don't change things with the editor. I like to play the game as it is intended to be played. I KNOW i am not the only one that thinks that way. But CIV3 is slowly becoming just a game shell that is meant to modified by everyone that plays it just so they can have some FUN.

Thankyou all.... i feel somewhat better now

yin26 · February 24, 2002, 22:13

We asked for a meaningful and fun challenge. So far the focus seems to be on challenge without having much of the meaningful or fun part in it. In other words, I don't think too many players at any level are pleased with the current state of affairs.

At any rate, it's good you are voicing your opinions. Perhaps they will help.

Dida · February 24, 2002, 22:22

An army costs 400 sheids, which is ridiculously expensive, considering how useless they are.

H Tower · February 25, 2002, 01:01

you mean the game was enjoyable before firaxis changed something in the patch?

watorrey · February 25, 2002, 02:17

Quote:

Originally posted by H Tower
you mean the game was enjoyable before firaxis changed something in the patch?

It could get like a dance. Everything you did felt like it flowed naturally. Now you have to check the diplomacy screen for ALL civs EVERY SINGLE TURN!!!

watorrey · February 25, 2002, 02:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Dida
An army costs 400 sheids, which is ridiculously expensive, considering how useless they are.

disbanding it will give you 5/8 of a police station in a city it won't do any good in anyway.

hoonak · February 25, 2002, 02:46

Thanks and I agree with you. here's my thoughts on your post

Quote:

In thier effort to please the few players who frequent these forums, who claim that it is too easy on higher levels,

If you read thier posts carefully it is obvious that one of three things is true:[list=1][*]they only play on small or tiny worlds; or[*]they are total eggheads that examine every detail every turn; or[*]they are lying through thier teeth about beating the game.[/list=1]

Quote:

Firaxis has ruined the fun for us leiserly players. Where is the fun in playing a game of tech catchup with totally worthless cities????

Firaxis is not concerned with fun. They are concerned with SALES.

Quote:

Perhaps being the biggest civ is the ONLY way to keep ahead. But they screw you on that because being the biggest just means totally worthless cities. Domination shouldn't even be a victory condition with thier ideas of corruption. Maybe it makes more sense on smaller maps.... dunno.

You are probably correct about the smaller maps. the game was playtested (maybe) on smaller maps because they play faster than the big maps.

Quote:

The AI NEVER has any money anymore. Previously, there was always a few civs in each game that didn't have gold. But now it is the rule.

This is to make the game more challenging. It takes most of the fun out of finding other tribes too...
I generally don't even bother with the diplomacy screen except to see who has treaties with whom.

Quote:

Researching techs has become as totally useless as those cities you need to maintain a lead in the histograph. In thier effort to eliminate tech hording, (which i never did anyway) they made tech research a non-strategy.

Yep.
thanks for a good thread,
me

kimmygibler · February 25, 2002, 03:29

I have no patience to play on anything larger than small world. The trading problem is the current biggest problem. This affects all maps.

notyoueither · February 25, 2002, 03:40

I am not having a problem trading with the AI. I get tech for far less than it would have cost me to research it myself in the early game. I don't think the AI is factoring in whether I'm leisurely or not.

Not having a problem establishing a tech lead in the mid game. I had tanks for 100 years before anyone else had them in my current game. Them and Bombers meant the Chinese (No1 in 1650) are now near the bottom as I admire the wonders they built in my new cities.

I am playing Emperor on Standard size map.

Salve

Pius Popprasch · February 25, 2002, 03:54

I think you should play a lower level. If you cannot cope with Monarch play Regent. On Regent you can do what the A.I. can do. If the A.I. doesn't trade tech you will do it and milk the profit. If the A.I. hesitates to trade a certain tech you will jump in that place and trade Fission and alikes.

Maybe for better gameplay there there should be a delay when trading. Like a shipping time.

Jaguar · February 25, 2002, 04:01

Play a lower level if you have trouble keeping up.

I personally love Monarch level, trying to catchup as best I can. Its a whole lot more fun than starting out twice as good as the AIs, and finishing 5 times as good.

Willem · February 25, 2002, 04:09

If you're playing Monarch, then you're no longer a leisurely player. Anything above Regent was meant for people who want more of a challenge.

watorrey · February 25, 2002, 04:29

I was given civ3 as a gift because i like the civ series so much. I started out at chieftain and worked my way up learning it as a new game requiring new stratagies.

Now i find with a .01 increment patch, i have a totally different game than the one i learned to play and have been playing for 2.5 months. 24-7 for part of that time. Frustrating to say the least.

Yes, i will probably drop back to regent level while i get used to this supposed 'fix'. Or maybe i had a bad start this game and just don't realize it.

Civ is suppose to be about building a civilization. One with usefull buildings in its' cities. All of a sudden, i find that libraries and universities are useless except as cultural improvements. They were the most important.

Much more important are the overpriced marketplaces and banks. At least that is one thing fixed w/ the patch. They are now needed more than ever.

Now, instead of checking in on the other civs once every 3 or 4 turns, it is required to do so every single turn. If you wait 4 turns, they will have 4 or 5 techs that you don't have!!!

Diplomacy is a very nice feature of civ3. But the necessity of having to do it every turn is rediculous.

Alex · February 25, 2002, 08:17

At first, I also didn't like the new tech trading system. The AI could get a tech lead so easily and my libraries and universities just seemed to be useless.

Then I got used to this system and I noticed that I could get faster to the modern era than before the 1.17 patch.

But I agree that, somehow, this new tech trading system just doesn't feel "natural". Since we can change and tweak it in the editor, I don't think it is too bad. Of course I understand your frustration and I know why you like to play the game as it is intended to be played, because I also liked to play that way. But with Civ3 you just have to change things in the editor, unfortunately.

Mizaq · February 25, 2002, 08:33

what do you mean you can tweak tech trading in the editor? And what do you guys mean this new tech trading doesn't feel natural? I like it that the enemy can't trade during your turn. You can get a lot of money for a tech that a civ wants, sometimes it doesn't even have any wonders with it, the civ just wants it to be advanced. I have noticed that everyone hates me just about all of the time, I can't figure out why they get so pissed that I traded a tech to them that they wanted and for a price they wanted.

DrFell · February 25, 2002, 08:53

'Thanks and I agree with you. here's my thoughts on your post If you read thier posts carefully it is obvious that one of three things is true:[list=1][*]they only play on small or tiny worlds; or[*]they are total eggheads that examine every detail every turn; or[*]they are lying through thier teeth about beating the game.[/list=1]'

Yeah sure, everyone who can beat deity is lying. Have you never heard of the concept of 'strategy'? Some people have a better strategy than you obviously use in your games. Using the right tactics, deity isn't that difficult. That doesn't mean they have to hyper micromanage, it doesn't mean they are restricted to certain world sizes, and it certainly doesn't mean they're lying. Guess that must be where you're going wrong. Christ, some of you are such crybabies: 'I can't beat deity and I don't believe it if you can waah waah waah!'. Geeze... go back to cheiftain if you can't handle the difficulty level. Then at least you'll have your huge lead over the AIs without doing any work at all.

Spiffor · February 25, 2002, 09:43

I was surprised too in my first monarch game with the 1.17f, having so much trouble keeping up. But I made monay to keep up, I built universities everywhere, and I started to discover techs the others hadn't... I'm at the beginning of industrial era, and each tech I sell to others means loads of money (except the Iroquois, they all offer me ca. 50 gold per turn, and I sell it to everyone who s rich).
So they HAVE money, but spend it immediately while trading with the other AIs. You just have to be as agressive as the AI to be a scientific leader (with so much money from foreign countries, I have 90% of my budget going to science). And such competitiveness is simply fun : my lead is definitely not guaranteed, I cannot play asleep at higher levels.

Marquis de Sodaq · February 25, 2002, 10:38

I've not yet downloaded patch 1.18. Does the AI trade any tech as soon as it is discovered, or is there some prioritizing? What I have in mind is something like gunpowder. It is a tech that provides a big advantage to the civ that has it, particularly if his neighbor does not. Do they even trade away key techs that give them real game advantage? If so, then the "fix" goes too far...

The diplomat · February 25, 2002, 10:46

I think civ3 tries to reach a compromise between the casual gamer and the expert gamer. Civ3 has less techs, less units, and less governments than the expert gamer was expecting. It also lacks features like "social engineering" or a unit workshop that I believe man expert gamers expected to see. So in that sense civ3 seems to be a little "light weight" to please the casual gamer that might feel overwhelmed with too many techs and units. On the other hand, the game did implement changes that would make the game more difficult for the expert gamer. Rushing wonders with caravans, ICS, corruption were all made to specifically counter known strategies by the experts!

Seghillian · February 25, 2002, 10:52

One possible solution to this would be for the game to have a number of options that you set at game start, similar in some ways to the options for SMAC. For example "Aggressive Tech Trading" could be toggled on or off. Save Random seed generator could also be toggled thus allowing battles to be refought if desired. An iron man switch would be mandatory for GOTM type games etc. Just an idea.

Alex · February 25, 2002, 13:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Seghillian
One possible solution to this would be for the game to have a number of options that you set at game start, similar in some ways to the options for SMAC. For example "Aggressive Tech Trading" could be toggled on or off. Save Random seed generator could also be toggled thus allowing battles to be refought if desired. An iron man switch would be mandatory for GOTM type games etc. Just an idea.

Nice ideas.

Maybe on a exp pack...

The Andy-Man · February 25, 2002, 17:28

yeah, in SMAC just about all the new feature from Civ2 were toggleable (you could turn them off).

in Civ3, you just HAVE to take it (like toggling off AI ICS would be nice).

watorrey · February 26, 2002, 00:58

Quote:

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
yeah, in SMAC just about all the new feature from Civ2 were toggleable (you could turn them off).

in Civ3, you just HAVE to take it (like toggling off AI ICS would be nice).

I know i will be sorry i asked... what is ICS?

yin26 · February 26, 2002, 01:03

Infinite City Sleaze/Spread

Since creating a new city in Civ2 didn't cost the 'extra' worker it does now in Civ3, there were no penalties for simply founding new cities at an exponential rate. Added to the fact that units and improvements are made on a turn/city basis, the person with more but smaller cities would beat a person with fewer but larger and better developed cities.

It is my opinion, however, that the 'fix' in Civ3 was countered by an 'expand or die' AI approach and that the same-old "more cities the better" way of thinking is actually just as strong in Civ3 as it was in Civ2. Not that this is bad in and of itself, but it does tend to reduce to the game to a lot of tedious micromanagement.

watorrey · February 26, 2002, 01:42

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
Infinite City Sleaze/Spread

Since creating a new city in Civ2 didn't cost the 'extra' worker it does now in Civ3, there were no penalties for simply founding new cities at an exponential rate. Added to the fact that units and improvements are made on a turn/city basis, the person with more but smaller cities would beat a person with fewer but larger and better developed cities.

It is my opinion, however, that the 'fix' in Civ3 was countered by an 'expand or die' AI approach and that the same-old "more cities the better" way of thinking is actually just as strong in Civ3 as it was in Civ2. Not that this is bad in and of itself, but it does tend to reduce to the game to a lot of tedious micromanagement.

Thanks. What gets me, is they advertise that this is suppose to be a game where you build fewer better cities. It isn't possible to win that way. You absolutely have to be the biggest civ to win.

With the corruption set up the way it is, i still don't see how a domination victory is possible on a large map with max landmass. Or any amount of land on a large map. I guess i will have to try out some smaller maps and see what happens.

I suppose conquest might be fun. Running around the map killing off the cities as they get founded with tanks might be interesting. It certainly won't do any good to try and own the map.

Anyway, i am calming down and trying to figure out the best way to get ahead of the AI in my present game. At monarch, large map, archipelago, minimum landmass, i may possibly be taking the tech lead right now while researching motorized transportation. There is only one other island that would give me cities that produce anything, and i may have to go take it. Naturally, the russians will be at a tech parity with me. No way to avoid that in this game. At least i got hoover dam on my big island

I turned off UN and spaceship not realizing i was playing a totally different game w/ the new patch.

Aqualung · February 27, 2002, 01:18

Mizaq:

What do you mean the AI CAN'T trade during your turn? That's news to me. Let me tell you a story...

On a correct-start Earth, my Persian warrior encounters a Zulu in Africa. During diplomacy, I see that the Zulus don't have contact with the Egyptians (or the 10 other Civs that I've made contact with), but they will in a few turns. So when Shaka wants to trade Contact with the Romans for Mathmatics, I give it to him.

Since it is STILL MY TURN, I decide I'll try and make some extra money by selling Contact with the Zulus to the other Civs. I try the Greeks... I try the Indians... I try the French... I try the English... I can't trade Contact with the Zulus to any of them! I give up and go back talk to the Zulus, and there are only 3 Civs left.

11-1=3, right? When I met them, there were 11 Civs that the Zulus hadn't contacted. I gave them 1. Now there are only 3 Civs that the Zulus haven't contacted.

This all happened in 1 turn... no, make that ZERO turns. I didn't end my turn, I didn't even move a single unit in between the time I first traded with the Zulus and when I went back to them.

Trading/giving/exchanging/sharing Contact can only happen during a trade. I'm pretty sure that this DOES happen with Techs, too. I'll pay attention to make sure.

aahz_capone · February 27, 2002, 06:56

Quote:

Originally posted by watorrey

It could get like a dance. Everything you did felt like it flowed naturally. Now you have to check the diplomacy screen for ALL civs EVERY SINGLE TURN!!!

YES!! THIS SUCKS! CHANGE IT!! There's no screen (not even the trade advisor) that gives you as much info of all civs as in SMAC. ESPECIALLY playing with all civ on HUGE map. SMAC HAD IT! AND MORE! I've had it with sloppy programming!!!!

SMAC mentioned 39 out of 64 posts (take a hint)

aahz_capone · February 27, 2002, 06:59

Quote:

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
yeah, in SMAC just about all the new feature from Civ2 were toggleable (you could turn them off).

in Civ3, you just HAVE to take it (like toggling off AI ICS would be nice).

YES! ANOTHER PERSON who realizes that civ3 forgot a lot of SMAC things!

SMAC40:65posts

The diplomat · February 27, 2002, 09:27

Quote:

Originally posted by watorrey
What gets me, is they advertise that this is suppose to be a game where you build fewer better cities. It isn't possible to win that way. You absolutely have to be the biggest civ to win.

I disagree. Granted I was only playing on prince or lower but I have won or come real close to winning with a medium size empire. I stopped expanding at about 10 cities, the AI continued and often had trully huge empires, but I was still able to win. I built up a strong defensive force and focused on maximizing my economy. Culture was my biggest advantage. The AI ignores many culture improvements. Since I stopped expanding earlier, I started sooner to build culture. My culture was huge, and I often had much bigger borders and would even assimiliate other cities through culture.