How many of you are using what mod, and why?

[Kilroy_Alpha]

It seems that EVERYONE is playing Civ3 with a modification of some sort. While many of these mods are great, I'm getting the feeling that, without them, nobody would be playing Civ3 at all. If this is the case, then I feel it can be said that Civ3 is simply not a decent game, no matter how great it is with korn's derblitzkrieger mod or what awesome changes "TEAM LIGHTNING BOLT" has made that is supposed to revolutionize the gameplay (which is what Civ3 was supposed to do in the first place).

To wit: Would you play Civ3 if NO mods were available and the option to make your own mod wasn't available? I.e. you had to play it the way it came OUT OF THE BOX?

[campmajor!]

I don't like using mods, so I stille play the "normal" version.
Currently 1.16f, because I am still playing a game. When that one is over, I will download 1.17f.

[Solver]

I use no mods from Apolyton, but I made my own changes, to have it the way I want. However, I would still play Civ 3 out of the box version, though wouldn't love it that much.

[Aeson]

I like playing HOF and GOTM games over at CivFanatics, so keep the default rules. Otherwise I would make some changes on my own, but it's not a big deal. A proper editor would have been nice, but even without one Civ3 is better than 95% of the games I've played.

[lockstep]

I'm alternating between korn's blitz mod and the standard game to be able to judge which of korn's changes are an essential fix and which are a matter of taste. I'd still play this game if modding was not an option, although I'm eagerly waiting for a patch that kills tech whoring.

[Worthingtons]

I use 'The Rothy Mod' , I've made millions of changes, added wonders,improvements,units ect but havent uploaded the thing because 1. It's still in progress , and 2. I coudnt be arsed with doing civlopedia entries

[Tarquelne]

I'm using my own mod. Why?

To "tweak" a bunch of unit values to what I think they should be "realistically".
To improve the balance, IMO. Units or structures that I found myself skipping because they didn't give enough bang-for-the-buck were generally made cheaper. (I still don't build many of them, but now at least the AI is getting a cost break.) Some units or structures that I thought the decision to build was a "no brainer" have been made more expensive. Hoover Dam - to which I'd rush in every game - is a good example of this.
To shift the overall offensve-vrs-defense balance in combat. (I thought it favors offense too much.)
To slow down the pace of tech. progress. (I kept reaching Modern Age in the 1700s, if not sooner.)
To try to increase the role of Culture. (A few more Cultural buildings, various changes to basic cultural values to try to make "cultural warfare" more interesting.)
Latest change: To stretch the "Age of Sail" out more. (Make the Frigates, etc. last longer.)

Err... I think that's it, for "why."

Would I play Civ3 if I could have those changes. Sure, but not for all that long.

If I can mod strategy a game I invariably do so. I mod most FPS games, too. Strategy games I generally use my own mod, for FPSs I usually download one. (or two, or three....)

Strategy games are rarely targetted directly at me. It's been, oh, quite a while since Sid M., for example, called me up and asked me what units I wanted. I realize that if I want a game to be just the way I like it _I'll_ have to make it that way. I also realize that the game designers, while not nearly as smart as me, do sometimes have some good ideas, and I'll generally try to understand the advantages of a design decision ("feature") that I don't like before condemning it. (Civ3 had a number of those.)

(Unlike _certain people_, I also realize that if I don't like a game it might just be because I'm not the sort of person who likes that game. Nothing wrong with the game itself. Some games, of course, are trash - nobody should like them. [shrug] I don't think Civ3 is one of them.)


I _really_ think what's going on with Civ3 is that it's not much like what many people (including myself) expected. There are some basic design decisions that are fundamentally different from those of Civ2 or SMAC.

I _really_ don't understand why so many people are so vehement about thier dislike of Civ3, or - more to the point - the failings of the Civ3 design team. Unless its part of the disappointed-expectations thing. I think many (most) of the criticisms leveled at Civ3 could be rephrased as "But Civ2 and/or SMAC wasn't anything like this."

Or, here's a thought, maybe it's age/lack of experiece with strategy games? I wonder how many people had Civ2 or SMAC as thier first-and-favorite strategy game? Their concept of what a strategy game should be would be firmly rooted in Civ2 or SMAC. So now, with Civ3, and it's "fundamentally different design decisions" they feel that Firaxis seriously screwed up.

[PGM]

I'm using:
- Sn00py's amazing terrain graphics
- new Wonder splashes
- MOD that indicates how much each building maintenance costs, Culture provided by each building and unit upgradability