Zylka’s 95 theses on why Civilization 3 is an utter disappointment.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by civman2000


IMHO, I've been civil about it. Maybe not E and Z, but I have.

Show where I was uncivil. Especialy considering what I was responding to.

I am civil to the civil.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by TechWins
I wasn't completely positive that it was you who made that reply, and I didn't want to assume without showing my assumption.

Recommendation. Hit CONTROL-N for a second instance of IE then you can write in one while looking at the other. I had two open for my reply to Zylka's original post. Plus Civ III. I had even more open for my reply to Zylka's rebuttal of my reply. Kept losing track of which window was which. The ALT-TAB got a workout.

Maybe you're right, it wasn't every one of your posts that you disagreed with Zylka, but one thing is for sure, it was a large abundance of them. Many of which, IMO, didn't deserve to de completely disagreed.

Many of which weren't. Quite a few were a matter of taste. I was intentionally covering every point.

The tone in which you replied to all of Zylka's these seemed as if you were trying to defend Firaxis for Civ3.

There is a siginificant difference between implied and inferred. You inferred that. I was critisizing what Zylka wrote. If he makes 66 enumerated attacks of course it is going to look like a defense of Firaxis to you.

My tone was in response to his. And I still managed to be far less inflammatory.

I'll elaborate on this line:

You might try breaking up those long paragraphs. Its easier to read. Thats why mine are short. I go through and break them into seperate ideas for legibility.

Easier to respond to as well.

I am still waiting to see a good idea to stop ICS. There is a thread on milking games for high scores. Even with Civ III, ICS was still one of the techniques being used.

The AI does plant cities in strange places. I really don't understand what the heck is so upsetting about it though. If it is really all that useless than it isn't hurting you. It is one way for the AI to make up for its inability to plan. Shotgun tactics.

The AI's excesses in this area were decreased in the first patch. Its still there but now they are far less likely to plant cities where they are vulnerable to immediate cultural flipping.

The lack of movies is clearly caused by two things. Time and player comments. Most players turned off the Wonder movies in Civ II after one or two games. I didn't but I am by far on in the minority on that. The movies whould have taken two weeks each. Considering the time and the consistent lack of fan apreciation for the movies in Civ II spending the time and money on more must have looked execessively wastefull to Firaxis and they have said so publicly.

There was definitly a lack of playtesting in the Modern Era. No real sign of that lack in the Ancient or Medieval. Playtesting for bugs was the responsibility of Infogrammes. Both companies didn't do as good a job as they should. For unknown reasons Firaxis chose not to have an outside beta team like they did on Alpha Centauri. Bad decision and they now have a team.

I guess Velocyrix decided not to join it. He was asked to apply, I think it was Dan that suggested it. Maybe Firaxis decided that if he was starting a game design team himself then he was no longer appropriate for the group.

The question isn't wether I understand your position but whether you understood mine when you wrote this. Considering what you wrote that is. I understood Zylka's position. I just felt it needed to be covered on a point by point basis by someone. No one else did in either this or the original thread. People have been sent to Mingapulco in both instances of this thread.

Somehow this one has yet to be closed like the first was.

Why do you word that sentence in such a biased way?

I was biased against what the manual had to say so why not.
Do I need to point out that is thread is largely ABOUT bias? You included.

I actually found SMAC to be a good game, but the whole fantasy/space scene restricted me to only playing a few games (not a big sci-fi fan). One of the main reasons why I like Civ (not SMAC) is because of my interest in history and SMAC doesn't fulfill that for me with it's sci-fi setting. I guess it's, also, a matter of relation too.

I agree with some of that. Considering I have over 1,000 Scienfiction and Fantasy books I can't say I have an inherent problem with a science fiction game though. I do like the historical setting. I like the ancient era in particular. That is when most civilizations were created.

Also I was not totally dependent on the manual. I had seen but not played the beta. My sister-in-law was on the beta team. However it was the manual that turned me off the game.

When did I specifically point out any names, besides Ethelred, FG, and Zylka? Therefore, how could you include yourself as part of "us"?

Perhaps you did not mean that for me. However you have made a run-on post and made no effort to differentiate the change in who you were writing to.

Better posting through labeling and seperation. (tm)

And now for my favorite real trademark

TM(tm) - transcendental meditation.

Hard to beat that one.

First, read my reply to Ethelred for information concerning my point of view abot Civ3,

How can he tell where one ends and another starts?

lack of fan interaction since that time, and the long waiting times between patches, however, I do have some understanding for my last problem.

It is likely that Firaxis has an NDA regarding things relating to Infogrammes and even the NDA itself. That wouldn't be unusual.

The patch times seems a bit long to me as well but they do have to submit them to Infogrammes for testing and aproval. Personally I like the idea of unsupported beta patches but I guess that is one of the reasons they now have a beta team.

Can you imagine what this forum would look like with unsupported betas. It would be shut down by national governments for arson.

[TechWins]

Recommendation. Hit CONTROL-N for a second instance of IE then you can write in one while looking at the other. I had two open for my reply to Zylka's original post. Plus Civ III. I had even more open for my reply to Zylka's rebuttal of my reply. Kept losing track of which window was which. The ALT-TAB got a workout.

Gee thanks for the great tip, as well as, the fantastic story.

Many of which weren't. Quite a few were a matter of taste. I was intentionally covering every point.

Correction, very few were in agreement with him, and the few that were in agreement with Zylka also contained a bit of disagreement. Quite a few, also, contained blatant, sarcastic remarks towards Zylka.

There is a siginificant difference between implied and inferred. You inferred that. I was critisizing what Zylka wrote. If he makes 66 enumerated attacks of course it is going to look like a defense of Firaxis to you.

Yes, I am inferring that you were critisizing what Zylka wrote, which is clear by the various insults you let out towards Zylka. Considering all of his theses "enumerated attacks" does show your defense you have for Firaxis.

My tone was in response to his. And I still managed to be far less inflammatory.

While, your post may have had less crude remarks, your post had it's crude remarks aimed at a fellow poster of this board, whereas, Zylka had his crude remarks aimed at a game company. Zylka kept his remarks on a business level, and you brought you remarks to a personal level. There's a very big difference between your two posts.

You might try breaking up those long paragraphs. Its easier to read. Thats why mine are short. I go through and break them into seperate ideas for legibility.

I'm sorry for inconviencing you to having to read a long paragraph. I should know better not have so many sentences compiled into one thought. Even though, yes, maybe I did need to seperate that particular paragraph into seperate paragraphs for clarity purposes, but I still don't see the need for you to mention it. Please don't tell me that you feel as if you are an intellect superior.

I am still waiting to see a good idea to stop ICS. There is a thread on milking games for high scores. Even with Civ III, ICS was still one of the techniques being used.

In order to stop ICS in a fun and inuitive way, I think that it must be modelled into the game's core, not just by changing one aspect (corruption) of the game to deter it. ICS can be stopped if one puts enough effort into it. Such as by relating the happiness , technology, and government model to it, as well.

The AI does plant cities in strange places. I really don't understand what the heck is so upsetting about it though. If it is really all that useless than it isn't hurting you. It is one way for the AI to make up for its inability to plan. Shotgun tactics.

I wasn't that as an example to my problem. If you care to have me elaborate on my fixation with why I hate excessive AI expansion I will.

In your second to last line in that quote you stated one of the design flaws with Civ3. Civ3 has a good AI, granted, but the game was flawed in many areas to give the game a good AI. IMO, that was a very bad choice on the part of Firaxis.

The lack of movies is clearly caused by two things.

Yes, I know the reasons as to why they were not included. I was using the lack of movies, again, as an example to one of my problems with Civ3. Certain aspects of Civ2, which were liked by many as far as I know, were dropped in Civ3. Also, there you go again with that whole Firaxis defense ordeal.

There was definitly a lack of playtesting in the Modern Era. No real sign of that lack in the Ancient or Medieval.

Check out all of the changes listed in the Blitz mod thread to see otherwise. While you are at you should check out the Blitz mod itself too.

The question isn't wether I understand your position but whether you understood mine when you wrote this.

I believeit is a matter of both, and no where did I state that it was only a matter of understanding my position.

I was biased against what the manual had to say so why not.

It was a simple question; I was curious, that's all.

Perhaps you did not mean that for me. However you have made a run-on post and made no effort to differentiate the change in who you were writing to.

That's very sad that you couldn't see the transition between who I was referring to. Maybe if you bothered to realize who the poster of the quote was you would be able to differentiate between who I was referring to.

Better posting through labeling and seperation.

It's better to read before posting, as well as, writing clear and understandable grammar in a post. The simple method of reading will do wonders for you before writing a post. I figured since we are giving "tips" to each other I should join in on the fun too.

How can he tell where one ends and another starts?

Refer to above statement. For those of you who can't find their way back, I will write it again for you.

"It's better to read before posting, as well as, writing clear and understandable grammar in a post. The simple method of reading will do wonders for you before writing a post. I figured since we are giving "tips" to each other I should join in on the fun too."

It is likely that Firaxis has an NDA regarding things relating to Infogrammes and even the NDA itself. That wouldn't be unusual.

Most likely.

The patch times seems a bit long to me as well

I have a funny feeling that during the time span of when patches are being created more than just the patch itself is being worked on. Meaning that features for future patches/expansions are being worked on too. With the limited amount of new features that have gone in to each patch compared to the amount of time length put into each patch my assumption is reasonable.

Can you imagine what this forum would look like with unsupported betas. It would be shut down by national governments for arson.

The only problem would be the international law conflicts with so many countries being represented here at this forum.


EDIT: BtW, this is my last post on the topic, because I don't fee like "wasting" anymore time on it. It's unsolvable issue, and I wish to call it a truce. Plus I have work to do...gotta finish that Tic-Tac-Toe game lol (I'm at the beginning of my endeavour with computer programming, and this is my first game I've made, plus it contains AI...actually the game is finished but I need to "freshen" up my code).

[Ethelred]

Gee thanks for the great tip, as well as, the fantastic story.

I seem to have left stories out of that post. Perhaps I can shoehorn one in here. I do have a number that have amused on other threads.

Originally posted by TechWins
Correction, very few were in agreement with him, and the few that were in agreement with Zylka also contained a bit of disagreement. Quite a few, also, contained blatant, sarcastic remarks towards Zylka.

Saying its a matter of taste is hardly a disagreement. Its pointing the obvious that seems to escape Zylka. The sacrasm wouldn't have been there if Zylka had left out his own cruder vitriol.

Yes, I am inferring that you were critisizing what Zylka wrote, which is clear by the various insults you let out towards Zylka. Considering all of his theses "enumerated attacks" does show your defense you have for Firaxis.

You have strange ideas of what is constitutes a defense. I was disagreeing with a poorly reasoned and often inflammatory attack. It is hard to disagree with an attack without it being a defense of the attacked at least to some degree.

I see nothing at all wrong in that. You seem to me to be attacking me for not attacking Firaxis.

While, your post may have had less crude remarks, your post had it's crude remarks aimed at a fellow poster of this board, whereas, Zylka had his crude remarks aimed at a game company.

"Less crude" Nonsense. I said nothing that was merely crude. My comments were aimed at his crud. If he had no such remarks I would have had nothing to say in that regard.

Zylka kept his remarks on a business level, and you brought you remarks to a personal level. There's a very big difference between your two posts.

I hope I never work in the business you must work in. He did no such thing. He was pretty toxic.

I'm sorry for inconviencing you to having to read a long paragraph. I should know better not have so many sentences compiled into one thought. Even though, yes, maybe I did need to seperate that particular paragraph into seperate paragraphs for clarity purposes, but I still don't see the need for you to mention it. Please don't tell me that you feel as if you are an intellect superior.

I thought you might take that as some sort of an attack. Too bad you didn't take it as I wrote it. Its a suggestion for clarity. Nothing more and nothing less.

I have had this sort of response to that suggestion before and I have also had people that understood what that is not a personal attack. Some people that didn't like it later took my suggestion as intended. Others continued to treat it as a personal attack. The latter rarely improved their technique.

I have no idea who is the intelectual superior. I don't care either. I can have worthwhile debates with people I know are much smarter than I. Intelect has nothing to do with improved technique.

In order to stop ICS in a fun and inuitive way, I think that it must be modelled into the game's core, not just by changing one aspect (corruption) of the game to deter it. ICS can be stopped if one puts enough effort into it. Such as by relating the happiness , technology, and government model to it, as well.

I don't see anything of help there. It MAY be stopped by something in that direction. Without something a bit less vague than that its hard to tell.

I am pretty sure that happiness would not work in a significantly different way from the present corruption model. Small cities are still likely to be happier cities unless you again base it on numbers and distance. Which will result in unusuable cities same as before. Or worse yet, random revolts.

I wasn't that as an example to my problem. If you care to have me elaborate on my fixation with why I hate excessive AI expansion I will.

I can't talk about what you keep to yourself.

In your second to last line in that quote you stated one of the design flaws with Civ3. Civ3 has a good AI, granted, but the game was flawed in many areas to give the game a good AI. IMO, that was a very bad choice on the part of Firaxis.

Thats a supposition. I don't know and you don't know that the things you don't like were done to help the AI. Unless the thing you are talking about is the editor and the lack of the old cheat menues. It is certainly true that by giving modders more tools they are more likely to break the AI.

Also, there you go again with that whole Firaxis defense ordeal.

You, like Zylka, seem to feel that a disagreement with you must necessarily be a defense of Firaxis. And you seem to think there is something wrong with defending Firaxis in any case.

I disagree on both. Of course that inevitibly makes me some sort of:

Defender Of Firaxis On All Things No Matter How Stupid.

For which we alleged DOFOATNMHSers get this:

Members of DOFOATNMHS throw of your chains of oppression.

It is better to Oppose Firaxis On All Things No Matter How Good.

Than to descend into the depths of Groveling Fandom.

No cross of gold no crown of thorns.

Check out all of the changes listed in the Blitz mod thread to see otherwise. While you are at you should check out the Blitz mod itself too.

It appears to be largely a combat oriented mod. I don't think of Civ as a wargame. Interesting anyway. I have looked at it before.

I simply prefer to play the game as designed at the moment.

I would prefer to play a game designed with the Modern Era improved.

That's very sad that you couldn't see the transition between who I was referring to. Maybe if you bothered to realize who the poster of the quote was you would be able to differentiate between who I was referring to.

It is sad that you didn't make it clear nor say who posted the quote. Its sad you didn't notice that I did see the lack of transition but managed to discern that there was change despite that lack. Its sad that you think it sad.

It's better to read before posting,

I disagree. It works quite well for me to comment as I post. I edit afterwards. Often throwing things out. Think of it as taking notes extensivly.

as well as, writing clear and understandable grammar in a post. The simple method of reading will do wonders for you before writing a post. I figured since we are giving "tips" to each other I should join in on the fun too.

The BETTER method is to hit the PREVIEW button and then edit.

My grammer is fine. My spelling is excreable and I tend to leave out words even when I carefully edit. Sometimes my structure is awkward. Tell me something I don't know.

Refer to above statement. For those of you who can't find their way back, I will write it again for you.

Better yet when you reply to two people at once you should at least give credit as to who wrote what. As I do when I pull that stunt. I only do it for short posts. So I don't do it in posts like this.

Somebody managed to post my comments as Civman's for instance. Labeled carefully too. Just labeled wrong.

I have a funny feeling that during the time span of when patches are being created more than just the patch itself is being worked on. Meaning that features for future patches/expansions are being worked on too. With the limited amount of new features that have gone in to each patch compared to the amount of time length put into each patch my assumption is reasonable.

Possible but not really a good idea. If they are still patching the core modules of the game work done on expansions are likely to need extensive modification later.

Work for future patches are undoudetly being worked on. The editor for instance requires extensive work and that has been mentioned as one of things time is being spent on. Putting out a patch entails getting a working build to Infogrammes and then waiting for them to test it. I don't think they sit on their hands while waiting. They work on the next patch. That is pretty normal from what I can tell so while I don't know they are doing that way it seems likely.

I am pretty sure they have a advanced editor in the works but there is matter of getting the whole thing stable enough to release. In the meantime simple tweaks are about all we will see for the present editor.

(I'm at the beginning of my endeavour with computer programming, and this is my first game I've made, plus it contains AI...actually the game is finished but I need to "freshen" up my code).

"Your a brave man Karl Marx."

But it won't save you from this reply.

I also note here that at no time did you actually rebut a word I said about Zylka's original post. So I will continue to stand on what I said till given good reason in that and in my reply to Zylka's sole reasoned reply to half of it.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Zylka
Now since this thread turned into a ridiculous flame war the first time round, I’d like to try again in hopes of rational debate. This thread is geared towards influencing change for multiplayer. If you have problems with criticism and complaint, I’d advise you to avoid posting below.

It has become painfully apparent that, in frustration, the bulk of the logical critics of Civ 3 have left these newbie-infested forums unscathed for quite some time. Optimists may not rejoice, for we will be back to crush your collective head in like a melon subject to a baseball bat - when that wonderful time that multi-player is released comes about. Yet with the temporary absence of our genius, will Firaxis uphold its tainted reputation in screwing up the mp release, as well? Not if we can reiterate long held dissapointment. The following 65 thesis of protest to firaxis are the result of 6 months of sh*ty gaming for all true Civ fans. No shortcoming or broken promise will be withheld, or forgiven, in our quest to dissolve the rampant corruption (pun intended), which plagues the once classic Civilization Series:

Software/Packaging

1 - The pathetically packaged “collectors edition” tin which sums up your entire operation. Anyone end up getting those designer notes? Anyone’s tech “poster” end up enlarging itself into an actual poster, or aligning its print to the paper? I do hope those biscuit tins are large enough to hold your customers shattered expectations.
2 - Bugs upon release. I won't specify the overly horrendous and inexcusable variety of the aforementioned, otherwise it would be Zylka’s 1,425 theses on why your programmers suck.
3 - Lack of multi-player upon release. Anyone in their right mind would have waited an extra few months for it to be included, but that doesn’t work with planned obsolescence, now does it?
4 - Lack of Scenarios. One of the many steps backwards in regards to civ2.
5 - “Maps” included. Seriously, those shouldn’t have taken more than 20 minutes to make, so you’re either lazy, or incompetent. I vouch for the former with a touch of the latter.
6 - Lack of editor upon release. Current editor is a sad consolation worthy of a swift kick to the gonads.
7 - Lack of windows format, or anything close to not being a pain in the as* for minimizing. Alt + tab makes for an incredibly messy scheme, often crashes the program, and does not work without another program already running.
8 - Patches. Not enough changes, not fast enough. Quite amusing how over half of the listed “changes” for each patch have consisted of fixing typos. Care to borrow my ms-word spell check, next time?
9 - Speed. Why is it so slow, even on a hotrod of a computer? Was an incredibly dated processing engine used for this game?


Graphics

10 - The water is jade, the mountains are red. What (other than reality) inspired you to choose such an unrealistic terrain palette? And no, fixes by the mod community don’t count in saving your collective as* (thank you, Sn00py).
11 - Mountains are way too obtrusive on the land’s layout. It does not look good, quite irritating in fact. Perhaps you should have made them even more unrealistically gigantic and thornlike, I don’t think the common idiot can decipher them as mountains, yet.
12 - Civ score caveman "animation". I won't even attempt to vent my frustration on the fact that an already flawed game had some of it's production diverted to that pile of sh*t.
13 - The 3-D advisors and Leaders are so lame. Again, I would rather you had just used static pictures, with the saved amount of work put towards the intrinsic side of the game. Then again, (neo)classical portraits of leaders don’t sell as well as goofy looking 3-D animations.
14 - Joan de Arc’s cleavage really sexed up civ. No really, you sexed it right up and into a filthy whore of half-wit humor.
15 - Modern resources look horrific. The sight of a tire for rubber, a neon-green slab for uranium, and a garbage can for aluminum literally makes the modern map look like a garbage dump.
16 - Firing of nuclear missiles was done in such a lame manner, it makes red alert look professional in comparison. OOH BOY LOOK DAR SCREEN IS SHAKING BOOM I R USE EXPLOSIFFS!
17 - The “loser” screen. Stupid, not at all well done, tacky.
18 - More shots of the “Evolution” Tower of Babel, please. That’s what we paid for, right?
19 - Why do all naval units have such a melodramatic firing animation? Battleships don’t violently rock back and forth with active turrets, they do weigh a good 50, 000 tons, after all. This may seem petty, but it’s yet another piece of crap decision to make the game a little more radical/explosive oriented exciting for the market’s idiots.
20 - Civ colors. Saints preserve us, an Easter-egg was not a good source for influence. Looks silly, mmk?
21 - Cities need a subtle, blending grid outwards. Current form looks like a clumsily dense mass of buildings sticking up out of nowhere, more of an outpost than anything.

Gameplay

22 - Corruption. It's not, nor has it ever been realistic. It was a pathetically obvious overlay fix for an unexpectedly high timeline speed. Next time, hire logistics programmers before you make such crucial decisions.
23 - Culture, and city reversions. Nice try implementing the abstract of immigration/emigration, it was done horribly. Whole cities do not leave and join empires, “individual” populations (by that I mean 1 city size) should have been the integer. Even a choice route bank specifying to what city(s) immigrant populations should add on would have worked better. Of course, the emigration would have worked on a non-choice level, deriving from cultural formulas according from city to city. See? Even I would have made a better logistics advisor than whoever you had. Problem is, I don’t associate with two-bit operations. No wait, my solutions are too difficult for a drooling moron to comprehend – that wouldn’t work for marketability!
24 - AI cheats. However, it does its job just fine – and anything short of a human must cheat to be challenging. The issue here is admitting it cheats, against what was previously implied, and the programmer’s ego.
25 - AI exploit issues. Tends to militarily expand in odd spaces past their periphery territories, often leaving huge power vacuum areas which are easy to pick off repeatedly throughout the game.
26 - Trade was a half noble/ half cowardly streamlining change. Smart people want more options and more manual control, that includes setting up individual routes from city to city, be it moving the caravan itself. A combination of the two would have been nice, but that would’ve taken more than an hour lunch break to come up with.
27 - Domestic nag. Kill, murder, destroy, gone.
28 - War weariness. Why is it that a celebrating democracy crumbles on the exact turn that some sh*t island nation half way across the globe declares war on it? I fully realize that you were bent on making warfare near useless in this game, but this is just absolutely unacceptable. Closer to real life next time, is that yet clear?
29 - Limited terra-forming is needed.
30 - ICS has become even more a horrible necessity than it was in civ2. REX compounds the problem. Players used to work like hell to secure that perfect setting for a city; a river running through it, a nice patch of grassland, rich resources within hinterland radius… now it just doesn’t matter. Filling up the map is an immediate necessity, and it doesn’t matter where you choose to settle. Huge mistake.
31 - Ships which should, do not have even minor AA abilities.
32 - Resources. Oh goody, my civ has a near infinite cluster of gems. The concept of strategic resources was a noble one, but poorly executed. No civilization should have the need (due to shortage of) a resource as widely available as aluminum. Horses as a strategic resource - seriously? Oil is understandable, yet this kind of limiting factor will wreak havoc on multi-player. You must add an option which turns strategic limitations off. Back to the basics, to give multi-playing equality of opportunity.
33 - Lack of unit obsolescence. This ties in to dependence on strategic resources, and should be dealt with accordingly for multiplayer
34 - Modern ships do not take 20 years to trek the globe, in parallel with soldiers who can travel a continent via rail instantly (realistic given the time frame). Modern naval units really should have been given a one move infinite range, followed by a 2 or 3 single square allowance, and the standard 1 attack move. I’m pretty much talking about giving modern ships a chess queen’s move, followed by the specifics necessary for combat.
35 - 89 technologies in civ2. 82 technologies in civ3. An increase was widely expected, but a decrease is just as good! Did the other 7 techs run off to join Snow White?
36 - Submarines are useless.
37 - Wonders are handed out on a near random basis, with great leaders and lack of ability to rush production. The only plus being that caravans were taken away in wonder production.
38 - Bombers are useless.
39 - Bombers can land on aircraft carriers. Next time you’re landing 50+ meters of wingspan on a quarter mile deck meant to hold fighters, tell me so that I might take a picture.
40 - Nuclear warfare was completely botched. An immediate counter launch chance upon initial launch system
should have been adopted, but that would have made things more realistic, right?
41 - Spying was completely botched. What suggestions would you like, seeing as how it’s irreparably screwed up?
42 - The tech tree. Simplified, and dumbed down with almost no real choice of direction. I’m beginning to wonder if the repeatedly aforementioned market range is that of the 8-12 year old developmentally disabled.
43 - Civ specific units. Yet another attempt to push this game over the not so fine line between classy and red-alert tacky. You’re lucky we can disable them.
44 - Privateers are useless.
45 - There are less governments than civ2. Unacceptable. It should have been expanded with the likes of democratic socialism, fascism, totalitarianism, whatever. Fundamentalism could have easily been dealt with to make for a more realistic model.
46 - Barbarians are absolute pushovers.
47 - All your base are belong to us? You say you want a revolution? How about grow the f*ck up. Lame cult classic sayings have absolutely no place in the game we were expecting.
48 - Armies are useless, especially in the modern era. Who in their right mind would give up a wonder for a useless army?
49 - Whoever decided that cruise missiles should have a range of 2 squares should receive an on-the-spot **** punching. A fitting follow up would be Jimmy’s suggestion to put them on a mental disability leave as soon as possible.
50 - Colonies are useless.
51 - Whoever decided that howitzer type artillery has a 2 square firing range deserves a swift elbow to the sternum. 155 mm canons are not capable of lobbing shells 500 mile distances. It is so bloody easy to exploit this, in rendering armored warfare near ineffective.
52 - The Iron Works is: A – rarely possible B – Useless, for the amount needed to build it.
53 - UN based victory??? Do I even need to pick on that one? Just who thought it up – seriously, which member of the team was it? Again, you’re lucky we can opt out. See a pattern here? Good players want MORE OPTIONS.
54 - Helicopters are useless.
55 - Unit hit points & firepower were brought back to a halfway point between civ 1 and 2. They should have logically been brought to a higher level than civ2; further specified so more accurate ratios could have been assigned according to unit type. Then the whole “my tank lost to a fehking spearman” complaint would have been less frequent, if not absent.
56 - Units can not use enemy roads. It’s fine enough that you can’t use enemy railroads, but roads??? Again, you’d like to render warfare in it’s entirety obsolete, I see. What’s the story here - are you a bunch of hippies, or what?
57 - A nuclear warhead halves a city’s population (point based) and infrastructure – whilst a warrior, a few hundred men with spears (or molotav cocktails, it’s irrelevant how you want to justify it), can destory EVERYTHING in an instant? Something is wrong here.
58 - Bombers can not sink ships
59 - Razing cities is a ridiculous option. It should only be an open choice to smaller cities, preferably 3 and under. A unit of a few thousand (or less) soldiers can not effectively murder and destroy an entire city of over a million people with them sitting idly by. It has not, does not, and will not happen - It’s just that simple.
60 - Bombers can not target specific improvements.
61 - Even less civs than number 2: too few to pick from. Redundant streamlining.
62 - “Random number generator” has been proven time and again to be completely out of whack.
63 - AI trades very poorly
64 – I want the two hours of my life which I spent writing this back.
65 - You have sold your souls to a ship of fools.

Now before all rhetoric is lost in telling the critics to go away and stop playing the game, do remember that the majority of us do believe civ3 is an overall improvement on civ2. Take, for examples, a few of my own pros hinting to why:

I applaud the improvements made to the AI.
I applaud the higher number of units.
I applaud the increase in number of AI at a time.
I applaud the implementation of borders.
I applaud the removal of bribing.
I applaud (some) of the graphic improvements.
I applaud the addition of stacked units upon popular demand.
I applaud the recent changes to cultural reversion upon popular demand.

Yet in light of the much larger opposing list, this is not enough. This game is civ2, sprinkled liberally with stupid, in a 3-d vein. At current stance, drastic change is needed.

Just as you have heard my thoughts, you have heard critical solutions from many of the brilliant minds at Apolyton. Keep in mind that these vivid theses, which I have now nailed to your door, are in no way a complete list of common complaints. Take, for example, the doctrines of Cal-Yin-ism – if you need more convincing of the universal disappointment. I am not doing this because I am angry, nor am I doing it because I have too much time on my hands (well, for the most part ). I am doing this for much needed change, and as fair warning. Single player is so easy, so overly streamlined, and so mediocre for replay value, that I have no want or need to continue playing. The only attractive reason to have hope in civ3 is the thrill of playing another human being, and therein lies the theme in its entirety:

Listen up, Firaxis. You had better get multi-player right.

I wept while reading this. Absolutely beautiful.

[civman2000]

When did I specifically point out any names, besides Ethelred, FG, and Zylka? Therefore, how could you include yourself as part of "us"? The only possiblity I could see is you making false implications that I included you as part of the "blind optimism" group.

Sorry, that was my mistake.


Now I'm confused. WHY HASN'T ZYLKA GOTTEN BANNED BUT TARQUELNE HAS?????? Evil ming--always protecting his favorites!

[TheDarkCavalier]

Zylka was banned SO MANY times, I think that now Ming can only ban him for really big insults, not just cursing sometimes.

[Blacken]

Reading through every single one of these posts has been great fun. Thank you all. Now for my comments.

Sliced girlscouts - Take Girl Scout. Take meat cleaver. Do the math.

Zylka - Very nice. I disagree on the graphics...except the loser screen. They should fix that, I see it far too often - so I know.

Ethelred - If you write another post the length of those, I shall hurt you. Thanks much.

Tarq - Take the Ritalin, or just wear a muzzle when you get back, mmk?

Everyone else - Got any popcorn?

(Yes, I'm still a settler after almost a year. I don't post enough. Too busy laughing.

[Ethelred]

Sliced girlscouts - Take Girl Scout. Take meat cleaver. Do the math.

No thank you. I have seen the Hammer Effect on a young woman and that was enough. Same photo source. That guy had some really nasty pictures. He usualy used drawings in the books to take the edge off them.

Ethelred - If you write another post the length of those, I shall hurt you. Thanks much.

That is why I don't have my address available. I will post again. No one can stop me. I am the mad poster of great length.

Well the Merciless One can stop me.

Sorry but long posts get long replies. They tend to expand exponentially and then I get complaints about the way I truncate what I am quoting.

You should see the long post I just gave to someone having problems getting going in a warlord game. Better yet don't. I don't want to get hurt.

I leave out lot of word and leters. Would you believe me if I claimed to do it to shorten my posts?

[civman2000]

Just received the following email from Tarq:

Thanks for your question civman - getting an answer to that question was a goodly part of the reason for the bann-garning post.

If you feel strongly enough about this you might post the "letter" below. But I don't know how you do feel, or what the mods would think, so I certainly don't feel you're "obligated" in any way at all to do it - it'd be a favor though. I don't know if I'll still care enough about Apoly. after a week's non-participation to come back. I've had some good discussions, but also some that weren't quite so constructive.

But - no matter what - I did want to say something to someone I thought might have a sympathetic ear. So:

Open letter to Apolyton, except that I'm banned.

"All I want to point out is that from the entire thread, it might be difficult for Tarq and others to figure out which personal insults are grievous enough to warrant banning and which aren't."

Thanks. I was upset over getting banned for using the word "fool" _after_ Z.'s "patronizing worthless newbie" remark. Not so much the banning, but what I percieved to be the unfairness of the ban - just me, not both Z. and I. But this time I don't feel upset. The first time I had, indeed, not written my responses with a cool head, and felt guilty. This time, though, I tried to shape my bann-garnering post as closely as possible to Zylka's _and_ make sure the moderator knew thats what I was doing.

I wasn't so much begging for a ban with my last message, but trying to wake Ming up to what was going on. I know that the admins aren't omnsicient, but I did
point out the post that provoked me in e-mail to Ming - no response. I reported the longer post that you quoted in your message - Faded Glory got banned, and no word from Ming. What was I to think? In my last post I made a point of using the same language as Z. (Z. cammo). Ming apparently caught that I was trying to communicate with him, but I think he may have misjudged the nature of that communication. Or maybe not? Is the message supposed to be that Z.'s "tone", different from mine, though still unarguably quite hostile and instulting, is perfectly acceptable at Apolyton? Or is the message that "newbie" such as myself isn't allowed to take that tone, but a vet such as Z. is? Was TDC's (fac.) speculation correct, and the admins build up a tolerance to such behavior from certain posters? If I continually call others "worthless newbies" eventually the admins won't call me on it?

I understand that the moderators can't read every message. I understand that the moderators cannot be expected to act with divine fairness, and that some arbitrariness must be expected. However, in this case a mod seems - to me - to have ignored pertinent information and acted in such a way that I don't see how anyone can view his actions as being anything other than unfair. I know the mods aren't obligated to explain thier actions, but in this case I think a word of explaination would be nice.



Sorry ifthere are spacing problems, I had to delete a bunch of spaces put in by hotmail.

[notyoueither]

civman

Send Tarq an email. Tell him:

*Don't go. The drones need you, they look up to you.*

[Ming]

Originally posted by civman2000
Just received the following email from Tarq:

However, in this case a mod seems - to me - to have ignored pertinent information and acted in such a way that I don't see how anyone can view his actions as being anything other than unfair. I know the mods aren't obligated to explain thier actions, but in this case I think a word of explaination would be nice.

First... the next time somebody posts a "whine" from a restricted member in an on topic forum, they also will also be restricted.
The idea behind a restriction is to limit the person's ability to post.

If he has a problem with his restriction, he can take it up with the owners of the site via PM or EMAIL.. That's the proper channel.

In the emails he sent me, he continues to say "unfair" and "ban Z" If he had had admited he made a mistake, and understood the problem, and wouldn't do it again, he would have been released early, just like I did for Faded Glory and others that try to discuss the situation in an Adult manner instead of just whining about how they did nothing wrong. His actions were wrong. If he doesn't understand that, it's his problem.


And to answer his question... He was restricted for personal insults the first time... And the first thing he does when he comes back is to start all over again. He tries to justify this by pointing the finger elsewhere... and saying that something was ignored... and that I'm being unfair. The ONLY pertinent information was his post... starting the whole flame war up again after the thread had settled down. And, if he starts it up all over again when he gets back, he will get a month the next time.

So... keep this thead on the subject matter. It's not the community forum... it's a thread about the perceived problems of Civ III in one persons opinion. If you can't do that, don't bother to post to this thread.

[Miznia]

Ethelred wrote:

Ever play Ascendency? It looks good. It sounds good. It sucks you in. Then it turns to garbage when you figure out the game itself is lousy. The developers listened to the fans. They developed a patch. The patch said "UP YOURS YOU WHINEY TWITS". All the patch did was make the all the AI civs into psychopathic idiots instead of reasonable idiots.

Is this for real? How do you get that message?

[Ethelred]

That should have been single quotes 'like this' instead of the double quotes "like this" that I used. Sorry about that. Single quotes are for fictitious dialog. I usually get that right unlike my spelling.

You get that message by playing the game and seeing the developers big bad patch to improve the AI only turned them into homicidal lunatics. Thereby destroying the allegedly great diplomacy the game was supposed to have. Civs that hadn't even met me were declaring me evil for betraying the aggreements we had never made.

No it was not in words. I think everyone got the message though.

It is possible they simply couldn't think of another way to make the AI less brain dead. Still it looked like they didn't try. Nothing changed but attitude.

The reviewer for PC Gamer apoligized for his review. PC Gamer apoligized. Not for the contents but for haveing the author of the strategy guide review the game. I think they may have apologized. They did promise not to do it again.

The game has the same one turn more trap as Civ but as the game goes on it becomes more and more tedious. Not because you have a ton of units like in Civ III but because you have to move units for thirty turns just to get them to the front.

You keep thinking the next tech might save you from the nightmare. The information about what tech did what was hidden from you till you had played through at least once. Not in the manual or anywhere else till you saw the next tech on the tree.

The game only needed just a little more brains and a way to improve transport to be great instead it became an example of the worst way to review a game ever.

Firaxis is listening even if they never do manage to satisfy the critics, the Logic Factory was not listening they didn't seem to try.

[Coracle]

As for PC Gamer, and the rest of Firaxis's flacks and shills in the Computer Gaming world, they now have as much credibility with me as Bill Clinton.

I wouldn't waste my time reading a future PC Gamer review, or any of the others. Has PC Gamer subsequently published a REAL review??

Speaking of flacks, how come at Civ Fanatics Forum they often push the latest great review of this effed up game? I guess the shills are not just in the gaming magazines.

The difference in the AI between Civ III and Civ II is a profiund disappointment. We sure expected more after all those years.

"Civs that hadn't even met me were declaring me evil for betraying the aggreements we had never made. ". Yes, it happens every game.

[Ethelred]

Has PC Gamer subsequently published a REAL review??

Yes they have. They gave Civ III a good review after all.

We sure expected more after all those years.

Where do you get that 'We' stuff redface?

My comments were about Ascendency. Could this explain your problem with Civ III? In Civ III the AI never accuses you of breaking nonexistant agreements. Perhaps you are playing Ascendency and haven't noticed.

You know if you learned how to play the game you might like it more.

[civman2000]

I don't know about tarq (no more messages will be forwarded, sorry), but my question is not why he was banned but Z wasn't. I completely understand and agree with him being banned, but why not Z too??

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ming
So... keep this thead on the subject matter. It's not the community forum... it's a thread about the perceived problems of Civ III in one persons opinion. If you can't do that, don't bother to post to this thread.

And Civman2000, what part of this don't you understand! You are making the SAME mistake your buddy did. Are you also asking to be restricted?

[faded glory]

oh I should apoligize for my comments that got me banned.


And thanks to Ming the merciful for giving me a pardon

[Ethelred]

oh I should apoligize for my comments that got me banned.

Tick Tock tick tock


Perhaps you should.


Tick Tock Tick Tock.

[ixnay]

My two cents:

This whole thread is ridiculous.

[Zylka]

Hope I haven't stirred courtly affairs at the Louvre too much

DANCE

[bigvic]

AI tech trading has been rearing its ugly head again. I don't mind a challenge, but when the ai just starts cheating, it really p_sses me off.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by bigvic
AI tech trading has been rearing its ugly head again. I don't mind a challenge, but when the ai just starts cheating, it really p_sses me off.

Then you must be CONSTANTLY PO'd as the AI never stops cheating.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Coracle


Then you must be CONSTANTLY PO'd as the AI never stops cheating.

The AI never STARTS cheating. How can it cheat? Does it ever do something it was not programmed to do? Are you referring to the bonuses given to it on the higher difficulty levels? What? The fact that it is trade happy does not indicate that it is cheating. You shouldn't rationalize your losses or poor play by using the excuse that the computer is cheating.

[bigvic]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


The AI never STARTS cheating. How can it cheat? Does it ever do something it was not programmed to do? Are you referring to the bonuses given to it on the higher difficulty levels? What? The fact that it is trade happy does not indicate that it is cheating. You shouldn't rationalize your losses or poor play by using the excuse that the computer is cheating.

Yes and no. The tech trading bs is overcomeable, with lots of money (buying tech) &/or brutality. But then, whats the point if you want to be Doug Nye the science guy? Sure, its a challenge. What sucks is when some AI darling (usually Egypt) thats not even scientific, somehow manages to get all tech, support a huge military and never piss anyone off. Yeah, I know, its a challenge. But the AI does cheat. Take for instance the espionage thing. Several times (ok, maybe only 3-4) I've done a complete espionage sweep of an AI's cities (I mean COMPLETE), found little or nothing, attacked, and all of a sudden, gigantic AI hoard of the latest, biggest, baddest offensive unit it has, POOF! out of thin air. Sure, yeah, they could have been hiding them in that remote corner of thier empire or something, but...not every time. This kind of cheat just takes something out of the game, like the utility of an entire facet, in this case, espionage.
OK, different gripe. At the same time this is going on, the AI hasa very one dimensional and therefore predictable, and therefore irritating, method of waging war. Build hordes of primo offensive units and send them in human waves. No combined arms, no real subtlety, although I have been impressed with the way it seems to understand fog of war, baiting one with a seemingly lone unit then pouncing on the attacker. Given a wide front, the AI seems to understand the value of flanking as well, and when it outnumbers you, is a dangerous foe. But does it ever use bombardment units for anything other than city defence? Except for naval units, I've yet to see it. In a way, its fine, since we organic life forms need every advantage we can get at high difficulty levels, and I've personally destroyed gigantic hordes of AI primo offensive units with a smaller, well balanced force. Again a shame there is no multiplayer option. It would be cool to see how human intelligence could spice things up in this arena.
BTW, and no gripe, just an observation, but I think that playing on the larger maps in effect ups the difficulty level. If you play huge 16 civ games, you really have to consider it a couple of notches higher in difficulty, as well as patience testing.

PS Also, BTW, Zylka, how many times have you been booted? I've noticed a strong soap operish flavor to this thread and, sitting around w/ some friends, throwing down a few coldies despite my viral gutfunk, almost decided to try and get booted by saying something off color, off topic, or just flaming a bit. Didn't feel like flaming you, since I agree w/ most of what you say, on topic, don't much care about the off topic flame wars (though they do get entertaining in a strangely voyeuristic way). Even better is when Ming pops up from time to time, booting or threatening to boot. Ming, can you boot me for a few days? I think it would be kind of cool, you know, like in school when you acted out that one time to get written up so no one would think you were a goody goody two shoes nerd? You'e a real cool moderater.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by bigvic


you want to be Doug Nye the science guy?

Its bill nye, the science guy, and yes I do want to be him

I'm not sure if the AI can auto build units, I think there maybe a shield discount for it? But, perhaps the AI whipped up an army in communism? hmm

[bigvic]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


Its bill nye, the science guy, and yes I do want to be him

I'm not sure if the AI can auto build units, I think there maybe a shield discount for it? But, perhaps the AI whipped up an army in communism? hmm

OOPS! Perhaps a coldie too far.

[bigvic]

And sometimes i do want to be Bill Nye the science guy, its just kind of rough at higher levels under the circumstances.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by bigvic
And sometimes i do want to be Bill Nye the science guy, its just kind of rough at higher levels under the circumstances.

true.