Where Did Civ3 Go Wrong?

[Jaybe]

Where did Civ3 go wrong?
It Didn't! Just as any of you didn't go wrong when you were smallfry. It's just maturing, that's all.

Myself, I can't seem to get one game done before another update comes out. My games take more than a month to play.

JB

[Zoid]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


Another factless, baseless comment.

I'm aware you don't care, but that piece of snide, arrogant, irrelevant trash, plus the accumulation of the rest of your garbage posts on this forum just earned you a ticket to my ignore list. Congrats, not even Coracle has gotten there yet.

You´re that easily provoked cyclo? jt has a point, Firaxis IS cashing in on Sid´s rep. They know darn well that if there´s SID MEIER in bold letters on the box the game will sell. Sid´s name in itself is a guarantee for quality (or so people think...)

And yes jt can be perceived as snide and arrogant, but I think he´s quite funny most of the time (as I myself like to deliver the occasional snide arrogant comment )

[Zoid]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


I wonder if some folks here are braindead.

Maybe not braindead, but sure as hell gullible to the extreme

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by zulu9812
whilst the victory conditions have been improved - i always find my games unfolding the same way - become the only empire on my continent and then settle others & make war when i discover magnetism

If you are finding your "games unfolding the same way" then
change the way you play your games!

BTW, I am trying to do that myself. I've never had an ancient offensive war and I'd like to try it out. Gotta finish my current game first, though.

JB

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Strollen

Interesting you bringing up prisoners. A few weeks ago I attended an inspirational speech by Jerry Coffee. A friend and fellow POW (for 7 years) of John McCain. I believe this man would fit your criteria right?. In his speech he talked about how initially he was feeling so sorry for himself "why me", "when will I get out" etc. But after a while though faith in himself, his fellow prisoners, his country and God, he thought he gained from the experience. (In fact, he got credit for 2 years of French at Berkeley after his release that he learned from fellow POWs via tapping on the walls in code.)

In fact he was more than satisfied each day when he got a small sliver of fish in his soup, or he wasn't tortured, he was actually happy. Since, he expected to be tortured most days and the only protein he expected to see in his food was maggots. So you see lower expectations worked for Jerry.

In the game I gain satisfaction when the AI does something clever (which happens pretty frequently) or when one of my strategies works out. Given Sid's name is on the box, I'll admit I expected the humor, and just fun elements that are present in a game like SimGolf but sadly absent in Civ3.

I find that comparison hilarious and oddly unsettling at the same time

[Zoid]

Just a question. How many are actually still playing the game, but flame the hell out of it anyway? I know I do (occasionally)

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
You´re that easily provoked cyclo? jt has a point, Firaxis IS cashing in on Sid´s rep. They know darn well that if there´s SID MEIER in bold letters on the box the game will sell. Sid´s name in itself is a guarantee for quality (or so people think...)
...

As long as Sid's games are quality games, I see nothing wrong with utilizing his reputation. Without business profits, there would not be (too many items to mention).

OTOH, I have no intention of trying to be a golf course manager!

JB

[Fitz]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Heck, it worked. Lowest common denominator. Inclusive. Lot like the democratic party.

From a marketing standpoint dumbing down products makes sense, at least over the short term.

Right now Firaxis is all about cashing in on Sid's rep. That will work for a few more years.

Despite the fact that this is one of the more arrogant posts I've seen you make, I agree with everything you said. Although in the case of the DNC I don't think it's such a bad thing.

And Cyc, I had wondered before if you needed to be included in the rabids catagory with AC and Coracle, and to me you've proved you have. OR at least that you fall into the incredibly easily baited catagory.

Dominae (and others), I pretty much think that you've got the one problem (for many 'Poly members) of CivIII down, which is the replayability issue. In my case, it stems directly from the dumbing down for mass market appeal, as I prefer a very complex set of options, which is why I loved and still love SMAC. Others may find it easier that I to find that replayability without it, but unfortunately I find it hard to vary tactics with a limited set of units and governments. I think the primary reason is that limitation tend to make a few tactics stand out far ahead of the others.

And, like in SMAC, there is a limit to the self imposed challenges you can give yourself (let's see here, Deity with Raging barbarians, but should I do islands or pangea?) which fortunately I haven't reached yet.

So my point of view basically boils down to good, but not fantastic.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Jaybe

As long as Sid's games are quality games, I see nothing wrong with utilizing his reputation. Without business profits, there would not be (too many items to mention).

My point is that Civ3 isn´t a quality game. And I think that Firaxis realized this, but relied on Sid´s good name to flog a half-assed game.

OTOH, I have no intention of trying to be a golf course manager!

JB

[Kc7mxo]

My point is that Civ3 isn´t a quality game. And I think that Firaxis realized this, but relied on Sid´s good name to flog a half-assed game.

I absolutley disagree. Civ3 is a quality product. The fact that many of us dislike (myself included), nay despise certain aspects of that product do not negate the fact that it is a quality product.


Perhaps I am mistaken, but what parts do you consider to be of lesser quality?

The parts that I myself dislike are design choices, not problems of quality. I have not experienced any bugs of inordinate magintude, and while I have found their combat engine to be frustratingly grotesque at times, it does not mean the game is of low quality.

And before you complain about the lack of multiplayer, consider that such aspect of the game is one that will be used by VERY few of the people who bought the game. and I have zero interest in it. I find that the game model simply does not support multiplayer as an entertaining (for me) method of play.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo


I absolutley disagree. Civ3 is a quality product. The fact that many of us dislike (myself included), nay despise certain aspects of that product do not negate the fact that it is a quality product.


Perhaps I am mistaken, but what parts do you consider to be of lesser quality?

The parts that I myself dislike are design choices, not problems of quality. I have not experienced any bugs of inordinate magintude, and while I have found their combat engine to be frustratingly grotesque at times, it does not mean the game is of low quality.

And before you complain about the lack of multiplayer, consider that such aspect of the game is one that will be used by VERY few of the people who bought the game. and I have zero interest in it. I find that the game model simply does not support multiplayer as an entertaining (for me) method of play.

It MAY be a "quality" product NOW - but it sure wasn't six months ago when this beta game was sold to me for fifty bucks, along with that useless Strategy Guide written by a Firaxis flack. It was a piece of crap in November; now it is just flawed in many basic concepts. . . including fun.

The lack of Scenarios or Cheat Mode - so beloved and basic to Civ 2 - I consider a rip-off, especially as they never told us it wasn't there on the box.

[Kc7mxo]

It MAY be a "quality" product NOW - but it sure wasn't six months ago when this beta game was sold to me for fifty bucks, along with that useless Strategy Guide written by a Firaxis flack. It was a piece of crap in November; now it is just flawed in many basic concepts. . . including fun.

The lack of Scenarios or Cheat Mode - so beloved and basic to Civ 2 - I consider a rip-off, especially as they never told us it wasn't there on the box.

well, both of those are design decisions, and are not reflective on its quality. and the strategy guide isn't beind discussed.

you still haven't mentioned anything to support your claim of lack of quality.

[KrazyHorse]

Civ 3's not that bad. Having trouble getting as engaged as I did in Civ2, though.

[nmcul]

I can't take it anymore! My Civ 3 forum site tanked, (right before I would have gotten promoted, of course) so I'm (sort of) new to this site.

I really can't understand how some of the others here can tolerate what Infogrames has done. I may not agree with jimmy trick on politics, but we have the same opinion that Civ 3 is no more than an ordinary game that's been surgically attached to a series of excellent games. Civ 3 is a good, mabye even great game; this, unfortunately, isn't enough to live up to the name of Civilization.

How does Civ 3 fail? Let us count the ways:
1) Firepower. Sure, mabye it helps players with no resources, but it's simply ridiculous to have guys with swords beat out machine gun-toting mech infantry. Besides,
2) resource distribution should be more sane anyway. I think that it says IN THE CIVILOPEDIA that over 5% of Earth's crust is iron... I've yet to see a map with 5% of the squares containing iron deposits.
3) Supersimplifying the game. It attracts a few more followers, but chances are that if Civ 3 is your first Civ game, you didn't buy it because it's simple. And the notion that Infogrames is suggesting... "We figure that our customers are too stupid to understand a complex game "
4) Features murdered for no reason. A lot to list, but spies is mabye the most significant. Why are spies gone? "I couldn't defend against them." Good for you. It takes 2 units on a square to spy-proof it, and we know how hard THAT is. Bribing barbarians was always useful against other barbs.
5) Wonder Movies. Column 203 should explain it all. So they didn't want to distract me from the current MUSIC?! I loved those things! I still catch myself whistling the tune from "Magellen's Expedition" when my caravel sets off to explore the world, althouh that's usually pointless because
6) the random maps are so bland. There are almost never any midsea islands. An Australia or even a Hawaii equiv. is practically never present. And what's the deal with rivers and huge jungles.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by nmcul
ICiv 3 is a good, mabye even great game; this, unfortunately, isn't enough to live up to the name of Civilization.

How does Civ 3 fail?

I'm so confused. For $50 Firaxis makes a "good, maybe even great game," and it still fails somehow.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Coracle
It MAY be a "quality" product NOW - but it sure wasn't six months ago when this beta game was sold to me for fifty bucks, along with that useless Strategy Guide written by a Firaxis flack. It was a piece of crap in November; now it is just flawed in many basic concepts. . . including fun.

The lack of Scenarios or Cheat Mode - so beloved and basic to Civ 2 - I consider a rip-off, especially as they never told us it wasn't there on the box.

Nearly everybody agrees with the fact, that the game was rushed to the xmas sales in 2001. If this is Firaxis' or Infogrames' fault, who cares? It has been greatly improved by 3 patches. You still don't find it fun, ok, that's your opinion and I will respect it. That you bought it with the strategy guide, is your own fault. Such guides are designed for bloody newbies who don't understand yet the game mechanics at all. If you are the Civ2 veteran you always tell, why did you buy this guide? And heavens, tell me why are you still play this funless flawed peace of crap? Are you a masochist or something?

By the way, I have a copy of Civ2 from 1996 here. The scenario editor is great, it has an outstanding cheat mode and is fully multiplayer capable... but wait, if I look closer, it has 2 lousy scenarios, no editor, no cheat mode... and multiplayer? Nada. So why is it a rip-off?

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo


Perhaps I am mistaken, but what parts do you consider to be of lesser quality?

This has been dicscussed extensively over the last six months by numerous posters. Do a search for posts by jimmytrick, Libertarian, Velociryx, Coracle, Dominae or myself in the Civ3 general forum. I find posts by Lib, Vel or Dominae especially well written.

[Velociryx]

Civ3's biggest failing, in my mind:

After a while (depends on the person, your mileage may vary), once you're out of the middle ages, the game goes quickly from "just one more turn" to "OMG, not another turn!"

It loses the magic.

Yes, there were complaints re: Civ2 about making it harder to sustain larger empires, but their solution to the problem makes even not-so-large empires a grind to maintain. It's work, and I don't wanna pay fifty bucks (sixty...I bought the LE with those "designer's notes" inside--stifles a snort) to work. I wanna play a game.

Same with pollution. How much fun is it to guide your worker bees to clean up yet more pollution? Mmmmm....man that just gives me a charge every time!

There is no strategic challenge to the game (simplified combat), no technological challenge to the game (small tech trees...doesn't really matter what you research, or in what order)

Linear path to victory. Once you master the basics, the game plays fundamentally the same way each time after that.

1) Early game land grab phase (Rapid expansion)

2) Ancient Era/Middle Ages resource denial and warfare to crush the life out of neighboring civs and gain a monopoly position on resources.

3) Middle Ages/Industrial Age warfare to lock down the win.

Every single time.

-=Vel=-

EDIT: Forgot to add the phrase "The above is, of course, simply this person's opinion. Some folks love the game, and that's awesome. I wish I could count myself among their number."

[Theseus]

Vel,

My apologies, but I think that you formed your opinions some months ago, and have since been focused on Candle'Bre.

Due to:
1) 1.21f
2) Apolyton discussions
3) Experimental play

I have found that the game has much more depth, flexibility, and playability than I thought. True, it is simpler than it could be, and, true, certain existing aspects need further work, but I have to disagree with your characterization.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Velociryx
1) Early game land grab phase (Rapid expansion)

2) Ancient Era/Middle Ages resource denial and warfare to crush the life out of neighboring civs and gain a monopoly position on resources.

3) Middle Ages/Industrial Age warfare to lock down the win.

This is the "3-step program" that most experienced Civ3 players have come to discover. I admit I've played 90% of my games this way, with high success. This may very well be the best way to play Civ3.

The fact that there is an obvious way to win (in very general terms) is quite disappointing to some. However, I do not believe this is death of Civ3.

In attempts to get myself back into the game recently, I've decided to explore some other "x-step programs" (i.e. alternative strategies).

My favorite so far has been with the French. Rather than build up military might in the Middle ages, I ensure that my core cities all reach size 6-12 and build all the commercial and scientific improvements (with enough Luxuries and marketplaces/banks, you can skip over Temples and Cathedrals for a suprisingly long time). The Commercial and Industrious traits really help here. No AI civ manages to ever get such "city quality" until well into the Industrial age, in my experience. If you keep the AI off your back long enough, you end up with all the best cities in the world, at which point the sky is the limit for the Industrial age. This strategy reminds me of how I used to play the Morganites in SMAC, which was my favorite faction.

Anyway, personally I believe there are still avenues I haven't explored in Civ3. Unfortunately, I can see the day when I'm going to sit down to start a game and force myself to do something different, in order to have fun ("Hmm, Huge Archipelago map with Raging Barbarians and 3 Civs...that could be interesting!"). In other Civ-type games I could just sit down and play, time after time.


Dominae

[Theseus]

Dominae,

My point exactly.

Actually, it was Vel himself who pointed me down this path, with his discussion of the "metagame."

I already play the way you describe... I sit down, start a game, and then devise an overall strategy, according to many factors (incl. the metage), that varies quite widely.

(grins shyly... well, yes, early warfare is often a part of the strategy...)

However:

Are my neighboring civs 20+ tiles away? So much for early war.

Am I Industrial with great food-production? Build.

Am I Religious? Build.

Am I Commercial, and I luck out with gold? Money, money, money.

Look, any system, forget just games, is subject to design contraints, and will often have vulnerabilities that allow for exploitation. Either the system evolves, or is evolved, over time to deal with those points of vulnerability, or the participants in the system have to agree upon the avoidance of exploitation. Stock market - no insider info. Government - limits on contributions. Amateur sports - no one gets paid. E-bay - no fake bids.

I remember when I first played MP C&C, we realized that massive helicopter rushes were unstoppable... so we agreed not to use them.

Entertainment as a whole requires a willing suspension of disbelief. Do I know how to guarantee a win in Civ3? Sure... but what's the fun in that?

[Dominae]

Theseus, I agree wholeheartedly.

Having fun in any game requires knowledge of why one enjoys games in the first place. For me, it's discovering new things, and competing against challenging opponents (humans and AIs alike).
A lot of people play to win; if you're one of these, then I can see how a "3-step program" ruins some of the magic. Other people, like Aeson, enjoy pushing a game to its limits (he said this himself, so I'm not playing psychologist here). Yet other people enjoy figuring out the underlying game mechanics, like those avid posters on the "Corruption" threads.

The point is that games are fun if you want them to be. If you discover reasons why a game isn't fun for you anymore, stop playing it. Unlike other things in life, quitting is a great solution here!


Dominae

[Kc7mxo]

This has been dicscussed extensively over the last six months by numerous posters. Do a search for posts by jimmytrick, Libertarian, Velociryx, Coracle, Dominae or myself in the Civ3 general forum. I find posts by Lib, Vel or Dominae especially well written.

I have little interest in looking up information you cannot remember.

I pretty much forgot about civ 3 and aolyton after civ 3 came out. I didn't find Civ 3 to be fun, and quit playing it. But then, I don't paticuarly like wrestling games either. But that doesn't mean that wrestling games aren't quality. People often complain about games being "buggy as hell" without specifying the problem. I personally had NO quality related problems with civ 3, even in its most original form. I did NOT like the game, but that wasn't a quality issue.

I'm just saying that I consider it foolish to call a game low quality when, to my mind, it was of higher quality than the majority of computer games which are typically released. And that is the only way quality can be calculated, via a comparison with other materials of simliar nature. Comparing it to some paragon held in the sky may be fine for Plato, but I consider it pointless.

[codemast01]

People comparing CivIII to some "paragon held in the sky" ideal are being (prehaps too) idealist. Since prefection is rare if not impossible, idealist people do not expect perfection. They can only strive for it. I say this because I consider myself idealist. What annoys me, and I am sure other idealist people is CivIII did not appear to strive for perfection. The result was a "great" game (CivII) that became just "very good" (CivIII).

Before someone gripes that people who complain about the game never give specifics of what they don't like, here it is :

1. What happened to the cease fire treaty?
2. What happened to the ability to threaten. As it is you can only demand that the AI give you things for nothing in return.
3. No choice besides 20 turns for how long a treaty lasts
4. No unit trading
5. No way to control nukes (ie arms control treaties, or nanites in CTP II) It wasn't sovled in CivII so maybe that is expecting too much.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Yes, there were complaints re: Civ2 about making it harder to sustain larger empires, but their solution to the problem makes even not-so-large empires a grind to maintain.

With all due respect, have you played the game with the most recent patch? From this, I would guess not. If you can't handle the corruption, it is quite easy to reduce or remove entirely, just a few seconds in the editor.

besides "Corruption is the SMAC equivalent to inefficiency, and while it tends to be more brutal in Civ, I actually like that more! Let's face it....b/c of supply crawlers and specialists, you could simply expand forever in SMAC....no dice in Civ3....that's cool to me....and believable"

Originally posted by Velociryx
Same with pollution. How much fun is it to guide your worker bees to clean up yet more pollution? Mmmmm....man that just gives me a charge every time!

This is easily taken care of by setting a few workers to automatically clean the pollution. Sift-P, they clean then wait for more. Not a big deal, at least to me, to put 5 or 10 workers on auto.

Originally posted by Velociryx
There is no strategic challenge to the game (simplified combat),

How is the combat less complicated than other 4x games? Granted, I wish there were at least anti-horse and anti-air units, but at least Civ3 has added bombardment to the combat equation. Civ2-pure brute force. SMAX-some artillery units, but I did not find them to be of great utility.

Originally posted by Velociryx
no technological challenge to the game (small tech trees...doesn't really matter what you research, or in what order)

If I'm the iriqouis, does it not matter what I research? What about the Persians, shouldn't I try to get ironworking ASAP? Even when not discussing UUs, I head for a goal, say Military Tradition, to try to gain an edge, whereas my opponents usually research the other branches, and its not so easy to just buy research off of the AI. I frequently get shut out from purchasing advances, requiring warfare to catch me up.

Originally posted by Velociryx
Linear path to victory. Once you master the basics, the game plays fundamentally the same way each time after that.
1) Early game land grab phase (Rapid expansion)
2) Ancient Era/Middle Ages resource denial and warfare to crush the life out of neighboring civs and gain a monopoly position on resources.
3) Middle Ages/Industrial Age warfare to lock down the win.
Every single time.

The above describes basically all 4x games, does it not? Just some slight variation on the theme.

You are also conveniently forgetting about culture wins, Spaceship wins, and Diplo wins, all three of which require different long term strategies. Do I fight costly industrial wars, or build culture buildings, knowing that they increase in culture production as time passes? Do I fight and raze cities if I want to get a diplo victory?

Originally posted by Velociryx
Some folks love the game, and that's awesome. I wish I could count myself among their number."

I do too. Perhaps you should try the game with the latest patch, it is a nice improvement, but that is, as are all of the above, just my opinions.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo


I have little interest in looking up information you cannot remember.

Well, suit yourself. I´m just trying to be helpful, jeez...

[Kc7mxo]

Well, suit yourself. I´m just trying to be helpful, jeez...

I wasn't trying to be rude. Just speaking from a serious tone of voice.

doesnt' matter a whole lot. just a discussion. i'm out of the civ3 loop yet again as my hard drive just bit it and took all my saved games with it.

[Velociryx]

Hello again, and good to see I've not been forgotten in these parts, despite an extended absence and some rather serious disenchantment with the game.

Good, valid points all 'round. Yes, there is a measure of depth in the game, post patch (I reinstalled it and played one game just to take note of the differences...a good many changes for the better, but....at least for me, it amounted to a case of too little, too late. If 1.21f had been the state of the game out of the box, my opinion would no doubt have been radically different than it is today). The trouble is...the difference is, with Civ3, you have to go looking for that depth, it doesn't just surge up and grab you by the collar, and that's too bad cos it could. One nip here, one minor tuck there, and it could have been a whole different, much richer beast.

As to the specific questions my earlier post generated:

I don't mind the corruption at all, simply because I ignore it. When I have expanded to the point where I've got cities cranking out one shield of production, I set them to building some cheap unit and cash them in to help other one-shield cities that are important to me complete whatever they're working on. But I know there are tons of people who do take issue with the measure and ferocity of corruption in the game as it comes out of the box + patched. And, the argument that it can be tweaked in the editor is certainly a valid one, however, if we rely on that answer too frequently, then why create a game at all? Why not just create an editor shell and let people build their own game from the ground up?

Regarding pollution. The "automate your workers" was the very argument I used when defending that aspect of the game. The question in my mind is: What does pollution add to the game, besides grunt work? And the corallory question, "if the goal is to put some sort of production/population cap on large cities, is there not a better way to express that, besided grunt work and tedious micromanagement that the player will simply automate his way out of?"

I would contend that there are.

It's certainly true that combat has never been the high point, nor the true purpose of any 4x game I can think of, but N. Machivelli's "Warrior Blitz" proved beyond all doubting in a lot of people's minds (mine included) that combat in Civ3 is too simplified for its own good. Try that with Laser Scouts in SMAC and see what it gets you....Granted, SMAC's combat model isn't all that hot, but compared to the "evolution" in Civ3's, it wins hands down.

Regarding technological research: No, if you're the Iroquois or the Persians, it matters not one whit what you research. Just start with any old thing, and in short order you will either beat, steal, or trade your way to every tech your neighbors posess. You don't need MW's or Immortals to win ancient era fights. All that'll do is give you an early Golden Age (at a point in the game when you're not set up to get maximum benefit from it anyway).

As to the other victory conditions in Civ3....it's not that I forgot about them, it's just that I find them...hollow.

Win via diplomacy...splash screen....game.

Win via culture...splash screen...game.

Win via space race....slightly more engaging, thanks to the components needed, fairly cool movie, then...splash screen...game.

At least with combat, you can put a bit of purpose behind shuffling your units around.

I contend that the basic strategies for all of the various victory types (save for diplomatic) are essentially the same. You can lock the game up in the ancient era and then pick and choose how you win.

It's not that I despise the game....I don't. It's a decent game.

But it's the first time I have ever described any of the Civ-series as being just a "decent" game. *sighs*

-=Vel=-

[zulu9812]

Originally posted by Velociryx
As to the other victory conditions in Civ3....it's not that I forgot about them, it's just that I find them...hollow.

Win via diplomacy...splash screen....game.

Win via culture...splash screen...game.

Actually, I quite like the whole 'kiss my ass' screen - I get to bask in the praise of my friends and the lamentations of my enemies...

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Velociryx
And, the argument that it can be tweaked in the editor is certainly a valid one, however, if we rely on that answer too frequently, then why create a game at all? Why not just create an editor shell and let people build their own game from the ground up?

The designers made a choice regarding corruption, you can change that if you want. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with using the editor as an answer? The designers could have made corruption negligible but then people would probably mod it into the game it is now, to get more of a challenge. I thought that having an editor was a good thing. Create-a-game, its not, tweak a game into how you want to play it, it is. Where's the problem? Flexibility is a good thing, isn't it? Give the people a basic game, they can change parts of it to be what they want it to be. Would you rather have them hardcode every single aspect of the game?

Originally posted by Velociryx
Regarding pollution. The "automate your workers" was the very argument I used when defending that aspect of the game. The question in my mind is: What does pollution add to the game, besides grunt work? And the corallory question, "if the goal is to put some sort of production/population cap on large cities, is there not a better way to express that, besided grunt work and tedious micromanagement that the player will simply automate his way out of?"

What did pollution add to Civ2? Civ1? Was it purposeless in those games as well? Is pollution's goal to keep down population and production? Its never really bothered me that much. Could there have been a new way to implement pollution? Sure, of course. But, personally, I am ok with what it is now. I would rather see resources spent on other aspects throughout the game than something that only happens at the tail end.

Originally posted by Velociryx
It's certainly true that combat has never been the high point, nor the true purpose of any 4x game I can think of, but N. Machivelli's "Warrior Blitz" proved beyond all doubting in a lot of people's minds (mine included) that combat in Civ3 is too simplified for its own good. Try that with Laser Scouts in SMAC and see what it gets you....Granted, SMAC's combat model isn't all that hot, but compared to the "evolution" in Civ3's, it wins hands down.

I thought early rushes were a viable tactic in all Civ games, not just Civ3 (at least on lower levels). I've done it in all the games, sometimes its successful, sometimes its not. The same as Civ3. Sometimes I try it, works great, other times, I get crushed. I no longer try it, because I think its boring.

Oh, and did you know that you can increase the hitpoints of individual unit types in the editor now? I don't know if you were referring to the lack of hitpoints and firepower in the game, but now you can change the hitpoints, if you want. But that's another editor solution.

Originally posted by Velociryx
Regarding technological research: No, if you're the Iroquois or the Persians, it matters not one whit what you research. Just start with any old thing, and in short order you will either beat, steal, or trade your way to every tech your neighbors posess. You don't need MW's or Immortals to win ancient era fights. All that'll do is give you an early Golden Age (at a point in the game when you're not set up to get maximum benefit from it anyway).

Well, I usually play on Monarch or Emperor, and I have found myself in situations where NO ONE would trade with me. The AI kicks who is down, and that is usually me at the beginning. And how can you steal techs without an embassy and a lot of gold, neither of which you have at the beginnign of the game? How can you beat an opponent into submission, to get their techs,on the upper levels if you don't at least have a decent unit to do it with. While you don't need the MWs or imms to win battles, can you kill enough of a civ with warriors (when they have spearmen or better) that they will give you their advances?

And re: golden age: I would have to argue your point about not getting max value if in the mid ancient age. Around that time, I will have probably 10-15 cities, all pumping MWs. Suddenly a golden age will vastly increase this, helping me win more battles and cities, securing more land. Compared to, say, a late Industrial GA where the land is settled. Sure, I have more cities to take advantage of the GA, but it will require more units to take the same territory as I could have in the ancient era. i would argue that the relative benefit of an early GA is greater than that when the AI civs are entrenched. But, this is just IMO. Isn't this strategy?

Originally posted by Velociryx
As to the other victory conditions in Civ3....it's not that I forgot about them, it's just that I find them...hollow.
Win via diplomacy...splash screen....game.
Win via culture...splash screen...game.
Win via space race....slightly more engaging, thanks to the components needed, fairly cool movie, then...splash screen...game.
At least with combat, you can put a bit of purpose behind shuffling your units around.

I personally don't care about victory screens or movies or what have you. I don't play the game to see a movie, I play for the part leading up to the victory. I didn't find the movies etc of SMAX and Civ2 to be enthralling either.

Originally posted by Velociryx
I contend that the basic strategies for all of the various victory types (save for diplomatic) are essentially the same. You can lock the game up in the ancient era and then pick and choose how you win.

You don't have to play that way. Just because it is a way to win, perhaps the easiest, surest, doesn't mean that you have to play that way.

A game is what you make of it. If you don't want to play it creatively, then that is your own business, but what would you say to me if I said the same about SMAX?

Originally posted by Velociryx
But it's the first time I have ever described any of the Civ-series as being just a "decent" game. *sighs*

I felt the same way about SMAX, nice at first, and for the occasional play, but not something I want to play for extended periods of time.

FWIW, if you don't like the game, fine. What I don't like is when people say things like "there's only one way to play the game" or "there's no strategic depth in the game". This is just false. If you don't want to play the game creatively, thats fine, but don't turn around and blame it on the game. I will say it again, the game is what you make of it. If you don't want Civ3 to have depth, it won't have it. The choice is yours, grashopper.