How I Came To Own Civ3

[Lucilla]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

I don't see how... I only have 5 units, and the visible AI ones number about 3 tops. Does it animate the ones I can't see?

Well, in that case you're right, it won't help much. But later in the game it will, especially if you have RoP with somebody and your territory gets crossed by other civs.

[King of Rasslin]

Is CTP2 really that much better than CTP? The game tried too many weird ideas and many of them just flopped. Ocean cities worked in Alpha Centauri but they didn't work in CTP. Satellities were great in Alpha Centauri but flying cities were so dumb in CTP.

If they remove the useless units (monk, televangelist, etc.) and the flying cities, it would be better. It would be good if they got rid of the PW concept too. Public Works points were very unbalancing.

I love the resources of Civ 3 and the size limitations of your empire due to corruption. It will be appreciated in multiplayer. I thought Alpha Centauri had a better system, though. Your drones would rebell if you surpassed the max # of cities. This made it hard to make a lot of cities but it was still quite managable. Civ 3 corruption isn't as good as the drone rebellions but it still succeeds to keep the game balanced.

I would like to see Oasis or Bananas in tough terrain tiles. Civ 3 needs some easier starting locations. A lot of it depends on... Luck.

[Tamerlin]

Hi everybody,

I have just send a post on a similar subject in the General section of the Civilization 3 forum. Though I still prefer CtP2 (the PW is really a great relief) here is what I think of my first Civ3 "real" game :

------------------------------------

"I have played Civ2 for a long time and then CtP2. I must admit I had less trouble to adapt to CtP2 than Civ3 though many features (tech, improvement) of the later are close to its predecessor's ones.

First, I decided to discover the new concepts and features through the tutorial, the game proved very interesting though the AI was of course no match at this level. At the end of the game I had mixed feelings, a very good game though not as fun as Civ2 and CtP2.
I knew one thing for sure, I would have to give this game a second chance.

One week ago I decided to play a Civ3 game again. Not particularly confident in myself I selected Warlord as the Difficulty. The AI civs expanded very quickly and choked me around 0 AD. A bit irritated, I don't like to loose against a "Warlord" AI, I immediately started a new game in which I was determined to be more cautious and careful. Once again, shortly after 0 AD, I was overwhelmed by the expansion of the AI and its ability to produce tens of units. I started again... same result...
At this moment I thought I had missed something and came back to Apolyton for a few strategical hints. Not wholly satisfied with the threads here (perhaps I haven't found the good one), I tried the Strategy thread of the "Civ Fanatics" and discovered the War Academy and an article named :"Faster Expansion: a Key Element of the Early Game" (if you are already fed up with my post you can find the link at the end of it). This article allowed me to understand why the core civ2 players can have some troubles at the beginning of a Civ3 game and give a "recipe" for a good start.

I then started a new game and applied the given "recipe" with success, I'am now around 1000 AD, I've successfully resisted to two wars and I'am about to teach a lesson to the aggressive Zulus. Thanks to this article, I'am now enjoying the game though I have some criticisms.

I already knew the AI intelligence was cheating in Civ2, as in many other games, and sometimes in a rather crude manner. In civ3, the AI civs are tough opponents because they are blatantly cheating. I'am not irritated by the fact the AI civs are cheating but by the way they are cheating.

Example : well before the AI civs discover the technology required, they are perfectly aware of the future location of the strategical resources they will need much later and send settler to create cities nearby. Rather strange to think about Salpeter when you are still using bronze for your weapons. In the same way, I'am not sure the resource distribution on the board is really random and fair, as is the initial location of our first settler I presume.
Whatsoever, I would have prefered a more subtle way of cheating.

OK, before I started playing computer games I was playing tabletop wargames and boardgames and this means I'am rather used to follow the same rules as my opponents. This could explain why I don't like a blatantly cheating AI, but once again this is rather the crude manner of cheating I dislike.

Wether the AI is cheating or not is not the point, the AI civs are tougher and this is a good thing.

My only complain comes from the fact the beginning of the game is rather mechanical and for many more turns than Civ2. Moreover I prefer to play with few cities as I don't like to manage tens of cities and hundreds of workers (especially at the end of the game), but the high expansion rate of the AI civs is urging you to build as many cities as you can to halt this overwhelming growth.

If you are an old time Civ2 player and want some hints for the beginning of a civ3 game you should read this article :
www.civfanatics.com/civ3acad_fastexpand.shtml

Have a nice week end !"

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
Is CTP2 really that much better than CTP? The game tried too many weird ideas and many of them just flopped. Ocean cities worked in Alpha Centauri but they didn't work in CTP. Satellities were great in Alpha Centauri but flying cities were so dumb in CTP.

If they remove the useless units (monk, televangelist, etc.) and the flying cities, it would be better. It would be good if they got rid of the PW concept too. Public Works points were very unbalancing.

Your post shows you never played CTP2. No space cities in CTP2, space isn't a bad idea but the AI couldn't cope with it.

For your second problem moving around 200 and more engineers every turn is a really stupid idea, I needed more than one and a half hour to move all of them, just to finish one turn. So PW is a very good solution to this problem, just click on this tile and some turns later the terrain is improved. In Civ2 I had to move one enginer from one end of the world to the other end of the world. This is really stupid.

-Martin

[King of Rasslin]

Of course I haven't played CtP2. I was saying how dumb CtP 1 was. Workers are more balanced than "pumping" a single city. Having to move workers around is better than instantly making a super mine anywhere you want it- instantly. You know that the PW system absolutely sucks. It just DOESNT WORK.

But I am glad to hear they removed space cities in CtP2. I might get it when it's selling for $9.95. Even classics like Total Annihilation:Kingdoms sell this cheap, so I won't be waiting very long.

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
Of course I haven't played CtP2. I was saying how dumb CtP 1 was. Workers are more balanced than "pumping" a single city. Having to move workers around is better than instantly making a super mine anywhere you want it- instantly. You know that the PW system absolutely sucks. It just DOESNT WORK.

Sorry but I have to contradict you, in Civ2 I was able to build a road, a realroad, a mine, a farm, an advanced farm, everywhere on the map even on foreign/hostile terrain just move my settlers/engineers to the enemy, building a road/railroad to his cities and then send some troops to him, ok actual only a spy/diplomat and buy his city. So there is no differnce betwen putting a mine by just using the mouse on themap or using an engineer by using your railroad network. The only difference is that you need hours to improve the whole map. Espeacily if you are using 21 units to "pump" a city. So in the end PW is not the time killer as these stupid engineers in Civ2 were.

Edit: I forgot you can't build tileimprovements on land that you don't own or none of your allies own, like in CTP1 and Civ2, IMO this is good, because in this way you can't build a road/railroad/maglev to your enemy cities and start an easy invasion.

-Martin

[Chronus]

It would be good if they got rid of the PW concept too.

I have to agree with the King. Well, sort of. I don't think PW is horrible; I just prefer the worker unit method. Why? Because with the PW method, you don't have to worry about protecting your "workers". You just plop the improvements on the tile. With worker units, you need to protect them from enemy units.

Furthermore, If I recall correctly from CTP 1, you cannot do tile work unless it's within a city radius or next to other improvements. In other words, I can't build tile improvements out in the middle of nowhere if I wanted to. Sometimes I like to improve an area for a future city before my settler gets there.

Finally, the worker units give me a sense of accomplishment. Sad but true Plopping all those tile improvements in one turn just doesn't feel constructive. I realize that the accumulation of PW points is supposed to simulate the passage of construction time, but the feel just isn't there.

Anyway, just my $.02. Mark G and I went round and round on this one some time ago. Sometimes it's fun rehashing and debating these old arguments.

[King of Rasslin]

I am so glad they got rid of improved farmland in Civ 3!

PW points should be stolen whenever a city is taken in CtP. They should be treated like gold is. The bad part about PW points is that you have to replace an obsolete improvement. Nothing becomes useless in the Civ series.

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by Chronus
I have to agree with the King. Well, sort of. I don't think PW is horrible; I just prefer the worker unit method. Why? Because with the PW method, you don't have to worry about protecting your "workers". You just plop the improvements on the tile. With worker units, you need to protect them from enemy units.

That is a point but you have still to protect your tile improvements, you put a tile improvement somewhere within your borders and then some hostile unit come across and pillage it.

Originally posted by Chronus
Furthermore, If I recall correctly from CTP 1, you cannot do tile work unless it's within a city radius or next to other improvements. In other words, I can't build tile improvements out in the middle of nowhere if I wanted to. Sometimes I like to improve an area for a future city before my settler gets there.

Actual if I want to improve an area in the middle of nowhere I would first build a road/railroad/maglev to this point. This was possible in CTP1 and it was also possible to build a road/railroad/maglev streight to your enemy city and use/exploit it as a reinfocement route.

Originally posted by Chronus
Finally, the worker units give me a sense of accomplishment. Sad but true Plopping all those tile improvements in one turn just doesn't feel constructive. I realize that the accumulation of PW points is supposed to simulate the passage of construction time, but the feel just isn't there.

Yes this is a very good argument from your point of view. Much more constructive then just saying PW sucks. Yeah using units is in the early game a nice feature but in the late game just tedious.

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
PW points should be stolen whenever a city is taken in CtP. They should be treated like gold is. The bad part about PW points is that you have to replace an obsolete improvement. Nothing becomes useless in the Civ series.

Actual in GoodMod you can steal PW when you capture a city like gold. About the tileimprovement replace part, this wouldn't be any problem to give the civ a PW bonus if an advanced tile improvement is build on an obsolete one. Yeah slic is really missing in Civ3.

-Martin

[Jaybe]

More than 3 days now, and no game report from Immortal Wombat. OTOH, it's the weekend and he may be too busy playing (or didn't like it).

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by Jaybe
More than 3 days now, and no game report from Immortal Wombat. OTOH, it's the weekend and he may be too busy playing (or didn't like it).

Didn't he say he was going away for holiday? It might be a while before we hear from him again.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
I am so glad they got rid of improved farmland in Civ 3!

I don't consider the railroad sleaze to be a good solution. I would be thankful for farmland and advanced mines. Railroads should vastly increase pollution, so that only a strategical net will be built.

The bad part about PW points is that you have to replace an obsolete improvement. Nothing becomes useless in the Civ series.

If I remember correct, advanced improvements costs the same in PW points on improved terrain like on new, but the time to complete is much less.

[centrifuge]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin I might get it when it's selling for $9.95.

King of Rasslin,

Actually, it already is selling at that price, that's how I ended up getting it. If you do try it, be sure to use a mod that can be downloaded from this site, some good ones are MedMod2, Cradle, and WAW (I haven't tried goodmod yet, sorry Martin ). From your posts, however, you seem rather biased already, so I'm not sure that you'd like it anyway...because of the PW concept etc.

[King of Rasslin]

I remember CtP2 coming out costing $50. After CtP1, I wasn't going to throw good money away. I guess the $10 would be worth it, if the mods really help out a lot.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich
Didn't he say he was going away for holiday? It might be a while before we hear from him again.

I did? I know I should have done... I did go away.
I'll probbly play some Civ tomorrow.
But which one?

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

I did? I know I should have done... I did go away.
I'll probbly play some Civ tomorrow.
But which one?

Ah yes the eternal gamers nightmare. So many civ games (i.e. Civ2, ToT, SMAC/X, Civ3, CtP, CtP2) and so little time............

[hexagonian]

Well, having played my current civ3 game to the point where I can probably safely say I should win it, here is my 2 cents regarding the comparison between civ3 and CTP2 from a CTP2 Modder's standpoint.

Granted, the game was played at Warlord/Standard Map/8 civs, so I expect results to be different as I move up to higher levels. I played as the Persians...My first two games I did poorly though at the same level - partly because I didn't know what to expect from the AI and I was also following a more isolationistic mindset in diplomacy regarding science trading. In the third game, I focused on early land grabbing and also did not exchange maps with any civs throughout the game (something I always did in CTP2 anyhow.)

However, my observations are based on the basic game mechanics, and should have little difference from level to level. Generally, there are some good features in it that I wish could be implemented in CTP2. Many features are still preference-based, and for the most part, I will not bring them up here.

IMO, the good features in civ3 (compared to CTP2) are...
1. Diplomacy - Very good, compared to CTP2. One feature that really stands out is that when you ask a civ to ally with you in a war, it will do so by sending troops and actually assisting you in that manner. (Works on the flipside too - if you are the target). This makes the game very enjoyable. Also, there is no need to send out a diplomat to establish an embassy with another civ. And the counter-proposal format is very well-done, in that you can cut your deal to the exact dollar that the AI will accept.

This feature alone saves civ3 for me, and is the only reason why I could see me playing it long-term. This is what makes the game a challenge - the need to manipulate alliances to keep the AI off your back and to take out strong AIs.

2. Strategic Resources - I fought a 2-stage war with the Americans - first to grab it's oil, and having taken it, finishing them off with my tanks, since they cannot build tanks themselves.

3. Civs with unique abilities and UUs - allowing for a player to pick a civ taylored to his own strengths, and to even pick a civ that does not play to his playing style for a little more challenge. Adds personality to the game.

Now for the bad...
1. The interface takes a great deal of getting used to, but the main weakness of the interface is that it makes getting in-game info hard to get at.
A. For instance, the tech tree in the science advisor provides pics of the unit/city improvements/wonders that each tech enables, but does not give a descriptive of what those pics are.
B. No short descriptive on what a particular city improvement/wonder does when selecting it in the build queue.
C. Units that have used up their movement and are part of a large stack could be greyed out in the unit list, so I could avoid selecting that unit when trying to move other units in the stack.

I could go on about other weaknesses related to the interface too. Couple this with the unwillingness of Firaxis to provide a poster that provides vital info, and a player has to work harder than necessary to play the game. So many things could be fixed here with a minimum amount of coding effort too.

2. Combat - I do prefer the quicker resolution of battles with the CTP2 setup, which uses unit stacking. I believe Firaxis did not set up stacked combat because it seems to be more difficult to program and effectively implement too.

Related to combat is the question concerning info that could be provided by the programmers regarding the time needed to completely assimilate a captured city into your empire. I understand the need to garrison a newly conquered city with enough troops, but for how long??? Even a general idea of the length of time would be nice.

3. More Government choices would allow for more decision making.

4. PW vs Workers - Actually this has not been as bad as I feared, but overall, I do prefer the PW system. Adding different levels of irrigation/mines would certainly add another level to the tile improvements in civ3, as well as adding sea-based improvements, such as ports and fishing nets. However, the main weakness of the tile improvement setup does tie into the following...

And now for the ugly...
1. Railroads are a blight on the game - they clutter up the map, and more importantly, eliminate the need for a whole level of strategic thinking. Infinite movement allows a player to quickly marshall a defensive force from any point in the empire, and act as a safety valve when taking a city, because you can then shuttle in the necessary troops to maintain order in that captured city without committing them to the actual battleforce. Once you get the ability to build them and have a network, the game loses all strategic thought whatsoever.

By simply adding another level of Tile improvements (Advanced Mines/Advanced Irrigation) and limiting Railroads to movement bonuses only, you would reduce the map clutter, and make for strategic decisions (build either movement or shield/food/commerce boosters) and reducing the movement benefit of a railroad would allow for a lot more forethought needed in military matters.

On the flipside though, the game does still hold a good level of military strategy pre-industrial age, mainly due to the strong diplomatic angle.

2. ZOC - The lack of a ZOC further erodes any conventional strategic thinking. Other at chokepoints, why bother... You are much better off keeping your forces in stacks rather than wasting time setting up a screen. ZOC allows you to set up a screen, which may be vunerable, but also serves a valuable purpose to buy some time and prevent movement. The lack of a ZOC is not so much a big deal in the Ancient/Medieval Age, but once you get Railroads, that lack becomes a huge game flaw. The only strategy at that point is to have the biggest stack...

3. Tech Whoring - The game is structured to encourage tech trading, to the point where you are better off setting science to (0-10%) and raising the cash to buy the tech instead. This runs counter to the idea that a player should be rewarded for focusing on science. The AI manages to do well in tech mainly because of its willingness to trade techs with the other AIs, which forces a player to adapt to that same strategy. The problem here is that a player will find himself locked into that strategy by default.

[Cookie Monster]

Greetings hexagonian,

Interesting read. Finally a CtP veteran commenting on Civ3 instead of vice versa. I take it from your thread that you will continue to play Civ3 but prefer CtP2?

Anyway I thought I'd share some info with you regarding "Now for the bad....." 1C. If you right click on a stack you will be able to read the A-D-M values for your units. The units that have 0 in their M value (I believe it will be in paranthesis) have used up their moves this turn. Granted not as efficient as the CtP system but once you grow accustomed to civ3's interface I guess it's not that bad.

Like you, I like PW and the bonus movement rate system for RR's, Mag tubes etc. in CtP better than their counterparts in Civ3.

Tech whoring - another disappointment for me. In the CtP series I can far exceed the AI in tech on my own without having to rely on buying techs for a living.

Ctp series rewards the builder but he is punished severly in Civ3.

Despite Civ3's weaknesses it is still an addictive game provided one is willing to overlook some of it's weaknesses and just play for fun. Many criticized the CtP series but IMO they are great games as well. As I stated before, I'm one of those rare individuals who loves all the iterations of the Civilization genre.

[player1]

Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich
Despite Civ3's weaknesses it is still an addictive game provided one is willing to overlook some of it's weaknesses and just play for fun. Many criticized the CtP series but IMO they are great games as well. As I stated before, I'm one of those rare individuals who loves all the iterations of the Civilization genre.

I agree too.
I liked CTP1 & CTP2.

I like (and play) Civ3 too.
It has good and bad things, but overall (at least for me), it has more good things that bad things.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich
Greetings hexagonian,
Interesting read. Finally a CtP veteran commenting on Civ3 instead of vice versa. I take it from your thread that you will continue to play Civ3 but prefer CtP2?

That about sums it up - though I do really like the more in-depth diplomacy of civ3. That to me is the only saving grace of the game, because stragecic resources, although a great feature, is not enough to offset the gameflaws I posted above.

The game, as it gets to the Modern age becomes more tedious. For instance, last night, in continuing my current game, I still cannot get the group movement command to work on a consistent basis (I got it to work one time out of about 100 attempts). So it was a matter of continually going back to the stack of units and moving them indiviually to where I wanted them to go. (It is supposed to be holding down the 'j' key when you have a unit selected and then pointing and clicking where you want the units to go, isn't it...)

Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich
Anyway I thought I'd share some info with you regarding "Now for the bad....." 1C. If you right click on a stack you will be able to read the A-D-M values for your units. The units that have 0 in their M value (I believe it will be in paranthesis) have used up their moves this turn. Granted not as efficient as the CtP system but once you grow accustomed to civ3's interface I guess it's not that bad.

Thanks, that helped a lot. But when you have 60 units in a stack, either greying the listing or coloring the listings red would go a long way in making the interface more user friendly. That would make it easy to tell at a glance what units are done for that round.

Related to that would be the need for a numbering system that would tell you at a glance, how many units are on a tile/city. Again, this should be a no-brainer to implement, and would make it so I do not have to work so hard at gaining info. After all, I don't want to be wasting so much time counting units to make sure I have enough in a city to supress a flip - I just want to play the game.

Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich
Tech whoring - another disappointment for me. In the CtP series I can far exceed the AI in tech on my own without having to rely on buying techs for a living.

I would agree with that statement as it relates to the default CTP/CTP2 setup, but I would say that in Modded CTP2, it is very hard to catch the AI on techs on the highest levels, especially on the larger maps. The thing is, when I do catch the AI in Modded CTP2, I feel like I earned it because I was diligent in focusing on research, and even getting some tech trades (which is a lot harder to do in Modded CTP2) In civ3, I feel like all I have to do is raise the necessary cash and dangle it in front of the AI's nose.

Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich
Despite Civ3's weaknesses it is still an addictive game provided one is willing to overlook some of it's weaknesses and just play for fun. Many criticized the CtP series but IMO they are great games as well. As I stated before, I'm one of those rare individuals who loves all the iterations of the Civilization genre.

Agreed. civ3, despite my problems with it, is still a fun game to play - however, it feels over-rated to me especially when players state that CTP2 sucks.

Having now played it, my opinion has not changed too much from previous opinions I held. I was pleasantly suprised in some areas (diplomacy and resources) and in other areas, I was severely disappointed (especially regarding ZOC and railroads).

[dunk]

Originally posted by hexagonian


(It is supposed to be holding down the 'j' key when you have a unit selected and then pointing and clicking where you want the units to go, isn't it...)

It's actually a lot easier. When the unit you want is highlighted, simply press the J key once (don't hold it down). You can then select the destination and click again and your units will make theie way over there. I'm not sure about this next statement, but I THINK you can deactivate the J function by pressing J a second time. I will test that sometime in the near future.

[hexagonian]

Yeah, I was doing that too with little or no luck, with both the 'J' and 'j' keys, holding the key down while clicking on the destination and releasing the key before clicking.

And I have 1.21...

[Venger]

Originally posted by hexagonian
1. Diplomacy - Very good, compared to CTP2. One feature that really stands out is that when you ask a civ to ally with you in a war, it will do so by sending troops and actually assisting you in that manner. (Works on the flipside too - if you are the target). This makes the game very enjoyable. Also, there is no need to send out a diplomat to establish an embassy with another civ. And the counter-proposal format is very well-done, in that you can cut your deal to the exact dollar that the AI will accept.

I actually dislike the diplomacy - I mean really, what is the counter proposal thing really doing other than making you click and point and click and point to micromanage the EXACT number of gold he'll take.

"I think this deal will be acceptable"

Click gold and reduce by 1

"I think this deal will be acceptable"

Click gold and reduce by 1

Lather, rinse, repeat. Instead of making it tedious, just find a fair trade and stick with it. Playing the find the cheapest deal is SO lame.

2. Strategic Resources - I fought a 2-stage war with the Americans - first to grab it's oil, and having taken it, finishing them off with my tanks, since they cannot build tanks themselves.

Which is dumb, because oil is found on every continent on earth, as is iron, but you'll be damned how many times you're without it. No rubber trees? Sorry, can't get Infantry. Huh???

I have found a MAJOR improvement in the game comes from changing the Strategic Resources to a bonus-type, where Heavy Infantry requires rubber but costs 20% less and has 20% better stats than Infantry. That means those screwed without resources can still put up a challenge and overcome the lack of resources, but must show a little intrepidity to do it. Otherwise, you get screwed, or it's too easy to screw your opponent.

3. Civs with unique abilities and UUs - allowing for a player to pick a civ taylored to his own strengths, and to even pick a civ that does not play to his playing style for a little more challenge. Adds personality to the game.

The BEST part of the UU's - you can turn them off! I play with them on, but the ability to turn them off is an outstanding design. Some of the UU's are better than others, but hey, if you don't like it, you can turn them off.

1. The interface takes a great deal of getting used to, but the main weakness of the interface is that it makes getting in-game info hard to get at.

Another way to say it is 'it sucks'. I dislike the lack of onscreen data.

2. Combat - I do prefer the quicker resolution of battles with the CTP2 setup, which uses unit stacking. I believe Firaxis did not set up stacked combat because it seems to be more difficult to program and effectively implement too.

Stacked movement STILL isn't what it should be. Units should be able to be GROUPED. Nuff said.

3. More Government choices would allow for more decision making.

This is where SMAC kicks the high holy hell out of Civ3. The ability to not be boxed into one type of thinking - let me choose from a number of options - maybe a capitalist republic, or a religious dictatorship. But the governments in Civ3 stink, and the whole overview of how your Civ operates is a tremendous step back from the improvements in SMAC.

4. PW vs Workers - Actually this has not been as bad as I feared, but overall, I do prefer the PW system.

I prefer workers, always have. Like the way when they're done, they are available to use and move, and when they work, they are out of the way. I like 'em.

And now for the ugly...
1. Railroads are a blight on the game - they clutter up the map, and more importantly, eliminate the need for a whole level of strategic thinking. *SNIP* Once you get the ability to build them and have a network, the game loses all strategic thought whatsoever.

A FREAKING MEN. Didn't anyone play test the game through till the later ages or every play Civ2? The ridiculous railroading of EVERY tile was so atrocious. Add onto it the games near requirement of deforestation and you end up with all that time to build nice map graphics, and the AI's will railroad and deforest it all.

By simply adding another level of Tile improvements (Advanced Mines/Advanced Irrigation)

Strip mines and Farmland. Nuff said.

2. ZOC - The lack of a ZOC further erodes any conventional strategic thinking. Other at chokepoints, why bother...

A FREAKING MEN. The loss of ZOC makes defending yourself a joke, and makes horse units WAY too powerful in the game.

3. Tech Whoring - The game is structured to encourage tech trading, to the point where you are better off setting science to (0-10%) and raising the cash to buy the tech instead. This runs counter to the idea that a player should be rewarded for focusing on science. The AI manages to do well in tech mainly because of its willingness to trade techs with the other AIs, which forces a player to adapt to that same strategy. The problem here is that a player will find himself locked into that strategy by default.

A FREAKING MEN. Tech trading should not be allowed for consecutive techs - you buy one, you gotta research the next one.

Venger

[hexagonian]

Hey Venger, I knew that eventually, your true feelings about civ3 would surface, now that you are back - Great to see you here again stirring the pot...

Originally posted by Venger
I actually dislike the diplomacy - I mean really, what is the counter proposal thing really doing other than making you click and point and click and point to micromanage the EXACT number of gold he'll take.

Still, it allows a player a measure of control over his proposal-making, and it is up to the player to either micromanage or not micromanage in that situation. Compared to CTP2's system of hit-and miss proposal making, it is a step up, IMO.

Originally posted by Venger
Which is dumb, because oil is found on every continent on earth, as is iron, but you'll be damned how many times you're without it. No rubber trees? Sorry, can't get Infantry. Huh???

In the three games I have played so far, I have yet to see this problem occur with Iron/Salpeter. Oil/Rubber has been another matter, since I had to grab the U.S.'s oil supply for myself. (Probably tied into the settings I am using...) Still, a good way to address this would be to use sliders to set up the amount of goods in the game, like what is in the CTP2 setup menu.

Or create more of the goods, and have them randomly pop up on the map at different times and different places when they are in use (and run out quicker).

Originally posted by Venger
I have found a MAJOR improvement in the game comes from changing the Strategic Resources to a bonus-type, where Heavy Infantry requires rubber but costs 20% less and has 20% better stats than Infantry. That means those screwed without resources can still put up a challenge and overcome the lack of resources, but must show a little intrepidity to do it. Otherwise, you get screwed, or it's too easy to screw your opponent.

Agreed that this is a good solution.

Originally posted by Venger
The BEST part of the UU's - you can turn them off! I play with them on, but the ability to turn them off is an outstanding design. Some of the UU's are better than others, but hey, if you don't like it, you can turn them off.

A preference choice that a player can make for his game is a good thing...

Originally posted by Venger
Another way to say it is 'it sucks'. I dislike the lack of onscreen data.

You don't know how much I am aggrievated by this issue (but at least a little research can somewhat overcome this deficiency). The thing is that this can most likely be coded into the game with little effort too.

And I had gone to the trouble to make a poster-sized file of the tech tree when civ3 came out, so I do have most of the info at hand on my wall. Firaxis did screw the people who bought the LE package, and even should have included some kind of tech poster with the basic game, based on the initial asking price of $50.

Originally posted by Venger
Stacked movement STILL isn't what it should be. Units should be able to be GROUPED. Nuff said.

Again, a little work in this area would make the game less of a clickfest, and more streamlined in gameplay.

Originally posted by Venger
This is where SMAC kicks the high holy hell out of Civ3. The ability to not be boxed into one type of thinking - let me choose from a number of options - maybe a capitalist republic, or a religious dictatorship. But the governments in Civ3 stink, and the whole overview of how your Civ operates is a tremendous step back from the improvements in SMAC.

Even the setup in CTP2 is a step up, because it creates more options for a player.

Originally posted by Venger
I prefer workers, always have. Like the way when they're done, they are available to use and move, and when they work, they are out of the way. I like 'em.

Preference...

Originally posted by Venger
Strip mines and Farmland. Nuff said.

Semantics...the point is there needs to be more choices for a player, and a progression from Ancient to Modern improvements. CTP2 is superior in this...

Originally posted by Venger
A FREAKING MEN. Didn't anyone play test the game through till the later ages or every play Civ2? The ridiculous railroading of EVERY tile was so atrocious. Add onto it the games near requirement of deforestation and you end up with all that time to build nice map graphics, and the AI's will railroad and deforest it all.

A FREAKING MEN. The loss of ZOC makes defending yourself a joke, and makes horse units WAY too powerful in the game.

A FREAKING MEN. Tech trading should not be allowed for consecutive techs - you buy one, you gotta research the next one.

Just call me 'Brother' Hex...