Do You Play Civ III ? - Page 2

Alexander's Horse · June 25, 2002, 04:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
From what is being discussed about Civ III MP... it might have potential. Victory conditions like capture the flag and many different game options may give us the game we are looking for. But until we play it, I won't hold my breath.

Keep on Civin'... Civ II MP I mean

Couldn't agree more. Civ III has made me appreciate Civ II Mp more. The elegance of the engine, the little helpful features. All the fun of the human contest, which I never tire of.

One victory condition that is common in war games is capture the capital. Maybe they could implement that. I couldn't be bothered suggesting it though. They don't seem to pay much attention to us.

Another one is capture the capital and kill the leader. But they don't have leader figure in SP. Maybe they could have a leader figure in MP........I have no idea how different its going to be.

DrFell · June 25, 2002, 07:57

Civ3 really sucked when it was first released, too many loopholes (like that forest trick and pop rushing). Patch 1.21 made it playable, and I'm hoping for the expansion pack to be 'the real civ3'. I'm not buying it straight away until I hear what people on here say first though.

SlowwHand · June 25, 2002, 09:02

The reason I think it will be better, more options on conducting your Civ.
I can see someone trying an all out blitz on another Civ, the defending Civ beefs up defenses, keeps developing culture, negotiating fairly and in good faith, and beating the hostile player.

War4ever · June 25, 2002, 10:06

They took alot of the fun out of civ3....now it actually feels like i am running an empire......the beurocractic way

markusf · June 25, 2002, 10:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Hydey
It just didn't have the one more turn feel.

Oh i wouldn't say that. I often felt, "I can't take one more turn of this"

Ming · June 25, 2002, 10:43

Quote:

Originally posted by markusf
Oh i wouldn't say that. I often felt, "I can't take one more turn of this"

I couldn't have put it any better...

rah · June 25, 2002, 10:44

My thoughts exactly.

RAH

DrSpike · June 25, 2002, 12:45

1.21 is perfectly playable, but it will never have the depth and versatility of civ2. It does have its good points though, especially if you think of it as civ lite. I play emperor/deity level comparison games in the CF tournament, and they are good fun.

I have my doubts about multiplayer though, because I don't see how they will change the game to stop people building 1-3 cities, getting to iron or horseback riding and just rushing. It may be a good arcade civ MP, 2x king players will no doubt be happy.

SlowwHand · June 25, 2002, 21:09

Why do you say that? It's nothing like 2X.
First advance in how many years for you ?

deity · June 25, 2002, 21:49

I really wanted to love Civ3 but it sux, I've uninstalled it and only play Civ2, mostly MP. It's the same reaction I had to SMAC, AoE etc.

It's that damn small granary box and all it implies! I hate it.

DrSpike · June 26, 2002, 05:50

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Why do you say that? It's nothing like 2X.
First advance in how many years for you ?

Unless they makes changes I can see games being over by 2000BC the vast majority of the time. It could turn out to be civ skittles. Hence the analogy with 2x.

atawa · June 26, 2002, 09:57

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike

Unless they makes changes I can see games being over by 2000BC the vast majority of the time. It could turn out to be civ skittles. Hence the analogy with 2x.

If almost all your games on 2x2x end bf 2000bc you might considder taking some lessons

DrSpike · June 26, 2002, 10:05

I don't play 2x2x, I am basing the statement on the opinion of players that do though. Are you suggesting 2x2x king games aren't over on average more quickly than a 1x1x deity game with same map settings?

SlowwHand · June 26, 2002, 13:52

I'll kick back, and wait on these billybadasses with their terrible horses.

War4ever · June 27, 2002, 09:45

i couldn't make the 1.21fpatch if that is what it was work with my downloaded copy? but it would work fine without the patch....

i hear the improvements are better with the patch but that it still suffers from poor implementation

we got what we all asked for...and now none of us like it

thanks for listening to us firaxis.........WE fIIcked up our game with all those suggestions and YOU took us literally....

so , where is that list of corrections for civ4....oh wait, we already have a working copy.....CIV2 MGE

rah · July 1, 2002, 10:54

The biggest problem was right after the game came out, it was like WE WANT TO HEAR ABOUT ALL YOUR GREAT STRATAGIES so they could tweek the game in patches so your stratagies won't work. It was like they were more concerned about making a game that was impossible to beat rather than a balance FUN game.

Hopefully MP (with all the AI cheats eliminated if you don't use AI's) will be more FUN.

RAH
But if not, we still have MP II

War4ever · July 1, 2002, 12:31

but for how long with this epic game keep grabbing us.... alot of players have left civ2

rah · July 1, 2002, 13:59

As long as it keeps evolving like it has, at least a few more years. There's still many rules tweeks to be done.
A fair accelerated start could add years to game play.

RAH

War4ever · July 2, 2002, 00:27

agreed..but due to the fact that the game has evolved over the last year alone, i think its time to seriously start some new rule sets

Hydey · July 2, 2002, 05:50

New rule : No ferrets

SlowwHand · July 2, 2002, 09:45

Ok, here are what I see as facts.
Civ III suffers, only because it's not MP. I agree.
Civ III is still vastly superior to II, when regarded in only SP terms.
Once III has been fitted with MP capabilities, it will kick the dogstuff out of II in MP also.
Why? More involved options for how to conduct one's Civ, assuming all options are available.

rah · July 2, 2002, 10:16

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Once III has been fitted with MP capabilities, it will kick the dogstuff out of II in MP also.
Why? More involved options for how to conduct one's Civ, assuming all options are available.

still vaporware as far as I'm concerned.
You're an even bigger optimist than I am.

But I want some of whatever drug you're taking.

RAH

SlowwHand · July 2, 2002, 10:21

Whatever. Leave Civ as it is; with a race to certain Wonders, Horses, etc.
Or make it more of a thinking person's game, without the cheats, failures, and glitches that are so well-documented now in II.

markusf · July 2, 2002, 10:57

civ3 is even worse, i attack and my whole army vanishes because of some rebellion! LOL
The AI is even worse then in civ2, they just hope you don't notice because now you can attack with stacks. And you can't kill off a AI stack with one unit no more.
The resource thing in MP? I just see a lot of people quiting if they don't have what they want. The game simply has no sence of accomplishment, one year is just like the next.

SlowwHand · July 2, 2002, 11:17

Think MP, Mark. But you illustrate my point fairly well.

Civ I was fine, until II.
SP was fine, until MP.
Civ II MP will be fine, until MP III arrives.

Which Civ would you pick? What if someone else chooses that Civ ?
They're all different. All specific strengths, be it commerce, military, religious, whatever.
Is there a weaker Civ ? Maybe.
One could make the point that Aztecs, with their puny Jaguar Warrior, is a longshot. Except the Warrior upgrades to Swordsmen.
Americans? The F15 is way into the game, but what if someone masters the U.S. play?
Different thing then.
What if you like Japan. Tooling along in the game, no iron in your land.

What then? Try and take land with iron? Try and trade ?

What is the cause for restart in II ? Techs. That's gone.
I'm really surprised that MP people don't see all that I do, especially considering I was boycotting, and had to have it practically rammed down my throat.

The prime draw on Civ, is that every game is pretty different than the last.
Civ III takes that fact to another level.

Flatlander Fox · July 2, 2002, 12:34

I agree with most of what Sloww says...

But how can you play a game that's combat is so simplified it produces unrealistic results?

THAT'S what we are all trading and striving for anyway... The right to build the best units, in order to dominate the rest of the field...

But when those units inexplicably lose, then we are robbed of what we set out to do...

P.S. Better have a fast connection!

DaveV · July 2, 2002, 13:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Flatlander Fox
P.S. Better have a fast connection!

If they do a good job on PBEM, connection speed is irrelevant...

OzzyKP · July 2, 2002, 13:48

As for me the boycott stands. I still have not purchased or even played Civ3.

Though I agree with Sloww, from what I've heard the game sounds neat and I think it would be cool for MP when it finally comes out. But I'm in no rush to spend my hard earned money on a new game, so I also am waiting for a 10 dollar bargin bin game. Unless MP gets rave reviews from everyone.

rah · July 2, 2002, 13:55

It has potential only because it hasn't been released yet.

Civ II MP took a few patches before it was FIXED.
What makes you think that CIV III will be any different.

Rumors have it that it's being play tested now. (in sp mode

) yeah, that will help determine game balance.

However, I do believe that most of the problems that I found with CIV III had to do with the AI. Any MP release should resolve most of those issues since I never intend to include one in a game.

But I'm going to take the wait and see attitude. I still have CIVII MP in the meantime.

RAH
I do however think that resources and different traits will help the game, not hurt it.

DrSpike · July 2, 2002, 18:31

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Ok, here are what I see as facts.
Civ III suffers, only because it's not MP. I agree.
Civ III is still vastly superior to II, when regarded in only SP terms.
Once III has been fitted with MP capabilities, it will kick the dogstuff out of II in MP also.
Why? More involved options for how to conduct one's Civ, assuming all options are available.

As one of the few civ2MPers that has played a lot of civ3 I have to disagree with some of this. Civ3 SP has several nice features, but the fact that it is harder on the higher levels is not predominantly due to better AI but just reflects the simplified nature of the gameplay and AI bonuses. It's ironic, I have defended civ3 a lot in this forum because I have played it a bit and its fun, as long as you regard it is as civ lite. In the civ3 forums however, I find myself having to point out why the game will never be as deep or flexible as civ2.

I really hope civ3 MP works, we need more players, but I am as yet unconvinced, as are most that have played a lot of civ3 are.