Check the reviews on amazon

[Phil_de_geezer]

but I was soon to find out that this was but another AOE clone with a Alpha Cetauri engine

This is great stuff! What planet does this guy live on? Does he really believe that?!

[Phil_de_geezer]

I have played only Warlord and since that's next to the easiest, I thought, no sweat. There are few big problems to enjoying the game and lots of little ones. First, the AI seems to put the races with early power units next to YOU no matter what race you play. Ask for a huge world, and you'll run into the Aztecs or Persians pretty fast and they have no qualms running over you. I often start with one of the races with scouts so that I can get a jump on science. There appears to be a penalty for this because even when every city has a library and I'm playing with a science advantage, I'll still arrive the next era behind non-scientific races. I looked at each city in a civilization that was ahead of me and only one had a library. In fact, each city may have had only one building in it. They kept paying me for stuff, my maps, my communications, so they did't have the money to buy this from others. Because they keep me in money, I have the allocation at 10 to science. Another big problem is that none of the WONDERS work across the sea no matter what your culture rating. NEVER play anything other than pangeas. Achipelogos are only for games where you don't want WONDERS at all. Another big problem is attack/defend AI. I frequently lost submarines to triemes(galleys) and often lost tanks to pikemen. Lots of small things too. The Egyptians war chariots don't have any additional power (they're supposed to), cities formerly with walls suddenly regrow them when knocked down in population which seems to have a very high chance of happening with air bombardment and while resources have only a 1% chance of disappearing, the one that does is always the one you only have ONE of. Never is it one where you have 5 of them. After lots of turns and lots of hours, the game only grows in frustration, not in fun.

this guys just paranoid

muhahaha, FIRAXIS are out to get you

[Saint Marcus]

it's true Civ3 is hard on newbies.

And I'm glad for it.

[Jawn Henry]

I was really disappointed with Civ 3 when i got it. I still have a gripe or 2 about it that won't likely change. The 1st time i played, i had a rather hard time winning at an easy level (1st or second, don't remember), but eventually, i did win. When i finished the game, i said: "YUCK!! I don't like this." and put the CD away. I almost took it off my machine, but then i relented. "Ya never know, maybe one day..." i thought.

And i let it sit there.

And waited. Played many other games.

But my Civ 3 was still there.

Then, just this week, i decided to give it a run. But with a different attitude. You see, the problem (as i suspect is with most disenchanted people) was my expectations vis-a-vis the game. "Was this not Civ 3?? Why is it so different? It doesn't work right!" SMAC was quite different, but i liked it. I was expecting different. While Civ3 may not be as different to Civ2 (as SMAC was), there are significant changes. If it was called, say "Civilization: World Domination", or something, i would have expected different, just like i expect Civ:CTP to be quite different (no, i havent seen it, so i don't know if it really is different). But to call Civ3 something else, well i imagine it would lose a certain amount of marketability.
All this to say Civ 3 didn't meet my expectations, which irked me a bit. I knew it was a good game, just not what i wanted.

Last week when i played, i treated it like a whole new game, similar to Civ2, but still different. It's a new game to learn. Know what? It's fun. I'm getting to appreciate it. Now i have 2 "world games": Civ2 and Civ3. And yes, i will play both.

If you going to play Civ3 with the attitude that it's an improved Civ2, you will likely be dissappointed. (one or 2 "s"es in that??) But if you view it as a whole new game, chances are, it'll be fun.

That's my 2 cents (3.5 Canadian)

JH

[Barchan]

Look, folks, my post was mostly satire. Don't take it personally.

My point was that exactly none of the best-selling games were TBS games, and certainly not grand-strategy. I'm not saying that the popular games are worthless (although I do regard the hunting games with pretty high contempt), but they don't require the level of strategic ability as more complex games such as CivIII or Europa Universalis. This isn't for better or worse, it just is.

And of course all games require thinking. Some take more thinking than others. Some take more than many people can give. But that’s just life, baby. All sports require some physical effort, but there’s a big difference between playing golf and playing rugby. Some people shouldn’t play one or the other, and some can’t play either. I’m not sure exactly why it is that people accept individuals can have physical limitations but not intellectual ones, that seems to be the popular belief.

Anyway, it isn't fair for people who aren't used to playing complex strategy games to tell others the game "sux" because they can't beat it. It's like saying that the French language sucks because you found it too hard to learn overnight.

Besides, you have to take the ratings at Amazon with a liberal helping of salt. More often than not there are at least a handful of 1 or 5 star reviews posted weeks, if not months, before the thing is actually released.

And, for the record, I'm not pigeonholed into the TBS genre. I fully enjoy RPG, and love MP FPS as well (for those without LAN, HALO on two xboxes is truly amazing). Personally, I find RTS involves too much tactics and not enough strategy for my liking, but I will readily acknowledge that Warcraft is at the pinnacle of the RTS heap. And, yes, I will also acknowledge that GTA3 is at the top of its genre as well, but it's a different type of game entirely. Heck, I’ll even throw in that The Sims is the best in its class as well. But they’re different games. I’m not saying they’re bad games, nor am I saying you shouldn’t be playing them. They’re just different is all, and if you don’t understand them and can’t play them (or beat them) then you should be man (or woman) enough to admit that rather than just say the game sucks.

[dexters]

Originally posted by Barchan
Look, folks, my post was mostly satire. Don't take it personally.

My point was that exactly none of the best-selling games were TBS games, and certainly not grand-strategy. I'm not saying that the popular games are worthless (although I do regard the hunting games with pretty high contempt), but they don't require the level of strategic ability as more complex games such as CivIII or Europa Universalis. This isn't for better or worse, it just is.

The liesurely methodical TBS pace is worthless in WarCraft III, and while it does not stop specialist players from methodically "testing" cases and strategies on both an experimental and "real life" setting, the game itself requires split second decisions and the player to bring with them, a library of knowledge, tactics and strategy to bear on any opponent. This is no easy feat, and the application of a complex set of strategies, or combination of strategies taxes the mind.

Denying your opponent resources is a strategy. (sounds familiar?) Going about doing it requires a set of tactics. The fact that WarCraft III involves armies does not deny its use of strategy.

I am a fan of both the fast paced RTS and the armchair TBS and both require different kinds of play, but to say one requires superior strategic abilities is nothing more than self gloating. WarCraft III is as much a thinking person's game as Civilization III, although I concede given StarCraft and WarCraftII's popularity with young teen males, the game will find a larger audience among the youngsters ( I am only 21 myself).

And dare I say the collector's edition, with its DVD, Cd Soundtrack, Art of WarCraft is worth many times its price?

[Barchan]

Originally posted by dexters
Denying your opponent resources is a strategy. (sounds familiar?) Going about doing it requires a set of tactics. The fact that WarCraft III involves armies does not deny its use of strategy.

I'm not saying it doesn't. I just think it, like RTS games in general, emphasizes tactics more than strategy, although there are clearly significant strategic elements involved.

My clicking comment simply refers to the fact that with RTS games you have to constantly be on top of the game telling people to go here, mine this, cut down this, attack there and so on. Fair enough, there's more thought involved than all the clicking one had to do in Diablo II, but it's still the case that if you stop clicking, you begin losing.

Anyway, I'm not trying to start a CivIII v. WC3 debate here. They're both good games, and I'm not at all suggesting that anyone not play one or the other. Play 'em all if you have the time. Sadly, I just don't have that kind of time....