Redundancy in Civ3

XOR · September 15, 2002, 11:05

When I queue up 6 or 10 building in a construction queue, I still get the advisor asking me what to build next. I have already manually set the constructions, it should not require confirmation.

When I queue up all the research of the current "era", I still get the advisor asking me what to research next. I have manually set all those already and just the same as the construction queues, should not require confirmation.

Just venting it out because it's annoying me since the days when the advisor would start unit constructions without asking.

candybo · September 15, 2002, 11:13

Should be in "preferences"...

Proteus_MST · September 15, 2002, 11:23

I find it sometimes useful

alva · September 15, 2002, 11:32

never use queues, so I have to abstain from voting

But I agree with you, if you do use them.

Caliban · September 15, 2002, 13:01

Most redundant poll ever??

Duddha · September 15, 2002, 14:53

All I have to say is that if you think Civ3 is redundant, try playing Civ1 or Civ2. Now that is redundancy

Coracle · September 15, 2002, 15:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Duddha
All I have to say is that if you think Civ3 is redundant, try playing Civ1 or Civ2.

I have. I thiought they both were more fun that Civ 3.

Hagbart · September 15, 2002, 16:02

If you care so much about it, it should be a preference you could turn off. I personally don't care..

Hagbart · September 15, 2002, 16:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle

I have. I thiought they both were more fun that Civ 3.

That's probably because you were younger when you played these games...
Often younger people enjoy computergames more than older ones... (not always of course)

Maquiladora · September 15, 2002, 16:26

Seems to me that Civ2 is more suited to more experienced strategists, while Civ3 is more like a kids game, it feels simple.

I agree on the building queues too, its a minor niggle that seems easily fixed.

Hagbart · September 15, 2002, 17:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Maquiladora
Seems to me that Civ2 is more suited to more experienced strategists, while Civ3 is more like a kids game, it feels simple.

I agree on the building queues too, its a minor niggle that seems easily fixed.

Why?? I've played both.. civ2 is not more strategical..

DrFell · September 15, 2002, 17:47

At any particular point in the game you have a hell of a lot more viable options open to you than you do in civ3.

JtheJackal · September 15, 2002, 22:40

I can say without any doubt, of any kind that Civ3 does NOT have less strategy than Civ2. If anything it has more.

Carver · September 15, 2002, 23:38

I reconfirm like a mofo and like it. The queues still help since you don't have to search through the drop down menus; and its nice to get a little reminder of what's going on.

Cyclotron · September 15, 2002, 23:41

OK, you got me... how does Civ3 have less strategy than Civ2?

Proteus_MST · September 16, 2002, 04:35

Quote:

Originally posted by JtheJackal
I can say without any doubt, of any kind that Civ3 does NOT have less strategy than Civ2. If anything it has more.

I agree.
The Strategic Ressources and Luxuries add a new Strategic Element to the game which Civ 2 hasn´t (O.K. it has it´s Ressources too, but they are "just" important for trade and have no othr impact in the game).

Panag · September 16, 2002, 11:35

hi ,

we should be able to edit this a bit , .....

have a nice day

Maquiladora · September 16, 2002, 11:56

hi,

what?

have a nice day

XOR · September 16, 2002, 13:26

Quote:

Originally posted by DrFell
At any particular point in the game you have a hell of a lot more viable options open to you than you do in civ3.

Diplomatically? No. Unit-wise? No. In the science tree? I dont think so.

But I'll admit Civ2 had a better array of base facilities (military shipyard was separate from harbor, superhighways, stock exch, etc.) and tile improvements (farms, airbases, railroads did not produce food). Plus, each city could build 3 trade routes that would improve it's trade instead of making the total trade income of a civ that sells luxuries and resources to all other CIvs be something between 30 and 70 gold per turn.

Maqui: you're not hispanic, right? that word spells "Maquilladora", not "Maquiladora", just so you know.

Maquiladora · September 16, 2002, 13:33

This thread is drifting OT.

Actually its spelt with one 'l' in English.

XOR · September 16, 2002, 14:08

Oh, so english adopted that word, I didn't know.

HRuquet · September 16, 2002, 14:33

What word did English adapt and we are drifting to where?

Oddible · September 16, 2002, 16:35

I had once thought that some game developer could come up with a generic interface to their engine so that if the user wanted to get down and dirty with the combat simulation they could just buy the 'Total War for Civ' game (which would be a game in its own right, but could also plug into a game like Civ). This way, if you wanted the governing aspects, you would play Civ, if during any battle, you wanted to zoom in and take control, you could just hit a hotkey and it would jump to the add-on/plugin.

I still think this would be a nice idea, though I feel that the scope of Civ as it is is pretty vast. True, the tactical aspects of the game are fairly minimal (and once you learn the basics of how the various units operate on terrain and how to compile an army stack, you can pretty much whoop the AI with minimal force). But getting involved in a late game war on a Standard Map makes me shutter when I think of micro-controlling every battle.

DrFell · September 16, 2002, 21:04

Quote:

Originally posted by XOR
Diplomatically? No. Unit-wise? No.

The diplomatic thing is debateable. In MP you had all the same options you have in civ3. In SP, there was little need for diplomacy as the AI could be so easily defeated. As for the units, civ3 does add the nice upgrade option and although in the ancient era the units are more sparse than in civ2, things get more interesting later on (in the industrial age when artillery etc start to become useful).

Quote:

In the science tree? I dont think so.

Oh, the tech tree is the big one. Civ2 gave you so much more flexibility. You could go down uncountable numbers of tech paths, and miss out the bits you didn't need to research. For example, if you want all out war, shoot for monarchy->chivalry, a path which gives you good offensive and defensive units. If you are alone on an island and want to build up fast tech etc, go republic, and then possibly trade. In both of these cases you may want to go the philosophy->monotheism tech path if you're having problems with unhappiness, otherwise, you may want to go for navy (navigation), better military (invention->gunpowder), or minimize corruption (democracy) to name just a few. Also, you don't want to forget wonder building (trade), and possibly exploration (seafaring).

When I first started playing I could sit down and plan out elaborate tech paths. Not so for civ3, the longest tech path in the ancient era is only about 4 techs long! The 'era' thing screws it up too, as now you have to research tons of potentially useless techs just to get where you're going. Everyone's left on a more equal ground with the eras system.

Quote:

Plus, each city could build 3 trade routes that would improve it's trade instead of making the total trade income of a civ that sells luxuries and resources to all other CIvs be something between 30 and 70 gold per turn.

Yeah, trade routes were great. They gave you options in civ2 MP. I fear civ3 MP will be *only* a militaristic game, because of lack of trade (your human opponents won't trade with you as often as the AI).

Firebird · September 17, 2002, 05:14

I like the eras. In civ 2 (and 1) you could sometimes get a very odd state of technology.
IIRC you could f.es. build a steam engine without ironworking, or almost totally discard religion in the entire game by skipping polytheism, monotheism and theology. In civ 3 you are forced to even your science more like it is in real life. New discoveries tend to advance seemingly unrelated areas, where the most obvious today is the computer now in use everywhere in science.

Panag · September 17, 2002, 07:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Maquiladora
hi,

what?

have a nice day

hi ,

we should be able to edit "it" , .....

, they should include some more options , .....

example , confirm everything a second time or not , ....

have a nice day

Galvatron · September 18, 2002, 09:53

Well the sense of a queue is to automate some micromanagment so you don't have to do everything by yourself. But thanks to the advisor you still have to confirm the orders. In the end it's the same: with or without queue. So what good is the queue?

?

Panag · September 19, 2002, 17:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Galvatron
Well the sense of a queue is to automate some micromanagment so you don't have to do everything by yourself. But thanks to the advisor you still have to confirm the orders. In the end it's the same: with or without queue. So what good is the queue?

?

hi ,

keep that Q in mind for the friday chat , .....

the "queue" could be good , but only if we are able to give it clear orders , ....

some one speculated that the reason for the asking again is that during the course of the game we as players tend to forget that we have a queue somewhere and what is being constructed , .......

sound like a good example of some european governments in real time , ......

okay , now , if there would be a way to keep the queue doing what its doing without reconfirming everything , that would be great !

BUT ; we should be able to toggle some options then , like when a war breaks out , all the managers ask if they have to go or so , ......

Firaxis , care to comment ?

have a nice day