better late than never?

Foulwik · March 7, 2003, 23:17

hi

well, i finally got burned out on alpha centauri..
i'm ready for something new..

i've put off all this time buying civ3 due to some negative player reviews..

now that it's been out a good while how much fun is it?i know it's been patched some.

does play the world add anything to single player....?
i know the reviews were really bad for play the world when it came out.

any advice will be well appreciated.

Tom

vmxa1 · March 8, 2003, 02:48

I got burnt out on AC a long time ago, it was a great game though.
Most here find Civ3 to be a great game. PTW is a worth while addon for SP for the people that enjoy the game. If you are not a Civ3 fan, then the addon is not going to make you happy either. It adds many things to the game. You will find Civ3 a bit more of a challenge than AC or Civ2.
The PTW forum has a list of the things that make it a buy for most. The interface, the new civs and a tweak in the AI.

Quintrala · March 8, 2003, 12:10

Lots of people believe that Civ2 is better than Civ3, and actually they aren't so wrong. Civ3 have great features but there is a lot of missing characteristic from civ2. Anyway if you got Civ3 I think that you should add the PTW that is really cool.

vmxa1 · March 8, 2003, 14:31

I must submit that Civ2 being better than Civ3 is pure nostalgia. I understand the sentiment. Civ2 was so easy and had those lame spies and caravans. Cities that were safe with one or two units once you got a wall up. I had it as the #2 game of all time for years, but after Civ3, see no need to play it anymore. I can't think of any features from Civ2 that I would like to see in Civ3, except maybe the movies. I sure do not miss ZoC. Ok, one terraforming of all tiles to grasslands.
Yes Civ3 is not perfect, but at least you will not roll over it at high levels with out any challenge.

Chilean President™ · March 8, 2003, 14:45

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
I can't think of any features from Civ2 that I would like to see in Civ3, except maybe the movies.

I prefer Civ3 than Civ2... and I prefer PTW than CIV3, but I believe that one feature that is sure missed from civ2 is the editor.
We can agree that the civ3 editor is nothing like the civ2 editor... but besides that I must say that in general Civ3 is much better than civ2.

Master Zen · March 9, 2003, 04:50

Agreed. Civ3 is more fun. But Civ2 scenarios are still much better so it would be premature to shelve it.

SMAC is just soooo good. It's a shame they did not rip-off many of SMAC's features for Civ3. It would have been a much better game.

Master Zen · March 9, 2003, 04:53

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
I had it as the #2 game of all time for years, but after Civ3, see no need to play it anymore.

Just out of curiosity, what was #1?

In my list, Civ2 stands proud as the #1 game of all time.

Gunnar Thor · March 9, 2003, 07:18

I also loved Alpha Centauri for years (still do) but if you give Civ 3 time you'll learn to love it. Make no mistake though, you'll have to start again at Chieftain and work your way up, this is a whole new ballgame and a hell of a lot harder than Civ 2 and SMAC. But it's worth it.

pedrojedi · March 9, 2003, 14:04

It's interesting how people "burn out" of different games. I love strategy games like Civ# and AC because of their replayability, and I never get burned out of them. At most, I play them in "cycles": some months of Civ3, some months of SMAC, some months of Red Alert (red alert? what's it doing here??? ah, I do it anyway,

)

But yeah, Civ3 is a breakthrough, and very different form Civ2, which I find good and enjoyable. I don't like the Worms Series after the Armaggedon because of their way of always being almost the same game. At least for me.

vmxa1 · March 9, 2003, 15:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen

Just out of curiosity, what was #1?

In my list, Civ2 stands proud as the #1 game of all time.

I had C&C as my number 1, but several where right there: Moo and Warcraft and Homm2 all very close in my list.
I would say that I have played more Moo1 than any other game by far. Civ2 had more replay than C&C by far, I guess it is that I was so impressed with it at the time.

Chemical Ollie · March 9, 2003, 17:13

Starcraft Broodwar is my greatest game, especially on multiplayer, but I have now quit plaiying it. CIV3 is a game I play for a period, then try something else, but it's about the only game I return to over and over.

Master Zen · March 9, 2003, 23:31

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1

I had C&C as my number 1, but several where right there: Moo and Warcraft and Homm2 all very close in my list.
I would say that I have played more Moo1 than any other game by far. Civ2 had more replay than C&C by far, I guess it is that I was so impressed with it at the time.

I'm more of a turn-baser myself, although I did have a thing for AoE2 about two summers ago. I'm really looking forward to RoN too

Other than that my faves besides de Civ series have been Doom, Ultima VII and SimCity 3000

Dauphin · March 10, 2003, 10:16

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
I can't think of any features from Civ2 that I would like to see in Civ3, except maybe the movies. I sure do not miss ZoC. Ok, one terraforming of all tiles to grasslands.
Yes Civ3 is not perfect, but at least you will not roll over it at high levels with out any challenge.

At first I was annoyed at not being able to terraform as we were in Civ2. But now the concept has grown on me as being more realistic.

Fatwreck · March 10, 2003, 10:22

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
I must submit that Civ2 being better than Civ3 is pure nostalgia. I understand the sentiment. Civ2 was so easy and had those lame spies and caravans. Cities that were safe with one or two units once you got a wall up. I had it as the #2 game of all time for years, but after Civ3, see no need to play it anymore. I can't think of any features from Civ2 that I would like to see in Civ3, except maybe the movies. I sure do not miss ZoC. Ok, one terraforming of all tiles to grasslands.
Yes Civ3 is not perfect, but at least you will not roll over it at high levels with out any challenge.

Civ3 will never be as good as civ2, and that is mostly due to the redicolous combat system, I think thay should have made that more complex instead of simplyfying it like they did in civ3...

the fact that a spearman even has a chance of hurting a tank makes me so angry, that never happened in civ2...

Gunnar Thor · March 10, 2003, 13:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Fatwreck

Civ3 will never be as good as civ2, and that is mostly due to the redicolous combat system, I think thay should have made that more complex instead of simplyfying it like they did in civ3...

the fact that a spearman even has a chance of hurting a tank makes me so angry, that never happened in civ2...

Well, it does take some time getting used to the combat system. The trick is simply having more veteran troops than the other guy.

But yeah, it was better in Civ II and SMAC.

vmxa1 · March 10, 2003, 13:46

I agree that the combat can be a pain, but come on Civ2 may as well have not had combat. When was the last time you lost a battle in civ2? Talk about broken. It is no problem to play a whole game in civ2 and never lose any fights at all. This will not happen in civ3.
What could be goofier than my one tank killing your whole stack in one round? Hold off an army in my city with just one tank and a wall? Oh you had 6 units in that stack, but I got them in one round, sorry. In civ3 if I send 6 MA to your city and it has one infantry unit, you could lose that city.

Master Zen · March 10, 2003, 14:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Fatwreck

Civ3 will never be as good as civ2, and that is mostly due to the redicolous combat system, I think thay should have made that more complex instead of simplyfying it like they did in civ3...

the fact that a spearman even has a chance of hurting a tank makes me so angry, that never happened in civ2...

That is soooo true, I hate the Civ3 combat system. Things like that happen waay to often. In Civ2 at the most, the tank would have suffered a pixel-worth of damage, not 1 out of 3 hit points.

Master Zen · March 10, 2003, 14:24

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
I agree that the combat can be a pain, but come on Civ2 may as well have not had combat. When was the last time you lost a battle in civ2? Talk about broken. It is no problem to play a whole game in civ2 and never lose any fights at all. This will not happen in civ3.
What could be goofier than my one tank killing your whole stack in one round? Hold off an army in my city with just one tank and a wall? Oh you had 6 units in that stack, but I got them in one round, sorry. In civ3 if I send 6 MA to your city and it has one infantry unit, you could lose that city.

The stacking problem was terrible, I remember sinking the entire russian fleet with one battleship

But the stacking problem in Civ3 is no better. How realisitic is it to have a 20 unit stack of troops charging into your territory? What ever happened to fronts?

I think SMAC got it right by having damage to stacked units when one loses a fight. This makes it wise not to stack too often, only when it is absolutely necessary.

One more reason why SMAC really had it all right.

Master Zen · March 10, 2003, 14:30

Also, about losing battles, the idea of losing a civ unit would be like losing a brigade or division in real life. Look at World War II. How many divisions did the US "lose"? Besides the Battle of the Bulge when about 4 were lost (later to be reformed) there really was no other ocurrence in which a division was totally wiped out. In civ this would be reflected by many damaged units but few losses.

On the other hand, the Germans lost hundreds of divisions especially on the Eastern Front

Arrian · March 10, 2003, 14:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Foulwik
hi

well, i finally got burned out on alpha centauri..
i'm ready for something new..

i've put off all this time buying civ3 due to some negative player reviews..

now that it's been out a good while how much fun is it?i know it's been patched some.

does play the world add anything to single player....?
i know the reviews were really bad for play the world when it came out.

any advice will be well appreciated.

Tom

Tom,

I like CivIII a lot, and I like the SP changes in PTW. Having said that, I note that you're a fan of SMAC. As I recall, most of the angry criticism of CivIII came from big SMAC fans. So be forewarned.

The combat system takes getting used to. There is a lot of luck - good and bad - involved in CivIII combat, and at times it can be very irritating. There are ways of minimizing crazy results (vet units, bombardment), but if the mere thought of losing a Tank unit to a Spearman drives you crazy, this isn't the game for you (at least unmodded).

-Arrian

Fatwreck · March 10, 2003, 17:15

I agree with the stacking issue in civ2... but ,as mentioned by Master Zen, the system in civ3 is even worse because it makes no sense just going in to another civs country with one gigantic stack of men...

if I was the big chief when it came to creating civ3 i would´ve tried to make combat complex instead of just putting in nice graphics, I mean do you really buy a strategy game for graphics? no... you buy it for gameplay, and civ3 just doesn´t have what civ2 have when it comes to that...

Asmodeus · March 11, 2003, 10:29

Actually, it depends what scale the map tiles are supposed to represent.

The Blitzkrieg doctrine found a hugely powerful spearhead (kinda like a stack) was the best way to penetrate the enemy line - where it would later split up to envelop the enemy or occupy positions deep inside enemy territory. The Russians developed Defence in Depth to reduce the success of this strategy, a more elastic form of defence rather than a static 'brittle' line. So I dont have a problem with the idea of stacks.

The trouble is with the arbitrary scale of the map (and the units for that matter) we dont know if we are looking at say 10 stacked battalions on a 50 mile map tile (perfectly possible) or 10 Divisions on a 5 mile map tile (ludicrously over-crowded).

My suggestion is to allow n amount of units to stack together where n is related to the size of the map, say 10 on standard. This allows good defence against a single enemy counter-attacker and good offensive momentum, but not a ludicrous amount to exploit one small gap in a defence. But as happens in real life, the more units you stack together the more vulnerable you are to 'Area Effect' attacks from Artillery, Bombing, Shore Bombardment. Thus the % to hit each unit in a stack when you shell them goes up proportionally with the number of units in the stack. The so called 'Target Rich Environment'.

Just some ideas anyway.

Fatwreck · March 11, 2003, 12:10

that is acctually a good idea... that´s the things firaxis should have thought about to make civ3 better then its predecessors...

The Mad Monk · March 12, 2003, 02:56

Civ 3 combat sucks compared to Civ 2 and SMAC. I was looking for a SMAC - style combat system.

gunkulator · March 12, 2003, 14:41

Here's another vote for the Civ3 combat system. Civ2 combat was far too predictable. Worse, the AI had no clue about combat odds and so repeatedly attacked the same foritified position over and over.

In Civ2, all you need is a one tech military advantage to guarantee a win. 12 Howitzers = game over.

Fatwreck · March 12, 2003, 15:39

maybe it was more predictable, but at least you knew that you wren´t gonna lose a tank to a phalanx, civ3´s combat system is almost random and that´s even worse...

Thirgaral · March 12, 2003, 17:31

I think the combat system should depend on which units are facing eachother. It should be almost impossible for a warrior or spearman to kill a tank (How would they penetrate the tank with an axe or spear?)

Pikemen should have an advantage against mounted units....

on open fields, ranged units like the archer should be able to shoot out some warriors before the warriors reach them...but once the warriors are near enough for close combat...the warriors would crush them. so an archer could easily take out a weakened warrior.
I could make this a loong list...

Generally, I´d like so see a more advanced combat system , making it even more dependant on terrain, "tile-improvements" but also unit types. Maybe it´s asking too much? Is it practicable? Anyone else got any ideas?

Master Zen · March 12, 2003, 17:53

I will say it again and again for the umpteenth time in the umpteenth thread:

WE NEED A PANZER GENERAL-STYLE COMBAT SYSTEM FOR LAND FIGHTING!!

PG's combat simple was very simple yet very fun and in some ways rather realistic (I am of course comparing it to other more complex wargames like TOAW)

For example, PG differentiated units as being "hard" or "soft". Tanks were hard, infantry, artillery, transports were soft. Each unit would have rating againt hard or soft units so you would have tanks which were real good against other tanks, and those who were better against infantry.

Also, soft units had advantages in adverse terrain, so you wouldn't be able to take a city with tanks, just like in real life. You'd have to soften it up with artillery, aircraft, and then attack using infantry. This chess-like way of playing is what made it so fun.

In PG you only had one unit per hex, no stacking. It was nevertheless possible to launch spearheads into enemy territory by breaking their front and swarming in. Perhaps PG's greatest flaw was in its logistic system but with a few twists it could be easily ammended.

Master Zen · March 12, 2003, 17:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Asmodeus

The trouble is with the arbitrary scale of the map (and the units for that matter) we dont know if we are looking at say 10 stacked battalions on a 50 mile map tile (perfectly possible) or 10 Divisions on a 5 mile map tile (ludicrously over-crowded).

Depends on the map size. I like to think of units on huge maps as brigades/regiments and everything on a standard and below as divisions.

playshogi · March 13, 2003, 02:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Fatwreck
maybe it was more predictable, but at least you knew that you wren´t gonna lose a tank to a phalanx, civ3´s combat system is almost random and that´s even worse...

Would it be helpful to imagine that this is not a phalanx, but some kind of modern reserve unit with low attack and defense? Maybe, there should be an upgrade path in the game to change the name and icon of ancient units while leaving the attack and defense factors the same. So, you might feel better when your tank loses to an 'Air Reserve Wing', instead of a 'spearman'.