Universal mod?

homan1983 · April 9, 2003, 07:07

arent you tired of the so many inbalances and mistake made by bloody firaxis?? (microprose would never have done this)

it seems that their hearts weren't in it when they made this.. the just rushed it out to make some money... its such a shame that they didnt sit down and think "wouldnt it be great if....", or improve the game once its alpha was made (believe me we are playing an alpha version of the game...)

also there are many units which either dont exist or which currently suck.... lets face it when ur at modern u want more options than tank/mech infantry.... how about some modern infantry..? (no nor mech ones.. foot with amphibious ability)... how about making subs useful? they were my favourite civ3 units with 10 attack they at least had a chance vs battles and were pretty good vs carriers(who didnt sub detect with choppers) and other but with a weak defence of 2... i dont want a def of 4 as in civ3 i want attack of 10 ... perhaps give nuclear subs 10-12 attack? (lets fact iteven at 12 only 50% chance of killing a battleship).. or give em bombard ability...

there are many more things which spring to mind but it would really help if i knew that everyone else was using the same mod... this would make mp much more interesting.. any feedback?

statusperfect · April 9, 2003, 08:24

Civ 3 isn't nearly as inbalanced as Civ2. One word: HOWITZERS.

Adagio · April 9, 2003, 09:58

AFAIK it's Infogrames that choses when to release a game... not Firaxis...

Thirgaral · April 9, 2003, 12:07

I think it´s the most well-balanced of all civgames so far(except civ1)

Sava · April 9, 2003, 13:23

Civ1 wasn't well balanced. Battleships lost to militia quite often.

WarpStorm · April 9, 2003, 16:54

Yeah, 1 out of 24 times if I remember right.

While Civ3 does have flaws, in my opinion it's the most balanced, challenging and fun of the Civ series (and I'll even throw Colonization and SMAC in too).

There is a lot of history to why Civ3 is the way it is. Rumor is that part of the problem was the whole development team left midway through the project and the publisher essentially told Firaxis that "a contract is a contract, deliver on time or don't get paid".

peterfharris · April 10, 2003, 02:42

I certainly do not want more units. There are plenty of options for units. Umh, but more buildings and double irrigation and .... yes, yes

BigFree · April 10, 2003, 04:12

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
Yeah, 1 out of 24 times if I remember right.

While Civ3 does have flaws, in my opinion it's the most balanced, challenging and fun of the Civ series (and I'll even throw Colonization and SMAC in too).

There is a lot of history to why Civ3 is the way it is. Rumor is that part of the problem was the whole development team left midway through the project and the publisher essentially told Firaxis that "a contract is a contract, deliver on time or don't get paid".

I've always looked at Civ 3 as "Civ 2.5" The reasons are too numerous to go into; let's just say that it is not balanced in many areas of war and trade.

It just didn't meet my expectations. Are you saying that their may be hope for Civ 4 if the 'team' stays together? Or would a new team be more likely to work on the next installment? Does Firaxis still have the rights to Civ? Or can Infogrames contract it out to another developer?

player1 · April 11, 2003, 10:27

Quote:

Originally posted by statusperfect
Civ 3 isn't nearly as inbalanced as Civ2. One word: HOWITZERS.

Add to that spies and fundamentalism.

Rommel2D · April 12, 2003, 02:45

Quote:

Does Firaxis still have the rights to Civ? Or can Infogrames contract it out to another developer?

Regardless of who has the rights, _Sid Meier's Civilization 4_ isn't going to be done by anyone but Firaxis, unless Sid changes the company name or something.

statusperfect · April 12, 2003, 06:41

Quote:

Originally posted by player1

Add to that spies and fundamentalism.

And add fundametalism to the next Civ3 XP!