Off Topic DO NOT BUY CIV 3 - Page 7

Atrocities · #61 December 27th, 2001, 12:02 AM

You know, if they would fix the problems, and improve the UI, add some features, and fine tune the game, ya it would be a very fun game.

But will they?

klausD · #62 December 27th, 2001, 02:23 AM

I also think that CIV3 is a rather bad game. I am wondering of all the good press about this game out there. I prefer a good patched and modded CTPII to everything Meyer and his gang has released (ok I liked colonisation a little bit) in the Last years.

IMO the problems are:
1. the combat system. Sid Meyer used the movement and combat system of the old PC-game empire (or final destiny) since the first incarnation of Civ. I dont have any idea why he didnt change this obsolete system in CIV3. I mean CTPI and CTPII showed everybody an acceptable combat concept with balancing armies and interesting troop attributes.

2. the workers and settlers. Why by the heck does CIV3 use this ancient and tedious concept? The public works system of CTP series works much more simple and better.

3. I like also the SF setting of CTP with all its wonderful underwater cities, submarines and technologies- its simple more game than CIV3.

4. And Last but not least I love all these non-military units of CTP. (Lawers, slave hunters etc.) They provide a alternative kind of game.

All in all the big failure of Civ is done by their designers. They seem to be too arrogant to learn from another civ-incarnations to improve their own game. And thats why this game disappeared from my HD several days ago - now my copy is on ebay for sale and I doubt that I will buy again something from Firaxis.

Spyder · #63 December 27th, 2001, 02:37 AM

Well, I got my Civ III for Christmas. I don't have any problems with it other than its just more of the same

I also find the new interface to be cumbersome.

MarkP · #64 December 27th, 2001, 02:58 AM

As for myself I think Civ 3, needs a lot of improvement . And I�ve haven�t play it from the time I got EU2 which is a much better game by the way. But I just wish Sid will put in some more time with his games, than to delegate it to someone who does not care to design or make a game. I still remember the first time that I played Civ 2, It was just fantastic, Almost as good as playing MOO for the first time. And now I think I�m getting vary tired and old. But then you have SEIV and EU2 whitch are bringing back the good old times.

[ 26 December 2001: Message edited by: MarkP ]

[ 26 December 2001: Message edited by: MarkP ]

LLB · #65 December 27th, 2001, 03:17 AM

Atrocities,

My experience with CivIII was surprisingly similar to yours, but we seem to have come to slightly different conclusions. I too shared my starting continent with the Brits. After several hundred years of a mutually profitable trade relationship, Elizabeth broke it to attack with swarms of ground units. I too had more cities and better technology, and I too was losing. (What was worse, Elizabeth managed to enlist just about everyone else in the world in her cause of exterminating Evil Me.) When I lost three elite Knight units trying to kill a lone regular Spearman defending unfortified in open terrain, I too almost lost it. Ridiculous!

After I cooled off, I took a closer look at the combat system. It turns out that, like the earlier Civ games (though to a lesser degree), the combat system strongly favors quantity over quality. The benefits of higher attack and defense values are just not as great as their numeric values might suggest. This means of course that defending cities with small numbers of high quality units is a prescription for losing cities, and attacking with small numbers of high quality units is a prescription for losing a war of attrition in very short order.

Despite being a little slow to realize all this, I did manage to exterminate the English and achieve a rough stand-off parity with the rest of my opponents, although it cost me about 40% of my cities and took about 500 years. In the process I discovered that some subtleties in the game that weren't initially obvious (similar to your experience, and mine, with BOTF). Some of these subtleties include the use of terrain on defense, the use of bombardment units, and the use of the better mobility of the more advanced units (and your own transportation net, which, unlike in earlier Civ games, your opponent can't benefit from) to create local firepower superiorities.

My point here is that CivIII could definitely have been a *much* better game, but like BOTF I think it does reward some patient effort. After your frustrations have cooled a bit, you might want to give it another try before giving it to Goodwill. Just a thought.

L.

CNCRaymond · #66 December 27th, 2001, 03:18 AM

From what I have seen of this game, I will not buy it. I do agree that a patched and modded Version of CTP II is a much improved game over strait CTP II.

CTP was a lot of fun. I look forward to the day I can play CTP III if one is to come out.

Askan Nightbringer · #67 December 27th, 2001, 04:43 AM

I'm going to come to poor old Civ III's defence mainly coz everyone seemed to be comparing it to CTP and CTPII which I thought both were complete rubbish (that I still happily spent my cash on thou).

First here's my good points.
1. Its not CTP. I never played the modded Version but I tried to follow the patches for a while. I never found this game hard, even remotely difficult. The hardest bit was bothering to win.

2. Strategic resources. Thats a cool idea and really changes some of the concepts of the city placement and unit building.

3. Culture border thingy. Means I can justify packing my cities in and overlap some squares.

4. Diplomacy and trade seem good. Although I've never seen anyone bribe me for a peace deal (which sux, I don't call off my swordsmen for nothing).

5. AI. Mentioned already but it seems quite good, even whacked me around a bit.Once it even sent in a suicide soldier to pillage a road to my only iron source! (which may have been pure fluke by the way).

6. The little things. They have made heaps of little tweaks to various aspects of the game. No rush building wonders (I can't collect the whole set no more), no have enemy tanks using your transport system against you and getting rid of ZOC for example. I get the feeling that the design team has had a good look at what were all the faults with CIV and CIV II and made a serious effort to eliminate them.

And just coz a I'm a fair boy I'll acknowledge some faults.
1. I have had the game for about 5 days and have hardly slept. I'm staying up to 4am playing (just until my communist government kicks in) and waking up 4 hours later to go to work. Its been hell.

2. Speed. Watching an allied AI move 50 cavalry through your territory, even with animations off, is painfully slow. I think thats the real reason I stay up to 4am.

3. Information. Its a pain working out what cities are rebelling, which one has the high production and I can't seem to find what my allies are researching (all which was much easier in previous Versions).

4. It is pretty much the same. But so was CIV II and I still played that non stop.

5. No multiplayer. What happened there?!

So for the momemnt I give the thumbs up for the game!!!!

Mainly coz of AI.

And just FYI.
Sid had not that much to do with Civ II either. Its was Jeff Briggs (who pretty much did III) and Brian Reynolds (who was the big man an Alpha Centauri).
Brian left Firaxis about 6 months after Alpha Centauri, so I really wonder how much of an effect that had on the end result of CIV III.

Cheers all,
Askan

Atrocities · #68 December 27th, 2001, 04:43 PM

Response to Askan post.

quote:
2. Strategic resources. Thats a cool idea and really changes some of the concepts of the city placement and unit building

Good point, I must agree, that the Strategic resources was a good idea, and does lend toward the games appeal.

quote:
3. Culture border thingy. Means I can justify packing my cities in and overlap some squares.

Your right again, this did help me gain a few enemy cities.

quote:
4. Diplomacy and trade seem good. Although I've never seen anyone bribe me for a peace deal (which sux, I don't call off my swordsmen for nothing).

This is one of the indeering qualities of this game, and is one that I have stated I liked.

quote:
5. AI. Mentioned already but it seems quite good, even whacked me around a bit.Once it even sent in a suicide soldier to pillage a road to my only iron source! (which may have been pure fluke by the way).

Agreed, the AI in this game is rather good.

I feel the game is salvageable, but in order to do that, a lot of thing will need to be done. Mentioned already in this thread are just a few of the improvements that could be made. Again, I ask, will they make them? Answer, probibly not.

MarkP · #69 December 27th, 2001, 04:56 PM

Civ 3 is alright but could have been a lot better. And It also would be a lot pleasurable{ �if people would stop trashing it�} and making everyone who have the game feel like sh*t.

WHO wants to play a game, that everyone says is crap.????????

[ 27 December 2001: Message edited by: MarkP ]

Mephisto · #70 December 27th, 2001, 05:05 PM

Noone wants to make you fell like anything, MarkP. The people here talk about a game. I don't see how this can make you fell like sh*t. If any game would make me feel a way I would feel like superman for playing SE4. As I'm not wearing a blue/read dress, I would say, it did not make me feel like it.