Any complaints about Conquest?

[alva]

My main complaints are: 1. From what i can tell you can no longer trade maps with other countrys like in the original civ3

Still can, just need a different tech now

[Greg1]

My biggest beef is that, as with earlier versions of the game, the editor doesn't give me access to animations that aren't in the main game, even if they are in the scenarios. For instance, if I want to build a scenario using the warrior monk unit from the Sengoku Japan scenario, I'm out of luck (unless I learn how to program). I get the option of having a new unit represented in the city screen by the warrior monk icon, but bizarrely, choosing that icon doesn't give me the associated animation when the unit is built, but a crash instead. Grr!

How hard would it have been to tie the icons to the associated animations? Indeed, why bother to make the icons available if they *aren't* going to be tied to the associated animations?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Greg1
My biggest beef is that, as with earlier versions of the game, the editor doesn't give me access to animations that aren't in the main game, even if they are in the scenarios. For instance, if I want to build a scenario using the warrior monk unit from the Sengoku Japan scenario, I'm out of luck (unless I learn how to program). I get the option of having a new unit represented in the city screen by the warrior monk icon, but bizarrely, choosing that icon doesn't give me the associated animation when the unit is built, but a crash instead. Grr!

How hard would it have been to tie the icons to the associated animations? Indeed, why bother to make the icons available if they *aren't* going to be tied to the associated animations?

You're mistaken--you can have the animations for those units. It is, however, a bit of a tedious process. After you add them in the editor, you have to go into the pediaicons.txt and civilopedia.txt files and add entries for them, and you have to link to the proper scenario folder from the scenario properties screen.

[spy14]

My 2 issues as yet are lack of diplomacy upgrades, and (more frustratingly) the fact that a lot of the combat results are still... odd.

[mimi]

Yep... I have a complaint.

Marshes.

Marshes = Tedium

And what, really, is the point of all these new terrain features? Seems like a waste of energy. Why not just increase the frequency of, say, cows and not spend time programming sugar or tobacco or whatever the heck else is there. (Don't even know what they do since it's rather rare I see them through the marshes I live in.)

[Snotty]

I was told not to use regicide against the AI when playing PTW because it did not understand the victory conditions.

Has this been addressed in conquests?

I was just playing the medeaval conquest as the danes. I felt like a good pillage and so started harrassing the french coast. I battered one city down and its final defender was its king unit. I had to wait until next turn to attack again.

I expected the AI to flee with its valueable king unit as it would be certain death to stay against my unharmed vetern berserks. Only the AI didnt flee with its unit. It just stayed there.

If you are going to make conquests that have AI king units then you have to tweak the AI so it knows how best to use them.

[Dis]

Originally posted by mimi
Yep... I have a complaint.

Marshes.

Marshes = Tedium

And what, really, is the point of all these new terrain features? Seems like a waste of energy. Why not just increase the frequency of, say, cows and not spend time programming sugar or tobacco or whatever the heck else is there. (Don't even know what they do since it's rather rare I see them through the marshes I live in.)

that's boring. They want to add diversity to the game. There are already to many cows for my tastes

[Dis]

Originally posted by Snotty
I was told not to use regicide against the AI when playing PTW because it did not understand the victory conditions.

Has this been addressed in conquests?

I was just playing the medeaval conquest as the danes. I felt like a good pillage and so started harrassing the french coast. I battered one city down and its final defender was its king unit. I had to wait until next turn to attack again.

I expected the AI to flee with its valueable king unit as it would be certain death to stay against my unharmed vetern berserks. Only the AI didnt flee with its unit. It just stayed there.

If you are going to make conquests that have AI king units then you have to tweak the AI so it knows how best to use them.

playing the third Intro scenario on Conquests sees them at least defending their King. Both opponents put their King in their capitol which was probably their best defended city. Though one complaint was when I approached their capitol with an overwhelming force, they did not have their King flee their capitol. It would be dangerous to be caught in the open. But they have a movement of 2 I believe, and their roads were still connected. There were other cities within reach.

So taking their capitol resulted in the complete destruction of their empire. The bad thing about this is I don't have to worry about retaliation from the ai, while I battle the other civ in that scenario.

[Snotty]

In the Napoleon conquest the British city of Gibraltar seems to be founded on plains. I was expecting it to be based on hills at least, or maybe even on a mountain. The defense bonus would be accurate, and it could still perform its important port functions.

[Dis]

I have another possible complaint

hall of fame.

is it me or does the hall of fame for scenarios not get updated after you finish the successfully the first time?

It is posible I scored a lower score than my other victory though. I was playing as the Aztec in the Age of Discovery scenerio and won by a single city cultural victory. But I only had 6 cities, so it is possible my score was lower despite playing 2 difficulty levels higher than my original victory points victory with the Spanish.

[BulMaster]

My sole complaint for now is that the dip problem is still not fix it has worse. I'm tired for the AI to remind who i betrayed and on the same do it on and the other AIs and only be bothered by my betrayal. They should make the AI forget after some time. It's annoying to be reminded in 19**ad that you betrayed somebody in 3000BC :S. That's my view though you might be happy with it I'm not and now even you havn't met a civ when you betrayed somebody it seems to know :S somehow!

Not forget I WANT MY SPIES NOT A CRAPY INTELLIGENCE THINGY THAT COSTS MONEY I MISS THE PLANE NUCLEAR DEVICE FROM CIV2 :'(

[dnassman]

I only have two complaints but I have much more positive things to say about conquests. The AI is much better a combat for starters. It is great.

Ok back to my problems.
Signed a MPP with Byzantine, they were polite to me, next turn they declared war on me. Never had this happen before. Annoying.

SGL have been complained about a lot. Played as Persians, basically leading techs from the start as playing on regent. Beat other civs to all techs. Almost finish reserching Industrial???(Tanks etc) age and still no SGL.

[Brundlefly]

I have a complaint: I spend too much time playing it!

[needle]

Where is Brian Boru, Gods' damnit!?

[Shogun Gunner]

I really don't have any complaints about Conquest. There are little things here or there, but I would classify them as "Civ 3 issues". Conquests is what Civ3 vanilla should have been.

I guess I'm already thinking about Civ4 and what dramatic changes will be introduced there....eighteen to twenty-four months in the future if we are lucky...