Civ3 Conquests, should this have been the orginal Civ3?

[Tiberius]

As for the thread starter question:

1. From the PoV of what we were expecting: YES.

2. From the PoV of what could have been done two years ago to have the game we have today: NO.

[Plotinus]

Right, Tiberius - the original question is basically meaningless, since it comes down to "Should this game have been better when it was originally released?" - which would be a non-question applied to anything.

[Lewsir]

How about my alternative question - would you rather have Firaxis et al spend the next 6-9 months working on producing another expansion with more tweaks, bells and whistles for CIV 3 or (probably spend longer and) start from scratch on producing a CIV 4?

[Tiberius]

I'd prefer a new expansion for 2 reasons:

1. it'd take less (1 year for a new XP, at least 2 years for a new game)

2. I have no idea how a civ4 would be different. I haven't heard so far any groundbreaking idea of how civ4 should be different from civ3. Sure, there are some good suggestions out there (improved UN, a more flexible editor with events and whatnot, civil wars, etc) but other than that ??! How would these ideas make a new game different from a civ 3.5 ?

If Firaxis would have some fantastic ideas on how to improve civ3 that can't be build in the current engine, then yes, I'd wait another year or two.

[Lewsir]

I agree, and in fact your suggestion of a UN-type enhancement for CIV 4 sounds like the perfect basis for a new expansion of CIV 3, since it shouldn't be too complicated (easy for me to say). Perhaps improved diplomacy could be the core theme of the expansion. Maybe beef up espionage aspects as well.

If anyone from Firaxis is reading this, I would be curious what YOU guys are thinking about as next steps...

[Tiberius]

If anyone from Firaxis is reading this, he/she won't tell a word, that I'm sure of

[Lewsir]

Good point.

[Antrine]

The subject of exchange brings up the very reason I did wait and not participate and kept to playing CIVII. Is this a Civilization Diplomacy Game or a Civilization War Game? Personally, I care not nor use much all these new trade, diplomacy with espionage intrigue. I make scenarios with so many resources (x20) that I and everyone else (AI’s) will have everything straight away. I am glad the barbarians were not outright nixed; it is the battle engine that I am mostly impressed with and large maps, large armies and hundreds upon hundreds of cities that can be built. Anyway, this game is many things at once, where it goes who knows. Keep enhancing ‘the Game Editor’ and who cares. We each will design our own. However, give me back the ‘cheat mode’, ‘events’, ‘movies’ and I would like to build a fantastically elaborate Palace. Many Thanks! Oh and ZOOM.
See you guys were a little asleep on your watch. [smiles].

Sincerely,
Antrine

[Traelin]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
I personally like the incremental approach, but there comes a point in any software project where the original design gets in the way of new ideas. It can get to the point where it is easier to start over than to try to jam something in.

IMO I am VERY, VERY happy with C3C, so I don't even care to speculate on whether or not vanilla should have been this or should have been that. I agree with your assessment, Warp.

With that being said, I think that Civ IV would have to be initiated to get some of the major overhauls that I have been crying for... e.g., updated diplomacy/UN, updated trade model, etc. It'll just be too much work to attempt to change these things and would be easier to start from scratch. Other Civ III code modules could probably be borrowed upon though, although I haven't seen the code to give an accurate assessment.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by TheArsenal


Micromanagement and number crunching is a matter of play style. I have no time or patience for the level crunching that some players here do, and I probably send my workers into automation far earlier than them as well. Yet I still manage to enjoy the game a great deal and play more to both win and enjoy, than to work the internal mechanization of the game to maximize a win.

I supposed you are right, I played a game on a lower difficulty and had a bit more fun, since the computer wasn't power-gaming as much. I just wish they could of made the game challanging without giving the computer every advantage, or stoping the civs from actually behaving like countries and not players in a game. I guess I just don't like the atmosphere in it, really.

Give me a Paradox game over Civ3 anyday.