Patch 1.20

[ErikM]

Don't remind me of Civ III the way it came out from the box in 2001 Interceptors don't work, no group movement, coastal fortresses don't work, corruption completely broken, pop rushing broken, even unit cycling algorithm completely broken. Don't see how it was any better than an EU/HoI... So in an unpatched EU2 Byzantines always defeated Ottomans within the first ten years, Spanish AI refused to colonize South America, and Papal States consistently supported Reformation... Methinks Firaxis would not even try to fix such minor details

Then the first Civ patch came out and instead of fixing some glaring problems it introduced "team color disc" and "city population dropshadow". After that I seriously considered using my Civ 3 CD as a frisbee and, needless to say, didn't play it until some enthusiasts have convinced me that Civ III was really improved after some patching.

Well, improved it was but coastal fortresses still don't work Not to mention some other requested features. Meanwhile, Paradox steadily fixed pretty much all glaring problems in their games. EU2 is 3 years old by now, but they still patch it based on players requests...

[player1]

Coastall Fortress works.

It's just a pretty much useless.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by alexman
OK, although this is easily moddable, and balanced either way, IMO. Not nearly as important as the first two points.

True, it is easily moddable. The annoying part here is, that Firaxis obviously doesn't count it as bug, but as feature. The lack of any statement about that issue proves this. Otherwise it would have taken five minutes to adjust the appearance ratios in the standard scenario file to Krings recommendations and could have been included pronto in every beta patch.

And no, it is not balanced. In MP, it is an annoyance. In SP, the AI will always suffer. It doesn't lead to killer AIs, as some strategists believe. It leads to killer humans. The AI won't wage wars for resources. The human will. Always.

[Qilue]

Still nothing on modded games appearing in HoF.
Still not going to buy C3C.

[DrSpike]

SR: My point 3 was given the confusion about this they should state it one way or the other. As Alexman says it's moddable, but people will play the unmodded game mostly and I'd like to know if it's staying this way.

[Harovan]

That's why I agreed with you and responded to alexman.

[alexman]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
And no, it is not balanced.

This is subjective. I know people who like it better as it is now.

I'm not saying that Firaxis should not change the resource distribution if they think it's broken. My point was just that their highest priority should be to fix things that are clear and undisputable bugs and imbalances, especially those that cannot be fixed using the editor.

[Andydog]

Well, I've tried to see things positively since Conquest's initial release, but like others around here I am struggling to continue to do so.

Jesse states that the sub bug remains because fixing it broke the game in other areas - a result of re-using the SMAC engine, which was re-used from the Civ2 engine.

Firstly, why was this old engine not fully understood by the programming team, and fine tuned to run properly? I admit I'm not a programmer, and imagine that this could take a lot of time, but for heaven sakes - clearly this is a basic and essential step that would not only save huge amounts of time in the future but would also vastly reduce the risks of future 'broken sub' type bugs. Why wasn't it taken when the development team changed?

Secondly, why has Friaxis left it up to just one poor soul to try to iron out the critical bugs and game balance issues that remain post release? Heck - Jesse isn't even a developer, yet he has to do his best pick this pigs ear up and run with it in his own spare time.

The post-release support for PTW was good, but clearly this was only because they knew they would be releasing another expansion. Now that it has been released and they have all our hard earned money, I'm sorry, but I’m not going to accept that one person (who isn't even a developer and who isn't even given sufficient time and resources to develop), be considered 'post release support'.

Thirdly, the whole management of patching has been poor. Time and money is clearly limited but critical bugs and game balance issues were not prioritised. Why was ‘worker gangs’ being worked on when, for example, the AI can’t even build armies?

Fourthly, there doesn't appear to be any formal processes in place for deciding upon and locking down basic game mechanics. I’m sorry, but you don’t for example suddenly decide to introduce a new “less streaky” combat system post release with a patch knowing that you don’t have the time or money to properly test it to ascertain the effects on game balance. If you’re going to do that then what was the point of the extensive beta testing pre-release? I also don’t understand why patch 1.12, 1.13, etc was released to the community for us to test corruption and provide feedback, when you then completely ignore all the feedback and do what you were going to do anyway.

My hopes for Civ4 have almost completely faded. An organisation that is not prepared to ensure the development team has what it needs to finish the product is not an organisation I would place hope in for decent future products. A development process that is not controlled is not a development process that can produce a balanced tested game free of major bugs. A team that can't understand and get an old engine up to scratch is not a team that can build a better engine.

I’d love to be proven wrong in all this – Civ is the only game I play – all the others just don’t interest me. I felt very let down with CTP, and I now feel let down with Civ3.

I'm sorry this post is so negative - I hate to rant and realise it has an almost zero chance of actually doing any good, but even so, it's off my chest now and out there, and even if there is a small chance that Friaxis will take note, then great.

It may not sound like it, but I do enjoy conquests immensely. I think that in general it's better than PTW, and that it's the best of the civ type genre that you can get. But while I play, I find myself shaking my head at how it fell short of it’s true potential because of the above issues.

I guess that if Friaxis gave Jesse the time and resource to get the things that Doc mentioned above sorted, then my faith may be restored somewhat, but just I don’t think that that’s gonna happen.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by alexman
This is subjective. I know people who like it better as it is now.

So do I. They are called warmongers. They don't care on what territory the resources are, since they will conquer it anyway, with resources or without. Winning by peaceful means is in most games not an option anymore. Poor, streamlined game.

[Spiffor]

Andydog:
One of Civ3's main problems is that half of the developing team (the one which followed Brian Reynolds, designer of SMAC) left Firaxis halfway of the development. Instead of cancelling the game outright, Firaxis decided to go on with new staff. It made Civ3 definitely more shaky, especially with Atari / Infogrames ordering to rush the game.

Now, I'm not even sure Jesse was in the original team as Civ3 came out. The lead programmer (and AI master) was Soren Johnson, and the editor main programmer was Mike Breitkreuz.

In such circumstances, it is no wonder the obsolete code is confusing. I'd hope Firaxis would bring back the old staff in the patching team, so that patches could proceed more efficiently. However, I don't hold my breath: business is business, and Atari needs a money C3C can't bring in anymore (save for the definitive "Gold Version" of the game including Civ3 + both expansions). Civ4 is their best bet for a blockbuster, and it is also the chance for Firaxis to restore its reputation. There's no wonder they focus all their resources into making Civ4 the best possible game.

[sabrewolf]

all this bashing... i really don't see the point.

yes - there were and are a lot of bugs
yes - the game and each expansion shouldn't have been released until after each 2nd or 3rd patch.
yes - there's still a lot of balance issues.
yes - PTW stuff should have been already been in the vanilla game.

BUT... as someone said earlier, civ3 has provided us with hundreds or thousands of hours of gameplay... for just 100-150 USD, what more can you want?
and those who played less probably aren't browsing these forums...

compared to most FPS games where you can finish the game in a few dozen hours and the only thing keeping you playing it is the next difficulty level or MP, it's worth 10times the money invested.


that said, i still hope jesse can fix the major bugs like the SGA and mainly the lack of AI armies... and maybe add some nice features...

[sabrewolf]

oh, and i'm looking forward to Civ IV!
just don't overkill it with too much graphics when gameplay was always the most important issue of a TBS game

[vmxa1]

You have to wonder if it would not have been cost effective to write the game from scratch, given how much it takes to try to correct things down the road.

I would hope they are not using any code form any previous games in Civ4.

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Andydog:
One of Civ3's main problems is that half of the developing team (the one which followed Brian Reynolds, designer of SMAC) left Firaxis halfway of the development. Instead of cancelling the game outright, Firaxis decided to go on with new staff. It made Civ3 definitely more shaky, especially with Atari / Infogrames ordering to rush the game.

With such sweeping personnel change at Firaxis, is it reasonable to expect that Civ4 will be a cheap knockoff of Civ3, much in the same way that Call to Power tried to imitate Civ2 but failed miserably?

[alexman]

Nes.