My Pet peeves with civ 3 conquests

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Why do I feel like I'm talking to a 12 year old who never played civ 1 or 2.......

I also note Joncha that other posters share many of my concerns and irritations.

Maybe that is the problem. Your perception is a bit off. I am 58 and played them.

From what I have seen you have not played CivIII all that long, so it could be you have not gained the experience and skills needed to play it well.

But it may be you just want to get a rise out of people, I don't know. On the other hand CivII was just a very easy game to beat at all levels. I loved the game and use to rate it as either #1 or #2. It was great and fun, but it has many significant flaws.

BTW I still have Civ1 and Civ2. So any way I hope you find another game you enjoy.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Why do I feel like I'm talking to a 12 year old who never played civ 1 or 2.......

I also note Joncha that other posters share many of my concerns and irritations.

never played civ1, but I have played civ2 extensively.

There are many things that irritated me about civ2 that I'm glad are gone. There is a reason why I never play civ2 anymore. Army support is one of them. Having units supported by cities is annoying. If you had a small city in civ2 in democracy you couldn't take your caravel out exploring. Because it had an attack of 1 it was considered a combat unit, and not having that unit in the city radious caused unhappiness problem. I understand it is better to have better developed cities by that point, but that isn't always possible. I should be able to have small and medium sized cities in democracy.

And the lack of borders was really annoying.

But civ3 introduced some new problems unfortunately. I won't get into them- they are discussed above.

maybe eventually we will have the perfect civ game. I just noticed in Computer Gaming World that civ4 is on the pipeline. I wonder how that one will turn out...

[Alexander's Horse]

Hopefully civ 4 will have the best features of civ 2 and 3.

[Antrine]

Unfortunately try two score and eight years. Anyway, your complaints are two and half years old. Quite stale I'd say. And good deal of us, shall I say moved on to address what might be patched or modded. However, I will confess, going to a funeral may be more promising some days.

[Antrine]

AS far as betting on CIV 4 goes, I'd much rather win the Lotto and build mine own game from scratch.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Antrine
Anyway, your complaints are two and half years old. Quite stale I'd say.

Not if you were one of the many who skipped civ3 because it didn't have MP and you weren't prepared to pay for it.

I mention the above because I thought some might be amenable to patching or modding. Not so?

It doesn't hurt to remind the game developers of the bloopers.

[Antrine]

Well, actually there is some good news for MP with this Patch 1.20 now in the pipeline. And that community is I believe excited about it.

[Alexander's Horse]

I haven't tried MP yet - doesn't seem very viable with so many units generated in each game.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I haven't tried MP yet - doesn't seem very viable with so many units generated in each game.

Play on smaller maps with fast play options (they're good in MP, they just suck in SP), and it should work.

[Lewsir]

I actually do tend to agree with a lot of Alexander's points. In fact for me it's bigger - an almost intangible problem with C3C - that makes it just not that interesting.

I would add:

Unfulfilling interactions with other civs, including no real lasting alliances

Trading system, though good in theory, mostly just pisses me off - civ leaders are unreasonable much of the time.

Still too much micromanagement needed (although if I do automate everything possible then there's not much left to think about - not enough "big picture" aspects. )

Late game play is just too slow and tedious for me.

I've had three or four games, out of maybe 30, where it has gotten really interesting. I think in CIV 2, and certainly in alpha centauri it felt interesting at least half the time.

There are definitely some great things about C3C, but I welcome an overhaul if it gets at some of these basic issues.

[Paddy]

Yes there are many many issues

yet there seem to be alot of things with the patches....

I wonder how many patches this game will have before Civ IV?

[Spiffor]

I expect only one more (after 1.20f), and not a big one. Basically, I suppose the game will be in its definitive form when the all-in-one box will come out this fall. Unless there is a major bug that makes the all-in-one box really unplayable, I think they won't update it anymore.

IIUC, the patches are currently developed by one programmer (Jesse Smith), who does it only part-time. Apparently, there are talks about a patch past the 1.20f, but Jesse made it clear very few resources are now used at developing new patches.

[Arrian]

I have issues with Conquests, but almost none of them match up with AH's list. Further, it's pretty clear from AH's list he hasn't played CivIII very much. Some of the stuff in there just doesn't make sense to me, probably because I know the game a lot better, due to the insane amount of time I've spent playing it.

I played Civ I and Civ II. I think CivIII is a superior game, despite some irritating flaws. To me, those flaws are things like the screwed up AI worker routines/city spacing (which was pretty well set up by the last patch of PTW, but reverted horribly in Conquests), the out-and-out bugs (Science GA, war via AI accidentally attacking submarines)... stuff like that.

-Arrian

[Harovan]

In terms of difficulty, Civ3 is superior to Civ2. In terms of fun and game atmosphere, Civ2 is lightyears ahead. Civ3 isn't even a worthy adversary.

[vmxa1]

That is my sentiments Sir Ralph. Civ2 was lots of fun, Civ3 is more of a challenge. Civ3 is not so much fun as it is satisfying and provide a sense of accomplishment. I never felt I accomplished anything in Civ2, but fun. Sort of like Diablo2.