Civ3 is awesome!

[Dis]

Don't forget to vote here

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=118172

[Dis]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar


Thats cheating, Diss

hey, Civ2 guys had a link on their forusm to vote in this poll.

and people who think civ3 sucks should not be able to view or post in this forum

[Harry Tuttle]

Civ 3, while being a decent update to the Civ genre, really lacks in to many spots for me to play it regularly.

My biggest gripe? The utter bull waiting for the computer move its units. 5 minutes for a turn in a small world early on is annoying. 15 mintue turns and a possible game freeze in a large world? Cmon, that's just plain frustrating.

Civ2's engine didn't have all the flashy animation and to this day sits on my desktop. Modding for Civ2 is some much easier, plus I can finish a full game in a day instead of a week.

Civ 4 designer's take note: It's a computer game. We like being able to play it, not do our laundry and assorted chores between turns. Sheesh.

[Dis]

5 minutes on a small map?

time to ditch the 386 and move into the modern world

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Civ 4 designer's take note: It's a computer game. We like being able to play it, not do our laundry and assorted chores between turns. Sheesh.

Wholeheartedly agree, however I was able to convince the wife that I spent more time studying than playing.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber


I do miss some things from Civ II:

Helicopters and Bombers able to detect subs

Helicopters, yes, but Bombers? IMHO Civ2 had way too many units able to detect subs.

Pikemen that are effective against horse units

Pike def = 3, Horse attack = 2 so there you are. I know you mean the 50% bonus, however this feature was pretty close to being broken because it only worked, IIRC, if both the attacker and defender had exactly 10 hps. OK for the default game, lousy for scenarios.

Spearman that die when confronted with Armor

Paratroopers that are useful and have an appropriate range.

Range is editable, however the Civ2 Paratrooper with ADM of 6/4/1 and only 20 hps was pretty close to useless.

'Firepower' concept (can reproduce in CIV 3 to a degree with editor though)

Not really needed due to low hps. Civ2 had some bizarre and annoying fp rules: ships lose fp when attacking land. Land units lose fp against air.

Zoc control limits with fortifications (alleviated to a degree with C3C)

You didn't need forts for ZOC in Civ2. Pretty much every land unit exerted ZOC. A warrior could even block armor. In any case, the AI never had a clue how to take advantage of ZOC, while the human could employ all sorts of tricks to get around it.

The biggest thing I miss about Civ2 is the amazing number of scenarios available to play. With events and such, Civ2 is just a better scenario engine than Civ3.

[Dis]

I don't think bombers could detect subs in civ2, could they?

Helicopters are routinely used by the U.S. navy to detect subs- in conjunction with the battle group or ship it's based off of.

[Mad Bomber]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by gunkulator

IN Response to your replys:

Helicopters, yes, but Bombers? IMHO Civ2 had way too many units able to detect subs.

Actually bombers did not detect subs in the defalt Civ II game but it was one of my favorite mods.

Pike def = 3, Horse attack = 2 so there you are. I know you mean the 50% bonus, however this feature was pretty close to being broken because it only worked, IIRC, if both the attacker and defender had exactly 10 hps. OK for the default game, lousy for scenarios.

Um. Knights and Crusaders (in CIV II) were horse units also. Pikes should be moderately effective against ALL horse units not just the ancient unit (and in C3C an ancient cav has a better chance of defeating a pike in even combat)

Range is editable, however the Civ2 Paratrooper with ADM of 6/4/1 and only 20 hps was pretty close to useless.

True.

Not really needed due to low hps. Civ2 had some bizarre and annoying fp rules: ships lose fp when attacking land. Land units lose fp against air.

As I had mentioned, Fp (firepower) could be redone in the editor using HP for more advanced units. In the default game, a more powerful unit loses to an inferior unit far too often (and I won't take up the spearman-tank issue here either) The CIV II FP was a good system it should have been retained but toned down a bit (less HP difference and Fp changes only with major tech breakthroughs). The air and Sea Fp issue would be resolved with the current bombardment system in CIV III.

The biggest thing I miss about Civ2 is the amazing number of scenarios available to play. With events and such, Civ2 is just a better scenario engine than Civ3.

Agreed the scenarios were better, but that is also because the editor was better; which is REALLY the biggest thing that I miss from CIV II.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber


Actually bombers did not detect subs in the defalt Civ II game but it was one of my favorite mods.

OK, however prop fighters detecting subs never made any sense to me.

Um. Knights and Crusaders (in CIV II) were horse units also. Pikes should be moderately effective against ALL horse units not just the ancient unit (and in C3C an ancient cav has a better chance of defeating a pike in even combat)

The Civ2 pike only had def=2 or 3 vs ancient horse units. Not really all that effective against the a=4 knight or a=5 crusader. Civ3 just gives the pike d=3 against everyone. Better yet, Civ3 adjusted the cost of the units so even though the knight is better, it costs 70 shields vs. only 30 for the pike. Ancient Cavalry are better however you must first invest a lot of shields into SOZ, assuming you are lucky enough to hook up ivory. The extra effort deserves the bonus.

OTOH, I do agree that the concept of extra defense against 2 movers is valuable considering all the advantages of mobility, however Civ2's method is inadequate.

As I had mentioned, Fp (firepower) could be redone in the editor using HP for more advanced units. In the default game, a more powerful unit loses to an inferior unit far too often

Not IMO. In fact, this is one of the big weaknesses of Civ2. Once you got even the smallest tech lead, you could crush your opponents militarily. Civ2 combat was far too predictable. Superior units pretty much never lost a battle.

[vmxa1]

Not only predictable, but when they win, they kill all in the stack. Imagine those stack you face in C3C of scores of units and killing them with one good unit.

[Mad Bomber]

Not IMO. In fact, this is one of the big weaknesses of Civ2. Once you got even the smallest tech lead, you could crush your opponents militarily. Civ2 combat was far too predictable. Superior units pretty much never lost a battle.

Which is why I want the Firepower toned down. Firaxis tried to balance the game by getting rid of firepower, but in doing so they went too far. So while I do think that firepower should return, their should be less of a difference in firepower (and Hp) between units.

Not only predictable, but when they win, they kill all in the stack. Imagine those stack you face in C3C of scores of units and killing them with one good unit.

I am not asking for a return of this, only a return of individual units using firepower as a modifier in combat calculations. This function was the true reason that superior units were unbeatable in CIV II.

[Dis]

most land units were firepower of 1. With the exception of howitzer. And howitzer ignored city walls. this was the reason that unit was so overpowered.

I didn't feel armour in civ2 was that overpowered. In order to take a city with a mech inf. in it, you had to have artillery with you. Only howitzers could take cities with mech. infantry in them by themselves.

The ships had firepower of 2 though. And that's why they were so overpowering taking out units along the coast and in cities. This can easily be rectified by only allowing ships to damage units and not destroy them- as in civ3.

[gunkulator]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Dissident
most land units were firepower of 1. With the exception of howitzer. And howitzer ignored city walls. this was the reason that unit was so overpowered.
[quote]

With, say, a dozen howitzers you could conquer the entire world. Quite a ridiculously overpowered unit.

The ships had firepower of 2 though. And that's why they were so overpowering taking out units along the coast and in cities.

Um, no. Ships' firepower was reduced to 1 when attacking land units. Couple that with Civ2's actually useful Coastal Fortress and sea units were at a severe disadvantage. Yes, you could pick off Settlers or Caravans out in the open but attacking a fortified city was folly. Even if you succeeded your damaged ship would be reduced to a move rate of 2 so you'd have to spend decades limping back to port. Even the mighty battleship was good for taking out maybe two modern units at most. Later in the game you can't even use battleships because the AI has an unending supply of Cruise Missiles to lob at them.

This can easily be rectified by only allowing ships to damage units and not destroy them- as in civ3.

Bombardment is one Civ3's greatest ideas. It also adds the prospect capturing artillery which played a major roll in many wars.

[Paddy]

Capturing artillary is a great benefit...

yet having your own guns turned upon yourself is quite ugly... indeed

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Dissident
most land units were firepower of 1. With the exception of howitzer. And howitzer ignored city walls. this was the reason that unit was so overpowered.

I didn't feel armour in civ2 was that overpowered. In order to take a city with a mech inf. in it, you had to have artillery with you. Only howitzers could take cities with mech. infantry in them by themselves.

The ships had firepower of 2 though. And that's why they were so overpowering taking out units along the coast and in cities. This can easily be rectified by only allowing ships to damage units and not destroy them- as in civ3.

hmmm. I remember most modern units (particularly armor and mech infantry) having higher firepower ratings. even if they didn't there was too much of a difference in Hitpoints between units. I would like a Fp system to modify the attack and defence factors (it could be a very small modifcation, such as the AA defence factors) and to have a small increase in HP as units become more powerful. Above all I would like the current bombarment system kept as it is in CIV III. (If it means losing my cruise missle equiped bombers, so be it).