The end of civilization as we know it

[ColdWizard]

if rah = sucks, then coldwizard =

[StrategicKing2]

I hear this all the time by you people..."adapt to the games situation"....Bull....I get 2 free citys by 3700 bc and you warior code , adapt then big fella..You will lose everytime no matter what you do. You get stuck behind 3 rungs of forests with no resources and I start with a gold mine and lots of huts around, you lose, everytime, again, no matter how you adapt.
Put simply, the programing of this game is so bad, that from the very start of the game you sometimes will have no chance to win no matter what you do. I can accept this, however a win when the other player is put at such a dismal disadvantage is empty. Losing knowing you never had a chance is frustrating. And worse yet you play for hours only to find in the end that skill was not a factor in the game. My point is simple, civ 3 with a few changes to civ 2 could have made each game playable (each side having a chance to win from beging and game decided by skill) but it failed to do this and only created a game flawed with the same old problems.

[rah]

I sometimes get the most satisfaction out of games where I'm not awarded "LUCK" . If I can hold my own or actually pull out a win with bad luck, I know I did something right. That's why I kinda like Civ III. It's not that I need luck to win, I think it adds a little extra flavor to the game. And there are those nights that nothing goes right and you get your butt kicked.

Without zoc, a lot of the old strats have to be modified. You can't block fortified on that mountain.

The limits in the game also take some of the old strats out. Rushes still work but sometimes (with the civI type combat) they don't. It keeps you always changing. To some people, that's fun. It doesn't mean we suck.

RAH

[Species8472]

Originally posted by rah
Without zoc, a lot of the old strats have to be modified. You can't block fortified on that mountain.
RAH

uh... there is no effective zoc in civ2?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Species8472
uh... there is no effective zoc in civ2?

He was refering to Civ III

[Carolus Rex]

Some entertaining posts in this thread!

As there always are, when some Apolytoners are involved...

Speaking of which, EnigmaticGod, which is the game you have moved on to? Something that can be fun picking up for other die hard civers?

Carolus

[EyesOfNight]

Age Of Empires 2: The Conquerors. That game is light years ahead of civ3 in terms of graphics, programming, support, every possible thing I can think of. And it came out about 3 years earlier than civ3. You should see the screen shots for Age Of Mythology. They make age of empires 2 look like ****. So you can imagine comparing civ3 to AOM.

[War4ever]

its not that the starting positions in civ3 are any more uneven in civ3 than they were in civ2, its just that unlike civ2 where you could wander until you found a better spot, you can't really affoard to in civ3. Some might say this prevents the human from acquiring alot of NON units.....and this could be viewed as a good thing.

civ2 has poor starting locations, which if your opponent has a decent or good one, means game over against worthy opposition. The same in civ3 so this bone of contention with many players hasn't been fixed which is a shame.

huts don't factor into play as much in civ3, which could be viewed as a good thing.

the only early difference in civ3 for buildings , is that i build temples earlier than i would if i were playing civ2.

However due to caps on science and some nasty corruption flaws, the idea of infastructure is based mainly on culture, not trade in civ3

Culture is a weapon that is a fresh idea, but not implemented the way it should have been. A culture victory on deity is tough to achieve, but its too easy to absorb enemy cities within your lands.

Many buildings are rendered obsolete by the unrealistic corruption calculations. You are punished too severely for expanding too far from your capital.

REX (ICS) has been hampered..... many would say this is a good thing. However on standard maps, you can easily put 12 cities around your capital, many shariing borders and still be fine. Just because culture has expanded your borders, it doesn't mean your going to use all the squares. In fact most cities only need 3-4 squares to properly rush in despotism, which you will be in for a long portion of the game.

Monarchy is just useless

Razing cites is interesting and at times necessary. However razing a whole empire would cause panic and this seems a tad unrealistic/bad for gameplay.

leaders.....those who get the early ones are laughing all the way to the bank, those who don't , your out of luck. This isn't a good concept either. Though i suppose for diplo purposes, being able to write your nations history and state that Darius led your troops to victory is kinda cool

Diplomacy is good for diplogaming, i like the idea of sanctions and such, but they should be allowed ealier in the game. The cost of subversion is very high....again some might say this is a good thing. Many of you will just say its too expensive.


There are other points i could make too but i am running out of gas......

Personally i don't like the game the way it is right now..... i feel as though i am playing an activision game, not a sid meier game.

With alot of hard work, flaws can and will be worked out.....

However that said, i will never like the look of the terrain, ever!

Merry Christmas and heres to hoping no one gets civ3 ... i mean coal in their stockings

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by EnigmaticGod
Has anyone here ever seen me whine about huts? Has anyone here ever seen me whine about start location? Amazing how you consider luck such a big factor in civ2 while I on the other hand don't. I guess that's the difference between me and you. I accept that luck is a factor and find ways to deal with it or move on. You on the other hand base your entire game around it and find a new setting each week to call yourself the best at. Now stop filling my thread with your garbage and get lost.

HA HA HA HA HA

Eyes. you seem to have a selective memory.

When we would play you'd quit the game after 5 turns or so complaining about the huts or your start position or some other factor. Cursing the stupid luck of the game and refusing to play a game out unless the luck favored you.

The more particular a player becomes and the more specialized they are when they get to the point they have to choose specific settings and know they can beat anyone that way then their ability to adapt to new situations is erased. Thats why the "great" players like Strat or Eyes or whoever are pissed at anything that changes their precious formulas.

I agree with Rah, if you all can't adapt then your skill is an illusion and your crown will rust away as you fade away.

[OzzyKP]

And from what I've heard Civ3 still sounds excellent for Diplogaming, which is the only thing i really care about anymore. If it is a piece of crap for everything then it doesn't affect me, I'm still boycotting the thing until MP comes out and the Diplogame can explore a new format.

[EyesOfNight]

Ozzy you are one stupid ****.

When we would play you'd quit the game after 5 turns or so complaining about the huts or your start position or some other factor. Cursing the stupid luck of the game and refusing to play a game out unless the luck favored you.

Nice try, I don't think I remember those games. If you'd like to prove this, you know how to reach me. As for the whole "forumla" thing, did you not read a thing I wrote? Obviously not hence my first conclusion, you are one stupid ****. Now stupid ****, go re-read what I said. I said the AI is easier in this game than the last. That means that I have already crushed the AI and have found it completely unworthy. So tell me stupid ****, how does that mean I can't adapt? There's not that much to adapt to, but you wouldn't know that because you haven't played the game. The game is the EXACT same thing as civ2 except now there are caps and other little things to slow you down. That's all. This game's only update was to make the graphics worse, screw up the combat system, and to slow the human down to the AI speed. But again, you're a stupid **** and can't read nor have you played the game so how would you know?

[CapTVK]

Civ3 wasn't all we hoped to be but you can still count on good 'ol Eyes to get you in the mood.

[General Maximus]

i do have to agree with eyes on THIS one, you really need to play this game to see the flaws. you can't just read about it from others.

some people like shoving red hot pokers in their arses....and some people like Civ3 the way it is now....those people are probably the same 5 people...

i have uninstalled this game, and went back to earlier, better games, like pong.

[rah]

Yes the game does have considerable flaws. I posted 8 or 9 changes that will have to be made for MP.

A lot of the complaints that I have seen here, refer to the limits that slow the human player down so the AI can keep up. As far as I'm concerned those are not important if there is no AI in the game.

This does give me hope that a good MP game is possible. (if all my suggestions, with a few others that I missed are incorporated)

It's important that all of us diehard MPs try this game and figure out what needs to be done. I look to the "Eyes", "GMs", "War4",
"Xins", "SKs", "Mings" and many others to provide the suggestions that will FIX the game for MP. Don't just dismiss the game, provide constructive suggestions. Whether they'll listen is immaterial, if we don't make suggestions.

I may dissagree with many of you on how much luck should be in the game, but it's just that, A preference. Don't use it as an excuse to dismiss any of my other ideas.

Let's get cracking here. Time is running out.


Rich

And on a side note, we only have ourselves to blame for the sorry state of SP because the developers were aware how badly we trashed the AI in II, and were forced to the drastic and sucky programming changes to slow the "EXPERTS" down. While they only partially suceeded, the cost to the "Lack of FUN" in Civ was payed.

[General Maximus]

one of my favorite games is NeedForSpeed3 HotPursuit.

having said that, here's my point. you can race against the computer players, then save your race as a "ghost" to race against. you can then race against yourself, with the game improvising...

if we had, say eyes and strat and deity and rah...etc... as "ghost" players, then the AI would be smarter? the answer is yes. the AI would have to improvise according to land mass, attacks etc...

what do you think???