Announcement

**Smash** · January 13, 2002, 17:36

1.Not very well.Ancient era good..rest..eh..not so good.I find myself "waiting" alot after ancient period.Waiting for Knights.Waiting for suitable boats.Waiting for Cavalry.
Since there is nothing I can do to speed up research beyond a certain point...I wait.And wait.
Exploring is gone...almost.I didn't realize how much of the game revolved around uncovering that black area.Civ3 worlds are filled up fast.Anything on the map that is black at 10ad or so is water.No use exploring there.

2.Unsure.Looks like it will be slow going.Then again,maybe not.The mid game tedium of tech broker/diplomat will not be a problem in MP.Doesn't seem to be a way around having lots of workers though.Especially in later phases when pollution rears it's ugly head.
Forget about UU and special abilties.It will be too unbalancing.
Strategic resources could be tricky.
I dunno.Somehow the idea of playing XX hours and still be in Despo......progress is slow.Then again,Despo is probably the best government

Good for 1 night slug fests..although it may take 40 turns before you see your first decent offensive unit...beyond that looks iffy to me.
Maybe simul play!?
Stuff like bombarding terrain and capturing units seems like it would be fun in MP.
Something drastic will need to be done to corruption.Right now you can only make a relatively small part of the map productive.While war has been made more appealing,the incentive has been removed.Otherwise you stay in Despo and use corruption free pop rushing.Games may never proceed.The only barriers may be oceans.

3.Yes.I'm having another look at SMAC.Not really loving what I'm seeing but it does have that "discovery" aspect to it.

**ColdWizard** · January 14, 2002, 13:18

1. Haven't played civ3 since December 7

(partly due to boredom, partly due to BG2). Seems to me that boredom sets in after expansion to the corruption limit is achieved, nothing to do but build stuff and raze some enemy cities.

2. I don't know, but it seems like MP would be a rush to get and fight over strategic resources, might be interesting.

3. I've been playing Baldur's Gate 2 and with my recent purchase of Fallout/Fallout 2, civ3 might sit for quite some time.

**Ming** · January 14, 2002, 13:26

1) Could be fun... I'm still enjoying it. But unless they come up with stacked movement... Combat will be early. I don't why you guys say you need to wait for good units. Heck, 10 cheap warriors will give an opponent fits. (as long as you can protect your homeland at the same time from the same thing

)

2) UU and civ characteristics will make for a totally unbalanced game. And we won't even get into strategic resourses

And then, the hunt for great leaders. It will force early warfare because building wonders without them is just too much. Plus, how many times are you going to get stuck with a 300 shield granery

Great Leaders will add WAY too much luck to the game. I've played some games where I have been on the attack since the beginning, and haven't seen a great leader until way into AD. And other times, I just start getting them and getting them VERY early.

3) Alternatives

I still play Civ II MP when there are people around... and Civ III when I have to play SP. Who needs alternatives.

I just hope CIV III MP will have MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY, options to use to set up the game. All the way from "even" starting positions... to pick your characteristics and special units ( so just picking civs at the start doesn't turn into a whine fest) to setting levels of corruption... and on and on and on.
I did put in my email to ask to join the MP Beta team... I hope they pick me.

**Alexander's Horse** · January 14, 2002, 21:07

I think the thing that bugs me most of all is moving artillery around - especially when I have the sound on and hear that creaky wheel sound effect over and over and over. Then I make a mouse mistake and have to start my turn again - *creak, creak, creak*, *creak, creak, creak*

Definitely heading back to civ II soon - if I can find players. I felt more in control of that game, by which I mean I understood and could influence what was going on more. This game is too capricious for my taste. City defection, the lack of control over wonder production and the slow science rate drive me nuts. The end game is a micromanagement hell.

So I agree with Ming - must be heavily optioned to be viable as MP. There is no level playing field in the SP

**CapTVK** · January 19, 2002, 17:46

Boredom.....so that's what it boils down to.

Not in the sense that Civ3 is bad. Plenty of people (mostly first time users it seems) enjoy it, for the moment. But when you've played a previous version you expect a bit more. The original Civ1 had "it" and when they designed Civ2 they were smart enough not to make drastical changes to "it" and keep the game balanced. In Civ3 they tried something new, it's refreshing but the "thing" (I would describe it as gamebalance) that kept Civ1 and 2 interesting was lost.

Really, I don't think Civ3 is bad. In retrospect it just could have been so.. much......better....

**xyakks** · January 20, 2002, 19:36

civ3 gets boaring way 2 early in the game... i think that civ2 is a much better game. in civ3 they have changed it 2 much, all the units look the same, 2 easy 2 build up fast, 2 hard 2 build great cities, i can pretty much never fing a great leader, the road movement is dodgy, it get boaring way 2 early in the game (i like saying that), but still its ok, but i still like civ2's sp mode and civ2's mp is easly the best mp game out still,

**CANNON FODDER** · January 21, 2002, 23:12

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

1). Ive already uninstalled Civ3.

2). Most MP games wont get past the initial despotic pop rush.

3). Ive just gotten into my 1st Civ2 MP game in 6 months. Im having a great time building caravans to develop trade routes.

Other than that, Ive been playing a lot of Europa Universalis SP and am about to start my 1st MP game of EU. EU is the 1st game since Civ2 that has that "just 1 more turn" feel.

**Hydey** · January 22, 2002, 01:18

I am enjoying Civ 3 as a single player game although I think it will struggle to become a good MP game.

Still playing the odd civ2 MP game and a bit of Tot

I think civ2 MP with have a resergence in popularity as players get bored with civ3

**Alexander's Horse** · January 22, 2002, 01:21

A huge sign of the weakness of Civ III is the Civ III strat forum. Go and check it out - its virtually strat free and hardly gets any posts.

**Ming** · January 22, 2002, 02:12

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
A huge sign of the weakness of Civ III is the Civ III strat forum. Go and check it out - its virtually strat free and hardly gets any posts.

Hmmm... I wonder if you checked out all 27 pages, there is tons of good material there

But, I will agree that it doesn't get many posts now... Nobody has really come up with much new lately... so I will agree that that is a weakness

**Alexander's Horse** · January 22, 2002, 08:29

Well Mark closed my thread there complainingabout the lack of strat. I thought it was fair comment but never mind.

I'm thinking about things like even last year people were discovering new things about civ II. That says a lot. I'm not sure they'll be doing that with this game.

And I've contributed threads on that strat forum and read a lot but haven't found much response. Which I found disappointing.

**Zealot** · January 22, 2002, 13:11

Re: The future of civ multiplaying -the next road?-

Originally posted by CapTVK

First question: With several Civ2 veterans (still holding out myself )having played Civ3 for a few months now. How's it holding up? It seems Civ3 has a good start but completely bogs down in the end game
Second question: What are the prospects for Civ3 MP, will the current gameplay make it harder or easier to do a quick/long game?
Third question: Has anyone gone looking for alternatives? I've gone back to playing scenarios and playtesting Freeciv, anyone else?

[list=1][*]I haven't played Civ 3 since December, and that was only once![*]With the current gameplay, everybody will pop rush and raze cities, only with ancient times technology. It's going to be boring, but it's sure that you'll win this way.[*]I never abandoned MoO 2 for a long strategy game, or Starcraft, for a short strategy game (both in MP). And I'm playing a sci-fi succession ToT game, just for fun. Feel free to join, BTW.

[/list=1]

**Powerslave** · January 23, 2002, 01:38

1. Yes Civ 3 has it flawns but I still enjoy it alot. I think all the new fresh ideas is great even if some could be more balanced.

2. I think someone would have to design a special Mod for Civ 3 MP. Strategic resources is one thing that comes to my mind. In SP it works great but in MP I strongly believe it wouldn't work to well. What I would like to see is that units dependable on a strategic resource could be build even withouth it but to a much increased cost. SR would still be important but not crucial.

3. I will continue to play Civ 3, Civ 2 scenarios, CTP 2 and Alpha Centauri. They are all great games and they all have their strong points and weakness. The only alternative for me to these games are Europa Universalis 2.

**common_terry** · January 30, 2002, 01:31

civ3 is better than civ2 but is it fast enough for mp?

civ 3 is a very good game. you will appreciate it as u play it more.
civ3 is more realistic and it is easier for the ai to make good decisions. loopholes for the human to abuse seem to be reduced drastically. resource battles will b huge in mp. but they will need to use faster graphics for mulitiplayer and workers shud b able to b in armies etc etc anything to hone the speed for multiplay. but they want our money. so maybe we shud buy civ2 from hasbro cheap and join freeciv and make a better modified civ2 and save the planet

sell short, free mumia, go to new york this weekend, terry

Announcement

The future of civ multiplaying -the next road?-

The future of civ multiplaying -the next road?-

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment