The game seems to have a bias towards nerdy "relatively peaceful builders"

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Earthling7

- Roads are the most heavily defended structures during a war.

Should be - but why reward fools who don't?

[Tjoepie]

I think Civ3-team decided to give us more choices in the way you want to play peacefull/warlike/combination and I see that as a big plus!
The best proof are all the different ways you can win the game!

I can't wait to play too ... I just hope I'll find it in Belgium (LE or not) not too long after the release in the US because I'll be biting my nails so hard my fingers my suffer too and if I read reports on how great it is ... oh well, maybe this forum will not host any US players the first few days...

[Alexander's Horse]

Jesus wept

Originally posted by Tjoepie

I think Civ3-team decided to give us more choices in the way you want to play peacefull/warlike/combination and I see that as a big plus!
The best proof are all the different ways you can win the game!

You're invincible optimism is REALLY starting to get on my nerves.

And can the rest of you shorten your posts? I couldn;t be bothered reading beyond about a paragraph, if that.

[Tjoepie]

Thanks your kindness, I was just giving my thoughts!
Aren't this forums about expressing our ideas and thoughts?
Please don't start a thread if you don't care for other opignons!

By the way , I'm not saying I think civ3 will be perfect, far from it!
I'm actually very sceptic about some stuff like the AI, the new not using hostile roads( see my reply!), etc...

All I wanted to say is that I don't agree with your initial post of this thread saying that warmongers will probably not be able to play there style of game.

I hope this not too long for you ?!?

[Father Beast]

You know, I recall horse once saying "Civ2 is incredibly easy. anyone who can't immediately beat it on the highest difficulty level is a MORON."

See, his real complaint is that they will fix the problems (mainly ICS, the brainless easy win) that made it so easy to win in civ1/2. then he won't win immediately and will have to bow before the truly good players on this site.

somebody get horsie a hanky

(now horse will make some testosterone poisoned demand that if I'm so great, then play him an MP game. typical off the point argumnetim ad hominem)

personally I'm pleased that conquering the world is no longer the only way to win. now the warmongers will have to work for it. poor, poor horsie.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by monkspider
Wow, you're diety level! You are the only person I have ever seen anyone here to reach that level.

Give me a couple of weeks. Check out the post counts of Imran Siddiqui, Alexander's Horse, Mao, Ming and MarkG for the Deities of this place. I have over 9700 so I am not far short...

[Ozymandous]

Here have some cheese with your whine and spam.. Oops, based on your failure to acknowledge how the game has been balanced for both sides (see the "how the game was biased towards warmongers" reply), I see you already have cheese.

News flash, but the game has been designed (or attempted to by all accounts) to favor both sides in this, this is Civ THREE, not Civ 2.1. If you want an unrealistic game then stick to playing Civ2.

Firstly, the ridiculous new rule that invaders cannot use roads. WTF?

Umm, railroads should never be able to be used for the movement bonus because they are easy to sabotage. Roads should be usable for 100% of their "normal" bonus in ancient times and as each era progresses they should be restricted more and more based on the owning Civ's tech. This gradual decrease of road movement bonus would represent the ability of a Civ to better coordinate guerilla fighters and other means (mines and other abstracted defenses) to slow down invaders.

Secondly, you can't destroy spaceships after launch - that was always fun

Fun maybe, but realistic, no. Unless of course you have some sort of secret "spaceship killer" weapon or plane it is unrealistic to assume you will destroy a spaceship that has launched for an inter-stellar journey.

Thirdly, the strongly rumored lack of multiplayer - what a joke

This has what to do with the game supposedly being 'too peaceful'?

Fourthly, the use of culture to define borders, what are troops for?

Troops are to defend your cities and resources. Culture doesn't DEFEND your border, merely shows how large your area of influence is.

Fifthly, that fact you MUST build improvements to expand your empire (tell that to the Mongols!), so much for ICS

No, you must build improvements to expand your cultural borders/influence. You can still expand by taking over foreign cities or founding your own cities, but cannot exert a "sphere of influence" unless you have a strong cultural foundation.

The Mongols didn't have much culture that I am aware of, rather they integrated other people's culture's into their empire. How long did the Mongol "empire" last once Ghengis died? A tad bit longer than Alexander's empire, but not nearly as long as the Roman empire did, even after Rome fell. This is what a strong cultural influence will do for your empire.

Ah, ICS... So sad, too bad that your broken game feature won't be as broken and unbalanced in this version of Civ3 (hopefully anyway). Maybe now you'll have to use a little more strategy instead of manipulating a flaw in the game design.

Sixthly, the fact that some units, in fact mostly defenders, won't have a zone of control (tell that to the Spartans!)

Umm, the Spartans defended a mountain pass. I am sure if they "fix" Civ3 so that chariots, horse-drawn troops, and other units cannot pass over mountains and you put some defenders in a mountain pass you can achieve the same result.

If you could transport a troop transport helicopter and platoon of modern day troops to back when the Spartans defended that pass you'd see how little a ZOC the Spartans really had.

[randomturn]

I was just about to point out that Horsie is simply making excuses in advance for why he will suck at Civ III...

...but Father Beast beat me to it!

[Steve Clark]

I think Civ3 will offer much more strategies than Civ2. In Civ2, we have come up with four major strategies that can win every time (for ICS, OCC, Bloodlust and AC). I fully suspect that Civ3 will expand that list. But notice I didn't say "balanced". To say that Civ3 will be more balanced is a myth. There is no such thing as balance in playing a game. It comes down to the skill level of the player in relation to the AI or against other players.

If I want to whet my warmonger appetite in Civ, I'll just play one of those intense war-based custom scenarios. That far exceeds anything war-like that the regular game will offer. Thus another reason why I probably won't be playing the regular game very long.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
I think Civ3 will offer much more strategies than Civ2. In Civ2, we have come up with four major strategies that can win every time (for ICS, OCC, Bloodlust and AC). I fully suspect that Civ3 will expand that list. But notice I didn't say "balanced". To say that Civ3 will be more balanced is a myth. There is no such thing as balance in playing a game. It comes down to the skill level of the player in relation to the AI or against other players.

What is balanced to you?

To me, it means that between two player of similar skills, each has a 50% to win any given game. To put it in another way, if they play infinite number of games, each will win 50% of the time.

[redstar1]

I think the use of 'balanced' here refers to the balance of warmongering with peaceful building. In previous civs the game is geared far more towards a military strategy. Hopefully in civ3 it will be more rewarding to follow a peaceful path than in previous civs. Of course, war should still be fun, and effective.

Dave

[DanS]

"Umm, railroads should never be able to be used for the movement bonus because they are easy to sabotage."

WRONG. Invading armies should still get 1/2 the movement bonus or whatever for railroads. Hasn't anybody heard of changing gauges?

Re MP, anybody who has been "schooled" by carnide or Xin Yu knows what AH is talking about. I'm sure Horse has taken advantage of this free "education" many times in the past.

[Pembleton]

Re: Jesus wept

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


You're invincible optimism is REALLY starting to get on my nerves.

And can the rest of you shorten your posts? I couldn;t be bothered reading beyond about a paragraph, if that.

Someone once pointed out his supposed superiority because he had more posts than me. Now I know for sure it doesn't mean anything since the people who post all the time just spam 2-3 sentence posts without much of anything of substance just to increase their post count.

Here's a second paragraph of which Alexander has stopped reading: Also, I don't care how long you've been here.

I've found that the most interesting, thoughtful, and insightful posts have been written by settlers and chieftains. Most of them I never see post again....

And about this topic, I will reserve judgement until after the game comes out. Besides, I was annoyed that a peaceful approach was almost impossible on the harder difficulties and I always had to expand (read: military) quickly to win.

[dennis580]

I think Uraban Ranger is right on the money. Realisticly it should be about impossible to conquer two-thirds of the world. So I'm all for not being able to use roads because it makes conqeuring harder.

[Tventano]

In this thread I have seen lots of arguments why different play-styles get more abilities. That just sounds good to me, more possibilities, more complications and more risks.

Complaining is very easy. That is why people who complain a lot get a lot of posts. Why some people think that making more posts means having more knowledge is beyond me. It just means that they often post something, nothing more. Just for the fun of it, the maintainers of this website give us some "ranks", they do mean nothing, and you all know it.