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

[Alexander's Horse]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think Firaxis is a bunch of peacenicks

And stacked combat seems to be out as well

[monkspider]

Wow, you're diety level! You are the only person I have ever seen anyone here to reach that level. I was going to challenge the whole "nerdy peaceful builder" remark, but as you are an omnipotent diety perhaps you know things better than I.

[monkspider]

All I can say is, perhaps there will be things implemented to help the war monger as well? The decrease to controlling 2/3 of the world will help things out immensely. There will be new unique units, better combat, "gunboat diplomacy", etc. Everything will work out.
Perhaps we should just put trust in Sid, he has always led us to victory in the past......

[monkspider]

besides, you warmongers have always gotten off easy in the past.

[saracen31]

I am a peacenik myself when playing Civ. But I must admit to having some of the same concerns - I can't believe they'll let the no road bonus stay in the game, and just last week I played a game of Civ 2 when I had to go after an enemy capital to destroy their spaceship.

That said, you can be assured there's plenty we don't yet know which may balance it out in the end.

[Lung]

Originally posted by monkspider
Wow, you're diety level! You are the only person I have ever seen anyone here to reach that level. I was going to challenge the whole "nerdy peaceful builder" remark, but as you are an omnipotent diety perhaps you know things better than I.

Wow! That must have taken MILLIONS of complaints!

You're absolutely right, AH. I smelled a rat when i ran the CivIII screensaver and the warrior won....every time!

Dan has given some lame defences of not-so-special units' lame bonuses, but the Jaguar Warrior has surpassed his lamest defences by a mile. "Hey, if you rush-build a couple of hundred JW's and quickly place them on your enemy's doorstep, you can capture an unwalled city with no terrain bonuses defended by a lone warrior!"

You will be limited to waging war against only your stupidest enemies, but you won't have to worry about human opponents because there won't be multiplayer!

Oh, wait a minute, i want multiplayer!

There better be something in it for us warmongers or CivIII will be the domain of tree huggers and peaceniks! Worse still, Paul of CivII OCC (One City Challenge) and CTP fame will be INVINCIBLE!!!

[Jeje2]

Someone please buy Alexander's Horse a lollipop

He truly deserves it by just asking for a program that can do anything.

Sorry AH, but I'm personally quite happy that Civ III is more about non-war. If you want war, but Panzer General III or something...



I can understand railroad restrictions in war (Ex. WWII Germany in Russia), but roads giving no benmefit on enemy soil? (How about making it 1/2 mp/square on enemy soil and 1/3 mp/square on own land?)

[GaryGuanine]

Destroying the spaceship thing was always nonsense. The only way to destroy a spaceship after launch is to build something that'll go out there and get it, and if you can do that, then that same thing can arrive on Alpha Centauri faster than the one already launched, and you can win that way. It doesn't address the launch/arrive difference, but it still doesn't make sense.

Gary

[Alexander's Horse]

Great idea Gary!

Originally posted by GaryGuanine

The only way to destroy a spaceship after launch is to build something that'll go out there and get it

I'd settle for that

[Dinner]

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

I couldn't agree with AH more that it is TOTALLY unrealistic that invaders won't get movement bonuses for roads. Somebody should have told that to the Germans in 1940 and maybe France would have never fallen.

The other big ***** I have is the lack of multiplayer support. MP is all I play because, let's face it, the AI is a total moroon. To not offer MP support is a HUGE over sit on Fraxis's part and no I do not accept this vage "we'll try to get MP support released in six months or so" fudge by Fraxis. They should release a complete game the 1st time around and not dribble it out in patches over the course of a year.

Heck, I bet only one person in four ever actually installs the patches...

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Firstly, the ridiculous new rule that invaders cannot use roads. WTF?

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

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

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

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

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

I think Firaxis is a bunch of peacenicks

And stacked combat seems to be out as well

[Sun Zi 36]

AH, how can u have date registered as 1970? Has this site been created back then?

quote: "Wow, you're diety level! You are the only person I have ever seen anyone here to reach that level. I was going to challenge the whole "nerdy peaceful builder" remark, but as you are an omnipotent diety perhaps you know things better than I."

I wouldn't withhold my opinion if i were u. U should assess people's remarks by the content of the remark, not by who made the remark. I don't take the level stuff very seriously anyway. I know some people who are very experienced with a game but only very rarely visits the game's forums. And i know some people who frequently visits gaming forums but actually only played the game a few times.

Back to the topic, I wouldn't want civ3 to be too peace driven. But as history proves it, the most extreme warlike civilizations had the shortest time periods in which they were siginficant (and sometimes they weren't even classifed as a civilized people). Eg, the Mongols, Vikings, Zulus.

Using culture to define borders is just realism, the troops are used for capturing cities.

Yes, the Mongols didn't build improvements but built a huge empire, that's why they fell so quickly and got assimulated by local culture.

I guess civ3 would be much more sophisticaed, and u cannot conquer the world by PURE war, which is the beauty of it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's good. Seeing as how Civ2 was basically military based, use peaceful builders need someway to have some fun. Culture is a great addition and allows for new strategies needed. After all, which civ has really conquered the world? Let alone by 1 AD!

And monkspider... see my post count too

[El hidalgo]

I'm not a war-monger myself, but these are some valid concerns.

The rule about invaders not being able to use roads is ridiculous.

I agree, military should have a strong effect in determining borders. But it should not be the primary determinant. Culture determines how a people think of themselves; military determines what they can do about it. Once the invader's boot is lifted you go back to your old ways (unless the invader has a strong culture). Example: China after the (Mongol) Yuan dynasty. So maybe the territory is yours but only as long as you have troops there enforcing your culture (maybe if you have enough culture points you don't have to station as many troops). Move the troops, the people rebel; also they rebel if your units become obsolete (the Mongols can only oppress as long as their mounted archers are effective, and they're only effective until something better comes around).

MP -- don't really care about that; sorry. It would be cool, but it's not a big concern of mine.

Shouldn't have to build improvements to expand, agree. But instead you should have to have a huge and powerful army composed of the most modern units. Otherwise you can't enforce borders.

Some units don't have ZOC -- I'm not worried about that. Some units shouldn't. But some units will -- just build those . If worse comes to worse you can edit it in rules.txt (or whatever the equivalent is).

Firaxis a bunch of peaceniks? Maybe. I think the game was too biased toward military before, and now they're trying to balance it out. Maybe they are going too far the other direction, though? I don't think so, but we will soon find out. I think the fact that you don't have to conquer the whole world will help a lot in pursuing a military strategy. I am sure there are many surprises in store for us as well -- hopefully pleasant ones.

[Urban Ranger]

AH,

All I say is, "tough."

Civ used to heavily biased towards the warmongers, in the new release both sides are getting even.

Speaking of realism, which country had ever conquested 2/3 of this world? Not the Mongols, not the Brits. So why should you be able to?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hear, Hear UR!

Let's hear it for balance! For ****ing once!