First Impressions

[rid102]

I've played both Civ2 and Civ1 a LOT. I can play comfortable on Emperor on Civ1 and normally play King/Emporer on Civ2 (I like to be able to just build up a huge empire...).

Anyways, my first impressions after picking up Civ3 at the weekend:

- It's certainly harder than Civ2 (the AI is more capable although seems to love building mines). AI is still a little demanding though (e.g. tributes/tech). Diplomacy in Civ3 is how diplomacy should have been from day one in Civ1 and Civ2. Overall, I'd say the AI is one of the biggest genuine improvements to the game.

- Resources are a mixed bag and have drastically altered the game. E.g. you can have cities building Swordsmen and Longbowmen when you have Tank technology just because the city is not on your "trade network". Resources have been made into too big a part of the game (IMHO) as without resources Tech becomes worthless; the whole game really runs around strategic resources now. Take your pick as to whether this is good or bad.

- Trade is different; not necessarily better, just different. Some people may like it. Everything now runs off gold, which I don't like as it just doesn't seem right. The model implies that the government always taxes all trade at 100% but then buys luxeries for the populace and also invests in its own research. The old model wasn't broken and worked fine for Civ1 and Civ2, so why change it? Take your pick as to whether this is good or bad.

- War is too difficult to wage without having loads of civil disorder. E.g. someone declares war on you and cities go into disorder. Again, this seems to work a bit by magic and there's no obvious clear cut rules available to the player about how unhappiness during war works.

- Bombardment is just silly and ineffective with the additional stats just making things more confusing. Units have A/D/M but now also B/R/F and HP in there somewhere as well. And I thought Civ2 was bad in adding HP and FP! IMHO this adds unnecessary complexity and detracts from the spirit of the game (Civ is NOT a wargame but war is part of the game).

- Irrigation is awkward to build until you have Electricity (why?) as you need "fresh water" and can't irrigate from sea squares. You don't need Bridge Building to build roads over rivers (AFAIK).

- The interface is a lot harder to read and follow than Civ1/Civ2. Why are used resources/trade red? Red normally means "bad/in trouble" yet this isn't the case. Colours look a bit washed out (e.g. yellow food icons AND yellow commerce icons on a sand coloured background = weak UI). It's not majorly bad but does take adjusting to.

- The graphics are nice but are so complex it's hard to spot resources on the map without scouring all over it. Personally, I prefer something less ostentatious and more functional (Civ2). Zoom in/Zoom out would be nice, though. As the game runs at 1024x768 by default and you can't switch it, it's headaches for anyone with a monitor smaller than 17".

- Culture is nice but again seems to work by magic a little. There seems to be no real reference point for saying what levels of culture increase empire boundaries etc. Culture is an improvement to the game but it is a bit vague and ill-defined.

- The advisors popping up all over the place gives the game an improved atmosphere. You get more of a feeling that your empire is "real" and that you really do have an entire army of people overseeing the day-to-day running of your empire. Definitely an improvment.


Overall, I feel that Civ2 was a definite improvment over Civ1 (i.e. it was Civ1 on steroids) although it had obvious weaknesses. With Civ3, I'm not sure the same can be said. It's a mixed bag, as if it's the bastard son of CTP2 and Civ2.

Improvements over Civ2: AI, aesthetics, diplomacy/negotiation, advisors

Major changes over Civ2 (not necessarily good): trade, strategic resources, culture, war/combat, GUI

Neutral: wonders, demographics etc., city governors

[uh Clem]

How are the advisors an advance over Civ2? Is it the quality of their "advice?"

Culture: "Let's build Libraries in all our cities and watch the people flock to us."

Science: "We are technologically advanced!"

Domestic: "Sir, the people of _____ are happy." (Then why is she frowning?)

Trade: "We have only one source of Oil. Let's find other sources [Where!?] and trade it with our friends [yeah, right]."

Foreign: Hold the mouse cursor over a leader, and wait for the advisor to get to the relevant info about that civ: "The best unit that the Fredonians have -- that we know of -- is the Disgruntled Postal Worker." Or: "The Fredonian army outnumbers ours. That's not good!" Duh.

[rid102]

How are the advisors an advance over Civ2? Is it the quality of their "advice?"

I mean more in terms of when they appear and the range of advice they give. E.g. you get feedback on what other civs think of you etc. or you get told when cities aren't growing etc. I think it builds the character of the game world up much better.

No Elvis though.

[wezlo]

firstImpression? it a better CTP, and a clunky Civ2

This is probably flame-bait, but I'll do it anyway...
Look, Civ2 was great because it was cool, had great graphics for that day, and was just as quick on win3.1 as it was on 95. The "add-ons" just improved it all the more (I'm still writing scenarios when I get a chance for Civ2).
SMAC was nice becasue it was designed to run on anything, from "sooped up" desktops to relatively slow (for the day) laptops. It runs great on my 366 celeron desktop, and did before I got my new video card (now it runs even better).
So what's deal with Civ3? 1028x768??? What's up with that? The interface is minimalist at BEST there is no reason to force the game into that resolution (and that means I can't play it on my laptop, which would be much more enjoyable)! I realize that just about everyone has 17+ inch monitors nowadays; but 800x600 works for me on my desktop, and it's the best my laptop can do. That's annoying to say the least, what happened to the "run on everything" attitude I have come to expect from a Sid Meier game?
Speaking of the interface, why, o why, did they get rid of the menus? It's not cleaner, they didn't do anything with the real-estate; what was the point? To be like CTP? Well, CTP's interface is BETTER than Civ3's, even though the rest of the game stunk to high-heaven. And what is with the buttons for "ok" and "cancel"? Was someone asleep that day? What's wrong with a button that says, "OK" and a button that says "cancel"; it was simple, it worked, the little "o" and "x"? That's just dumb.
I like the tasks that are avalable to the active unit having buttons at the bottom of the screen, a good insight there; but I miss the nice, "right-click" to give orders and see things I used to miss in SMAC; bring it back.

Look I bought the game, I was excited to get the game and play with a friend. But honestly, I'm disappointed to say the least. Not as much as I was with CTP, but disappointed nonetheless. Civ2 just had that "You must play me constantly" feel right out of the box, this just lacked that. Sid, so far Civ3 is a miss. I hope the patch allows a lower resolution of game play, puts back in menus so you can hunt for commands easier, tells you when your cities are in civil disorder (what the heck is up with that?), and is more configurable (like, video options to speed up the game, that would be nice; every game on the planet has those). I hope so, else my copy of Civ3 is going to end up on ebay to recap some of my well-spent money.

[Deathwalker]

I must admit that on my first few games I was not that happy with Civ 3, but I got a supprise last night. I gave the game to my girlfriend to try and she loved it. She thinks it a lot better that Civ 2. Though she's having to get used to new controls. Gradted she's not using all the functions she could. But she likes to game. Her only complaint was the world map sucks and the players dont start in the correct place. I must admit I was supprised as for the last six months she been playing Civ 2and so I thought she would not like it that much

[Kurgan]

Originally posted by Father Beast
Well, I got civ3 and spent yeterday evening playing it.

There are a number of things which irritate me:

I miss the wonder movies.
I miss the high council - these mute fellows aren't near as fun.
I miss being able to Irrigate. my entire subcontinent with 8 cities has no river and cannot be irrigated - yet.

some nice things:
city build queue. wunnerful, just as it was in AC
Science Queue.
the trade system seems actually to work pretty well.

I'll post a review soon, but one thing is certain. they seem to have found the right balance of play to hook me. One more turn has become the order of the day. I'm afraid to turn on the game if I have something that needs doing within a few hours.

I like it!

I do not know if this is the place to post this, or if it has been sugessted before, but it could be added water as strategic resource, what I mean is that there could be hiddens wells of water that have to be searched by a special unit or something like that , that once found could allow irrigation of this spot, and then connect it in chain to where you want to irrigate. This will not substitute in any way the rivers, and lakes as a source of irrigation, but will give a chance of irrigation to those continnets without rivers, or to those too far away from them. Also it could foster WATER WARS.

[Vercingettyrex]

On my 2nd game. Think the bombardment rules (air,land and sea) are good ! Has only limited tactical use, but has great strategic potential. You can cut off citys, close roads. Navy can blockade your enemys capital. I'm beginning to love this war.

[Patient English]

Posted by cutlerd

Because of the sheer size of the map and the corruption rules, conquering the entire world is about as plausible as it is in real life. It COULD happen, but really isn't even worth the trouble.

Devin, I do see what you are saying. This is one area where Civ III is definitely more realistic than its predessors. However, IMHO it is also the main area where a little bit of unreality helps gameplay enormously.

It depends on your play style, I guess, but one of the things I always liked about Civ I and II was the ability to build up an empire, and associated outlying colonies. It WAS Civ, to me. OK, I didn't like to use huge Armour and Howitzer armies to conquer the whole world via a massive rail network, either (although the broken AI often forced you to do that in sheer self-defence).

Civ III penalises anything but ICS or a small, tight-knit, high-culture-high-tech group of cities. There is no middle ground that I can see. I have many other gripes about the graphics and the crazy combat system, but these are less fundamental. (Civ I combat was pretty broken in the same way).

The AI is better, true, but the "feel" of Civ has got lost, for me. I have uninstalled the game from my hard disk and will go back to Civ II (scenario development and PBEM and online multiplayer). As and when Civ III has these things and has had a chance for some gameplay patches, I will look at it again - maybe.

I might have been totally seduced by Europa Universalis II by then!



John

[Ralf]

What a fantastic game!! It really surpasses ALL my expextations. Sure, everything is not 100% perfect - but these additional adjustments are small and easy-to-fix within the realms of future patches and extension-packs.

[Fidel]

and it never fails to crack a good one. yesterday tokugawa was kind of irritated and called me up to say: "babylonian swines have been spotted rooting through garbage near osaka." i almost failed off chair laughing....

btw, diplo victory screen is also funny. too bad there is no movie...

[Raion]

I am still learning the game. I think it is probable that this CIV III is entirely different, maybe some will not like that. I been playing the Greeks both with specific abilities on and a regular game with that option off. I think this game will allow one to build different types of CIV's but not necessarily the lastest greatest plane or tanks, but still allow one to win. If you want a civ with knights to keep around and can not build the lastest greatest unit, you may still win by changing to a culture game or diplomatic win. I restarted the game several times because of the position I am in on the map, just as in Civ II. In one game, the Americans attacked after trade, and I was weak militarily, but I started producing the Hoplites, then Longbowmen Archers, than I traded with English to get horses, while I was developing cities on a island that was close that had an iron deposit with two other cities, one of which I put a harbor on to get the iron when it became available. Lincoln had the Swordsmen and Spearmen, and took one of my frontier towns on the border, usually through or in the jungles, had cleared his jungles faster, and I geared up production. I still had to research for the Sistine Chapel a little later, still had to make Longbow Archers, still had to even build some barracks because my units were not even Veterans to start, that is why Lincoln was defeating them. I got back my town, making now Veteran units, some of my Longbow Archers were becoming Elites, had more Gallies ship, although Lincoln was sinking my ships, being Regulars. I had the Lighthouse, so my ships could go anywhere, and moving a unit around the map may help gain experience, although I am not sure about that yet!
Anyway, one has to keep everything going during a War, and build units, and I beat Lincoln building the Sistine Chapel, got more units, could upgrade my horsemen, (the only unit I could build with the trade for horses from the English), until I got my iron then with a right click in the City Screen, and barracks upgraded to Knights, so that is where I am right now. I started a few more games on Warlord, just regular games now, and get there first, towards the jungles and backfill Cities while building others closer. In a Republic, with Science, after the Initial Tech's one can down the science rate near the last few turns of gaining the Tech, and still not increase the number of turns till the Tech, and gain lots of gold coins to do things with. I was getting about 129 gold coins for the last few turns while still getting the Tech on time, so I had 680 gold coins to instantly upgrade my horsemen to Knights, still maybe buy a Harbor or Marketplace after the start of a few turns when it would be cheaper, or Cathedral just getting to the Tech to build it, and keep "everything" running during the War. This is the type of game to me that Civilization III is. Some may not like that, but it works, and I am getting ahead of the others or at least in the running on Warlord level, but one must keep 'Everything' going on each turn.
More consideration for everything going on is needed in this game, to keep active in building a Civilization that Withstands the Test of Time!
That is all I can report on the game as of now!

[Raion]

Oh, the corruption seems to be less with the Greeks than when playing as Americans, and my Island Cities still had less corruption than some of my mainland Towns, I needed the Aqeduct to get pass 6, but the Courthouse improvement is not the only thing to help corruption, but I beginning to think that different Civ's have different corruption models also included in the game. I was on an Island Map of around 70% water and on a long skinny continent with the Americans. Lincoln got 3 territory squares of jungle not yet cleared by me, my frontier towns where on hills, and I kept the hills, and got back my town Lincoln took, and built the Sistine Chapel before he did, upgraded to a better unit while still researching up to Knights and every town celebrated after the War. Lincoln wanted to call it off first, but I said "NO", since he 'irritated me' and let it go a few more turns, till I could upgrade to Knights. Now, I am wondering if I will start a War a few more turns later, after some normal turns because of War Weariness, but the game is proceeding as in a 'Great Game'.
And remember, if you do not like the map, restart the game, yes, I know it is a hassle, but I did the same thing in Civ II when the randomness just did not favor my Civ, I was playing, in the game.
It is only a Computer Game, and I have played far worse games.
I think Civilization III is well worth the money, and a few tweaks and patches are always needed anyway.
I simply restart my computer after the game, because Windows does not release the Swap Disk Memory quickly, and one has to usually wait a couple of minutes, yes minutes, until Windows decides it has enough time to release memory taken by the game.
Now, although, I may have to restart my computer a couple of times after the game, it finally starts right then, and it is only a minor inconvenience until a patch comes out, or Windows decides that with enough patches from Microsoft to run right. (Win 98 SE).
Afterall the interface in CIV III, looks something like that dumb interface that Microsoft has for Windows XP in a way, but at least CIV III is a game and not Windows XX something or other, whenever it will work, if it ever works.

[basickillr]

Not impressed

If I had never played previous versions I might have a different opinion. The ruleset they are using for C3 just boggles my mind.

I think the last straw for me was in a fit of rage I bombarded a caraval 17 times with radar artillery and didnt sink it...in fact i guess you cant sink ships with bombard. I started at the highest level and backed down through to the lowest, at deity just forget it...the only fun is deciding how your gonna lose. Emperor is okay, comp has tons of advantages but doable if you go straight for victory with the spaceship and just placate all your opponents and never, and I mean never fight. Let them fight then run in and claim the empty land...but dont get to big or they turn on you fast. Lower then that i just trash the comp, out-tech them raze their cities since captured onces are just a liability and use fleets of battleships to destroy any semblance of infrastructure.


Late game at Emperor level, Myself and 5 comp civs. I'm allied with 2, tech is just at pre-nuclear. Germany lands troops next to a city, I ask them to leave, he declares war...no problem, I was ready...I had a few dozen battleships, and a misc few dozen more of various ships...all modern...no galley crap(subs etc). I had 102 artillery garrisoned in forts with mech infantry for defense all around my coast(3 sides with a narrow land bridge on the 4th). I had no less then 3 cruise missiles and 2 jet fighters(all set to Air Sup) in each of my 14 cities. All cities had Sam batteries, coastal fortresses etc. I kill the German units, his 2 allies declare war on me, mine declare war on them...WWI comes to CIV3. Thinking I am well prepared for this...I had 4 transports loaded with mech inf and tanks rdy to go...I set about to make war. Long story short...exactly 6 turns into this "war"....My entire navy is sunk, I have expended every cruise missile I have and still have 113 ships ranging from wooden ships throwing cannonballs to battleships....YES 113!!!!!!(don't ask how long it took to count them) from 3 Civs bombarding me at will...my artillery is useless...it doesn't sink anything. My aircraft same, they arnt even interdicting the dozens of bombers blowing up my roads and such with impunity...why I don't know...the enemy fighters have 0 problems coming out multiple squares to shoot down my bombers...my fighters don't even interdict the square next to the city. So 6 turns into the war nearly every city I have is starving and mad(no roads mines or irrigation, no luxuries +war weariness), my research is at 0 to keep trying to fund my massive yet useless land army since the computer never made more then a token attempt to land troops, my production is a fraction of what it was...no mines and cities loosing population fast. I have wooden ships blowing up my roads...bombard was a nice idea but the thought that a unit can jump in destroy a road network completely and then jump back just boggles the mind. Have you actually thought about what it would take to destroy a road network....ummmm....1000's of ships and aircraft doing nothing but dropping bombs and shells for months...We bombed Iraq for a month with carpet bombing and precision weapons and barely dented their transportation infrastructure...destroying roads networks is so much more then dropping a few bridges....but hey it doesnt have to make sense in a game i guess.

And the comp will ignore your cities while it totally destroys your infrastructure...coastal fortress, what exactly is that for...i have yet to have a single ship actually attack a city...oh thats right they cant...its supposed to increase your bombard defense....hmmmm...dont bother...build a worker instead to replace it later.

Corruption, dont get me started. I saw the post where they stated their reasoning. Just doesnt make sense. Buy their logic the U.S. shouldnt exist. Corruption has infinately more to do with type of government and general populace state of mind then distance. If they just want it that way then say that, but dont make half thought out references to real world situations when there is just nothing backing it up, in fact...the real world totally undermines their position.

Strategic resources...these were a cruel joke right? I can build a spaceship, nukes, and stealth bombers but cant build any railroads cause i dont have any coal?!?!?! Horses strategic...pssst...they eat grass...buy a few and breed a herd...nuff said.

Huge maps...forget it. At emperor and deity the comp builds 3 cities for every one you do. Once you get a 150+ cities and hundreds of units going at it...the game grinds...thats on a 1.4 with 512 megs...I am talking well over a minute per turn...doesnt sound like alot but trust me its an eternity. No problem...stick to smaller maps.

The "new improved" map generator is just cruel. I love starting out in the middle of 100 swamp squares...but hey, on the bright side Ill probably have some coal...oh yeah, Ill be dead long before then. 24 turns to clear jungle? In B.C. times whats that translate to...1 or 2 eons give or take...these people not heard of slash and burn...oh thats right, there is no discover fire tech so they actually are digging every stump out of the ground.

Pollution? omg, comp nukes at will and then leave it...rampant global warming. Razing cities and nuking should have severe repercussions...like your allies suddenly pretend they dont know ya. Hey England, I know i just killed millions of women and children but can ya help me out and send me some uranium so i can rebuild my stockpile..... As it stands now comps dont care unless its you doing the razing or nuking...shrug...

Lots of nice features like terraforming just disappeared in this version, the no irrigation till electricity just adds to the crappy starting point "feature". If your not building any irrigation until you get electricity...punch your ticket and hit restart if your playing a remotely challenging level.

Nope, CIV3 is probably great for firstimers but I just have to much previous version baggage to get by the this tedious and annoying ruleset. Unless you restart 50 times for a decent position the startegic resources, irrigation rule, and wonderful 100 squares of swamp just take the skill and strategy out of the game and make it a luckbased game at any of the higher levels. At the lower levels you can overcome anything and just destroy the comps as they play like a labotomized labrat.

[Zealot]

basickillr, I just want to say that I'm 100% with you on what you wrote. Let's hope that one day we can have a "playable" and fully enjoyable Civ 3.

[Tilemacho]

To the ones who preffer civ2 rather than civ3:
I think you are so pathetic in love with civ2 that there is no way someone could please you even if he made the "perfect" game...because the perfect game for you is just civ2...just go back and play it and stop complainig about other games not beeing civ2, you already have it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now that doesn't mean I like civ3 that much, in fact is't not even close to what I expected. But I hear the same people complaining about the the same things since CTP1 was out.

I think the major problem of civ3 is that it lacks new ideas. For a game that comes after 5 years someone could expect more...even CTP2 compaired to CTP1 had more differences...

..BTW i think that they could take some of the good ideas of CTP series...for example the combat system was miles better imo...it gave meaning in ranged units and you could use better strategies...(compare the use of cannons in CTP2 and in CIV3)

also the growing cities was a aspect that I miss quite a lot in civ3 (ok they gave it a try but why not let the radius of a city become 3 tiles when you reach 100 or 1000 culter points...)

anyway of course civ3 is much more balanced than any CTP game...