Avault review 4/5

[Roman]

Originally posted by SnowFire
LaRusso: The Afghans were armed with far better than pikes (maybe they'd count as Alpine Infantry) and had massive defense bonuses from the mountains (+200%). Of course they slaughtered the Russkies.

There seems to be a popular misconception about the Americans being badly beaten in Vietnam and Russians in Afganistan.

In fact, the Americans lost fewer than 60,000 troops in Vietnam, versus the North Vietnamese 800,000+ guerilas killed. Russians lost about 15,000 troops in Afganistan versus the more than 1000,000 Afganis killed.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Roman


There seems to be a popular misconception about the Americans being badly beaten in Vietnam and Russians in Afganistan.

In fact, the Americans lost fewer than 60,000 troops in Vietnam, versus the North Vietnamese 800,000+ guerilas killed. Russians lost about 15,000 troops in Afganistan versus the more than 1000,000 Afganis killed.

yup. so for every 10 or 15 swordsmen, one mech infantry has to go. pretty good ration IMHO

[Döbeln_2001]

Originally posted by yin26
Holy God ... this review basically made me want to avoid Civ3 like a plague.

What's new?

Regards / Döbeln_2001

[Alexander's Horse]

Avoid this game till MP!

Once Firaxis implements multiplayer, there won't be any reason to avoid this game, which again proves itself to be both fun and addictive to play.

But of course there is reason now!

[Roland Ehnström]

I think this review is not that good. It sounds like he is simply saying that the game is bad because he is bad at playing it...

First, he sais that his Cruise-missile was shot down by some Archers. Now, he was moving that missile beween two cities, right? Well, if so, it surely wasn't flying at 300 mph. Rather, it would have been at the back of some lorry, or something, so I'd say it would be pretty easy for a group of archers to destroy it.

Second, he sais that war-weariness is a huge problem when going to war in a Democracy or Republic. But come on - this is a GOOD thing! It gives the goverments some meaning. There is supposed to be some major drawbacks to going to war in a Republic or Democracy (remember the Vietnam war?). Switching between goverments to suit the current situation in the world, is one of the greatest parts of Civ-gameplay for me.

Third, he sais that corruption is a huge problem. Again, I think this is a good thing. It SHOULD be extremely difficult to have a huge empire.

Fourth, the problem with a Swordsman killing a Mech-Inf every now and then, is a question of gameplay IMO. Let me explain: If a Mech-Inf ALWAYS kills a Swordsman, this (while perhaps realistic, though I'm not sure about that either) would make Science too important, and would make the game very unbalanced. If one civ is way ahead in science, it could just take one Armor unit and go from city to city until he has taken over the world. So to me, it is again a rather good thing that a medevial unit sometimes can stop a modern unit - it is simply neccessary for balanced gameplay.

btw: Yin, I am surprised (well, not really... ) to hear this from you. I thought you knew more about Civ than to think that THESE problems would kill the game...

Peace!
-- Roland

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Roland Ehnström
I think this review is not that good. It sounds like he is simply saying that the game is bad because he is bad at playing it...

Yeah, seems a bit suspect to me too.

First, he sais that his Cruise-missile was shot down by some Archers. Now, he was moving that missile beween two cities, right? Well, if so, it surely wasn't flying at 300 mph. Rather, it would have been at the back of some lorry, or something, so I'd say it would be pretty easy for a group of archers to destroy it.

Second, he sais that war-weariness is a huge problem when going to war in a Democracy or Republic. But come on - this is a GOOD thing! It gives the goverments some meaning. There is supposed to be some major drawbacks to going to war in a Republic or Democracy (remember the Vietnam war?). Switching between goverments to suit the current situation in the world, is one of the greatest parts of Civ-gameplay for me.

Third, he sais that corruption is a huge problem. Again, I think this is a good thing. It SHOULD be extremely difficult to have a huge empire.

Agreed.

Fourth, the problem with a Swordsman killing a Mech-Inf every now and then...

The main reason i quoted your post. Based upon the reviewer's lack of understanding of other fundamental concepts, i believe it is highly unlikely that his units were built at veteran status, let alone elite status. However, the AI wouldnt have such problems (although its not verified how good the AI is). So a 3 hitpoint mech inf, attacked by a 5 hitpoint legion, that could happen every now and then.

Based on this analysis, im not ready to write Civ 3 off just yet. I will wait until i hear some reviews from people known to be competent players on Apolyton.

[Grumbold]

I agree. It is a vote for caution, not time to be throwing your unopened copy into the furnace.

The talk of corruption and war weariness is interesting but one that may have reflected his lack of expertise. All I will say is that a nation should be suffering war weariness from being democratic or heavy distance-based corruption from being authoritarian, not both. Issues like the statistical chances of a swordsman v mech inf win are easily pathcable if it turns out that the maths is flawed.

What I am more disappointed by are references to hard to interpret citizen heads, jerky graphics and sound stutter. Those are the sort of clues to a curtailed beta and unpolished release that raise doubts over whether Firaxis were ready when Infogrames insisted on releasing the product. Now its over to our respected posters to decide whether it is a major or minor issue for them and tell the rest of us who have 2 more weeks to wait.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Grumbold
The talk of corruption and war weariness is interesting but one that may have reflected his lack of expertise. All I will say is that a nation should be suffering war weariness from being democratic or heavy distance-based corruption from being authoritarian, not both.

democracies can be corrupt too. e.g. peter mandelson or silvio berlusconi. kickbacks, kickbacks everywhere....

[Sava]

This review was obviously written by a Civ newbie who probably hasn't even played more than 10 hours of the entire series. He even said Civ II had a bio-warfare attack.... HELLO CTP ANYONE? That's probably why he's writing reviews for some website instead of working at a reputable game mag. He also sounds like a closet RTS lover.

[Grumbold]

Democracies can be corrupt, sure, but I don't think anyone would argue that west coast US is more corrupt than the east coast because of the distance. Being a game it also needs to balance advantages and disadvantages. If the democracy hits corruption paralysis then weaker govts like monarchy must be unsustainable after a certain number of cities.

SoulAssassin I'll defend his right to produce a well written and thoughtful article on the basis of having played the game over anyone's impressions based on alpha and beta screenshots. I forget which version of Civ/SMAC/CtP had which options too at times and have played all of them a great deal. A lot of his comments clearly show that he has played other variations in the past even if he never went as far as becoming a Deity OCC strategist. Neither are 99% of his readers.

[Jason Beaudoin]

I'm quite sure that the Avault is playing a beta version of the game because if you notice the Manhattan Project screenshot there, it is regarded as a major wonder, and we know from other people who've played the game that it is now a minor wonder.

I'm still going to buy this game because I don't trust these reviewers. I got some reviews already from people who love the genre, and they said that they love the game.

Plus, reviewers indicated that SMAC was awesome, and I was one of those few people that thought it was good for the garbage. So, you never know.

I'm looking forward to getting CIV 3, and although it certainly won't be perfect, and it probably will have some bugs, I'm sure I'll be content with my purchase!

[Dida]

Originally posted by LaRusso

hm lets see
soviets sent tanks and mech infantry to afghanistan. they got slaughtered. well, i do believe there IS a probability that an 'ancient' (partisan-like and stripped down of arms) unit can kill a modern one. if tanks would win every time, the strongest civ would just roll over.....

yo, while the soviets have tank and mech infantry, the Afhans' got machine guns and bomb, they are not exactly like the warrior unit from 4000 BC.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Dida


yo, while the soviets have tank and mech infantry, the Afhans' got machine guns and bomb, they are not exactly like the warrior unit from 4000 BC.

nor are they actually like a full fledged infantry unit
i think guy from cgonline explained it nice in the forum. he plays the game for a week already.

[GoofyBoy]

The thing about Avault's reviews is that I find they are very complete.

If one tiny thing is a problem they will mention it. So if you are worried by any aspect of what was mentioned, they could be fixed by a patch. Wonder movies can't be and I'm quite happy they are in.

Of course it goes without saying that you should take the whole review equally, and not focus on one paragraph yet ignore the next one.

Other games in the same ranking;

http://www.avault.com/reviews/index.asp?index=reviews_4stars

[SnowFire]

SoulAssassin: The guy isn't a total idiot. Civ2 did have bio-warfare; remember "Poison wells" for Spies? And though I mentioned it myself, the reference to atrocities in Civ2 isn't entirely out of line either. You know, atrocities were a special term in SMAC, but it is still a normal word, and the computer didn't like "atrocities" by you in Civ2.

Anyway, I was merely HOPING he was a total idiot. He doesn't seem to be that good in the gameplay category, and I hope that spilled over into the other categories he complained about too. I'm not so certain my hopes are well-founded, though.