Well, that was different...
Just finished my first game of Civ3. I played on the Regent difficulty and on a huge earth map with 8 civs.
It was easy, that’s for sure. Well, that may not be entirely accurate... The winning part was easy. Too easy. The micro-management was tedious at best (and this comment is coming from a fanatical builder). The empire management was better and the interface has some serious holes in it. I trust the interface will be fixed in a patch or two.
The game was sort of interesting, but not very entertaining. It seemed a bit ‘light’. It was almost like a watered down version of Civ2. The ‘Culture’ thing never even figured into it and as for other improvements... Well, borders are nice, but I have them in SMAC so the novelty wares of quickly.
Corruption was almost a game killer for me. My capitol was in India and my cities in Indonesia were not producing at all! And I could forget about my colonies in Australia. I had planed to build the forbidden city in Australia, but gave up after realizing that it would take about 300 turns, because the city was unable to get more that one shield. This was with courthouse. Courthouse is the only ant corruption building and it doesn’t appear to impact significantly. (Before you ask; I tried both democracy and communism to fix this, but to no avail...)
As for combat; I can’t really comment. I was never attacked. Not once. I was declared war on once, but a peace agreement was signed about 500 years later without a shot being fired. Being a builder I don’t usually attack, but I do expect to get drawn in sooner or later, but not in this game. :\
The game ended in 1930 with me building the UN and running for leader. I won. 4-2 or something.
All I can say is; after Civ1, Civ2, CtP, SMAX and CtP2 this was weird... I have no idea if I hate it or think it could be entertaining. I guess I’ll get some sleep and give it another shot in the morning...
Regards,
Alech
Just finished my first game of Civ3. I played on the Regent difficulty and on a huge earth map with 8 civs.
It was easy, that’s for sure. Well, that may not be entirely accurate... The winning part was easy. Too easy. The micro-management was tedious at best (and this comment is coming from a fanatical builder). The empire management was better and the interface has some serious holes in it. I trust the interface will be fixed in a patch or two.
The game was sort of interesting, but not very entertaining. It seemed a bit ‘light’. It was almost like a watered down version of Civ2. The ‘Culture’ thing never even figured into it and as for other improvements... Well, borders are nice, but I have them in SMAC so the novelty wares of quickly.
Corruption was almost a game killer for me. My capitol was in India and my cities in Indonesia were not producing at all! And I could forget about my colonies in Australia. I had planed to build the forbidden city in Australia, but gave up after realizing that it would take about 300 turns, because the city was unable to get more that one shield. This was with courthouse. Courthouse is the only ant corruption building and it doesn’t appear to impact significantly. (Before you ask; I tried both democracy and communism to fix this, but to no avail...)
As for combat; I can’t really comment. I was never attacked. Not once. I was declared war on once, but a peace agreement was signed about 500 years later without a shot being fired. Being a builder I don’t usually attack, but I do expect to get drawn in sooner or later, but not in this game. :\
The game ended in 1930 with me building the UN and running for leader. I won. 4-2 or something.
All I can say is; after Civ1, Civ2, CtP, SMAX and CtP2 this was weird... I have no idea if I hate it or think it could be entertaining. I guess I’ll get some sleep and give it another shot in the morning...
Regards,
Alech
Comment