Review part III
Well, I started another game at Regent level, playing as the Germans with 8 other civs on a normal Pangean map.
Observations:
* the manual fails to explain many key items (do I suspect the need to buy a strategy guide?) such as quelling resisters, terrain movement allowances, etc
* I found a bug - I wanted to upgrade my spearman to a swordsman but I repeatedly received the message that I had no spearmen to upgrade!
* What happened to the "new sophisticated diplomacy"? In my second game, I played 4, 690 years and have yet to be able to establish a single alliance, even though I bribe the buggers like crazy. Yet, they will go to war with me at the least provocation.
By the year 609 AD, almost all the civs were at war with me, and they attack me with ridiculous regularity. It's starting to feel more like a turn-based RTS game. But it gets boringggg real fast.
The other civs grow at an exponential rate and never seem to suffer any ill effects, while my civ is hit by every calamity, disease, rioting, and attacks from other civs. I like a challenge - but geessh... where's the play balance?
Like I mentioned before, it seems as though they stripped away a lot of the subtle features of the game like spies, caravans, real diplomacy, in favour of an all-out rush-battle type game. I am sure there are many who might prefer this "real time" style of playing - but it gets old real fast.
I was hoping to engage in some sophistcated diplomacy - forget it - it doesn't happen. The AI has been programmed to be very aggressive and it never lets up. And it looks like the AI civs are cheating like crazy...
Could this "hyper aggressiveness" be a cover for the lack of a decent AI to begin with? It's the same syle of aggressiveness that you find in games like Red Alert and other RTS games.
Anyway, I stopped this game as well - just boring - make unit - fight - make unit - fight. . . well, you get the idea.
Two games have basically ended the same way: the AI just gangs up on you. Other ways to win? Forget about it - if you aren't militarily strong - the AI will eat you alive. . .
Because of this - I see no difference between Civ 3 and Civ 2. I had far more diplomatic involvment in Civ2.
At this stage, Civ3 reminds me of a miniature (because of the resolution) version of Age of Empires, but without any of the charm of the AoE series of games.
It's getting hard for me to want to play another game. . .
The bugs need to fixed and this game needs to be properly playtested by dozens of people to tweak the AI and diplomacy properly. Civ3 has a great deal of potential. There is a lot to like about it, and I WANTED to like it. In a way I still do. Once all of the kinks are worked out of it, it wil be an awesome game. . .
Civ3 will be a an awesome game when it's released as the "Gold Edition" with all the patches, fixes, MP, etc. By then, there will be a plethora of scenarios as well.
Too bad this game was released before its time. . .
I'll keep playing a variety of games and let you know what I think about it. . .
Peace
Well, I started another game at Regent level, playing as the Germans with 8 other civs on a normal Pangean map.
Observations:
* the manual fails to explain many key items (do I suspect the need to buy a strategy guide?) such as quelling resisters, terrain movement allowances, etc
* I found a bug - I wanted to upgrade my spearman to a swordsman but I repeatedly received the message that I had no spearmen to upgrade!
* What happened to the "new sophisticated diplomacy"? In my second game, I played 4, 690 years and have yet to be able to establish a single alliance, even though I bribe the buggers like crazy. Yet, they will go to war with me at the least provocation.
By the year 609 AD, almost all the civs were at war with me, and they attack me with ridiculous regularity. It's starting to feel more like a turn-based RTS game. But it gets boringggg real fast.
The other civs grow at an exponential rate and never seem to suffer any ill effects, while my civ is hit by every calamity, disease, rioting, and attacks from other civs. I like a challenge - but geessh... where's the play balance?
Like I mentioned before, it seems as though they stripped away a lot of the subtle features of the game like spies, caravans, real diplomacy, in favour of an all-out rush-battle type game. I am sure there are many who might prefer this "real time" style of playing - but it gets old real fast.
I was hoping to engage in some sophistcated diplomacy - forget it - it doesn't happen. The AI has been programmed to be very aggressive and it never lets up. And it looks like the AI civs are cheating like crazy...
Could this "hyper aggressiveness" be a cover for the lack of a decent AI to begin with? It's the same syle of aggressiveness that you find in games like Red Alert and other RTS games.
Anyway, I stopped this game as well - just boring - make unit - fight - make unit - fight. . . well, you get the idea.
Two games have basically ended the same way: the AI just gangs up on you. Other ways to win? Forget about it - if you aren't militarily strong - the AI will eat you alive. . .
Because of this - I see no difference between Civ 3 and Civ 2. I had far more diplomatic involvment in Civ2.
At this stage, Civ3 reminds me of a miniature (because of the resolution) version of Age of Empires, but without any of the charm of the AoE series of games.
It's getting hard for me to want to play another game. . .
The bugs need to fixed and this game needs to be properly playtested by dozens of people to tweak the AI and diplomacy properly. Civ3 has a great deal of potential. There is a lot to like about it, and I WANTED to like it. In a way I still do. Once all of the kinks are worked out of it, it wil be an awesome game. . .
Civ3 will be a an awesome game when it's released as the "Gold Edition" with all the patches, fixes, MP, etc. By then, there will be a plethora of scenarios as well.
Too bad this game was released before its time. . .
I'll keep playing a variety of games and let you know what I think about it. . .
Peace
Comment