Open letter to Firaxis...problems with Civ III

[Soren Johnson]

Originally posted by TheDarkside
I have to disagree about the resource thign. I kinda like that idea. I've been in the same situation but I realized I had to act fast to capture that source of oil and I did, before they got to build those tanks and airplanes Yes it would require you to change your isolationist policy but hey, its either adapt or be eaten in the real world

But I do agree on war weariness- particularly when some attacks you! This makes ABSOLUTELY no sense and I'm convinced who ever programmed the war weariness did not stop and think before typing in his formulas and algorithms... Since when does a country that gets attacked go into anti-war protests?! They didnt have a choice! If China suddenly invaded Taiwan- would you think A. The Tawainese would be spurred on by a new sense of nationalism and actually fight better with more patriotism, or B. Tawain will go into massive revolts in protest of the war which Taiwan had no dicision in? Here's a hint, think New York City Sept. 11th.

You are right, and in fact, that is how war weariness works. (As you might be able to tell, I am the programmer that implemented war weariness...) At any rate, if another civ declares war on you, your cities get happier at first. They only get unhappy once the war starts dragging on...

On an entirely different subject, I am curious whether Blackadar did not notice a source of oil on the map. The map generator is supposed to produce one source of oil for each civ, so there should have been at least three sources of oil on the map. Blackadar, were you using a Tiny map? The map generator often has difficulty find space for all the luxuries and resources on a Tiny map... I need to find out whether this is a bug.

[Blackadar1]

No, there were 3 sources of oil and aluminum. However, 2 of the 3 sources of oil and all 3 aluminum were with a Civ that refuses to trade them. The option doesn't even appear. And no, there's not a trade embargo.

So I'm unable to build:

Paratrooper
Marines
Tank
Fighter
Bomber
Helicopter
Transport
Carrier
Submarine
Destroyer
Battleship
Mech Infantry
Modern Armor
Jet Fighter
Stealth Fighter
Stealth Bomber

all due to the lack of access to oil, even though I had a very strong civ.

And due to the lack of aluminum...
Modern Armor
Radar Artillery
Cruise Missle
Tactical Nuke
ICBM
Jet Fighter
Stealth Fighter
Stealth Bomber
Aegis Cruiser

So while modern armor is 24.16.3 and Battleships are 24.20.4., my best alternatives were Infantry @ 8.12.2 and the wonderful Frigate @ a whopping 2.2.4. Kinda tough to win, wouldn't you say?

Why even bother with the first 6000 years if the close games come down to a crapshoot of these two resources??? Think this is an issue now? Wait until multiplayer. People will be screaming their heads off. You'll get down to two closely matched Civs and one will get both the oil resources. Game over, folks.

With all due respect, there's gotta be a way around this roadblock. An advance of "advanced metals" or "synthetics" could be out there for those who don't have access to these resources. Or a wonder. Or something.

As for the war weariness, Soren, it's a wonderful concept. It's just that it can cause a death spiral a player can't get out of.

- Opposition Civ declares war - Has initial success - Continues war - Refuses to hear emmissaries of other nation - Other nation starts to decline, having been built for a Republic - Has cities thrown into revolt - They destroy buidings, wreck economy - Civ gets even weaker - Attacker gets emboldened (maybe built for a Monarchy or Communism), attacks more - Death spiral.

Is gearing your economy and Civ towards a peaceful, Democratic existence a problem in this game? The original Civs were great because they usually gave you the option (unless you were playing on Deity) to play a peaceful Civ. Yes, it had it's problems as well (damn Senate kept getting in the way), but you COULD play that way. It seems like Civ III, even though it was touted as the Civ that provided real alternatives to war, actually encourages players to be even more warlike than before. Hey, if this is the case, I can deal with it, but that should be been make more evident to the public before the release of the game IMHO.

[Soren Johnson]

Originally posted by Blackadar1
No, there were 3 sources of oil and aluminum. However, 2 of the 3 sources of oil and all 3 aluminum were with a Civ that refuses to trade them. The option doesn't even appear.

Hmmm.... this could just be a bug. Would it be possible for you to post a screenshot showing how the oil was not available from the Diplomacy Window? Thanks...

[TheDarkside]

Soren Johnson Firaxis- to tell you honestly, I was invaded during the middle ages by the Romans because I refused to pay him tribute of 13 gold per turn. He declared war and half my cities went into revolt and I lost a significant source fo revenue to making these people happy. These cities were never owned by the Romans, all my military units are within my borders, the Romans do have nicer culture though but that should not [logically] make a difference.

[randomturn]

oil makes the world go round. it has driven every conflict for 100 years, and everything in the modern world depends on it. I have no problem with Civ3 end-games being so oil dependent, or occasionally losing games that I was winning because of the situation Blackadar1 describes, as it means we have a more realistic game. I do have a few gripes but this isn't one of them.

[Blackadar1]

One last note before I go to bed...

I'm not attacking Firaxis (the company) or Firaxis (the people). They've made some awesome games. I'm not calling these items bugs. I'm just finding fault with some of the gameplay and balancing issues and the problems that they cause.

But now since I've beaten this horse to death, I'll let it drop and head to bed.

[tmarcl]

Re: Not a player but...

Originally posted by OctaviusIII
.

Oh, and as for the death-spiral... why didn't the attacking Civ get a similar response from its population? The AI should have exactly the same rules as the player. Period. Or maybe I'm just missing something only a player would catch...

Now that you mention it, another thing about the AI seemed weird. When I was fighting the Romans, and took all but their last city, they were able to field an army of ten, even with no money and in despotism (army as in multiple units, not the special unit).

Marc

[tmarcl]

Originally posted by TheDarkside


Since when does a country that gets attacked go into anti-war protests?! They didnt have a choice! If China suddenly invaded Taiwan- would you think A. The Tawainese would be spurred on by a new sense of nationalism and actually fight better with more patriotism, or B. Tawain will go into massive revolts in protest of the war which Taiwan had no dicision in? Here's a hint, think New York City Sept. 11th.

Since September 11th, I've seen three anti-war protests in the US.

Marc

[SuiteSisterMary]

I just think that oil and uranium are too damned important to be random resources. It's not like you can see where they are placed early in the game and rush to capture them.

If civs should get them automagically, why bother putting them in as resources?

Here's a hint, think New York City Sept. 11th.

And now all the news shows are showing the crying families of the soldiers and sailors deploying, and showing them lamenting that "Daddy won't be home for Christmas!." And do you have any idea how many emails I get in a week from friends and acquaintces who believe that America should 'forgive and forget' or 'violence won't solve violence' or 'we just need to UNDERSTAND why they did that, and they won't do it again!' and such?

[TheDarkside]

Originally posted by tmarcl


Since September 11th, I've seen three anti-war protests in the US.

Marc

Yes but enough to merit a disruption in the city's regular functioning? Just look at the overhwheming % of people in favor of war (up in 80s after first few weeks) Look at all the people who suddenly realized our country has a flag and decided to display it in any way they can. These riots you speak of nothing more then "peaceful congregations" in my book.

[dainbramaged13]

Add to this the extrem++++rampant corruption and wever got a patch bug list for firaxis.. thanks, firaxis, im enjoying the game a bunch, but this woul d make it just that much better !

[LordRiker]

im tending to agree, these resources are too damned depended on. we are in the modern age and all i can use is rifleman and artillery cuz i cant get rubber or oil and such, several nations have it but refuse to share, I'd goto war but thats just suidice against them. even though we are at peace too they roam my territory even after nemerous pleas to leave, i cant do a damn think about it cuz i dont have the resources to, besides my play style goes toward the peaceful, Devensive and now Culture way but it seems Firaxis is telling me i cant play like that because i have to goto war to get resources that are required to advance my civ. Thats really annoying, i thought the point of these civ games that Sid Meier makes is to rule your nation as you see fit, be it a peaceful victory or a military victory. I see no such choice as it is, Im forced to fight alot or die from lack of resources.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Guys,
Not a player yet (obviously, being an Australian), but I'd just like to point out a couple of GENERAL impressions I'm getting about the game and the forum!

1) Yes the game has bugs in it, and thats a problem, but if it makes you feel any better. A friend was telling me about a game he picked up that came out here first, then came out in the States about 1 month later, and guess what?! Our version was full of BUGS!!! but by the time it came out in the States all the bugs had been fixed and a patch was put out on the internet for Australian buyers! (my friend said that, given a choice between wating for the game or putting up with the bugs, he'd go with the latter!!) Some people even say that the internet has given Game companies like IG an excuse to rush games onto the market unfinished, because they can just post a patch later on!
Thats not to say that Zoe and co. have no right to complain. It's just that we need to keep everything in perspective.

2) Leading on from the first point. I can't help but notice the frequency of posts from Dan and Soren in reply to the complaints on this forum. Not only do they seem willing to clear up any misunderstandings about the games mechanics, but they also seem willing to take on board legitimate criticisms about bugs and mechanics problems (which will probably turn up fixed in future patches!) I think that is a sign of a group of people who truly CARE, not only about the game, but about what the die-hard fans think of it. I tell you, I find that pretty rare these days, so credit where credit is due!

Anyway, sorry to get off topic, but just thought it needed to be said. I reckon that, in a month from now, everyone will be used to the game and (with the appropriate patches) will look back on these threads and have a good laugh!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

P.S: Dan or Soren, I've read that enemy roads don't help units travelling through hills, mountains or forests (by making the terrain count as plains), is this true? If it is, then can you change those parameters using the Editor (eg. can I say that enemy roads don't grant 3 movement, but do grant 1 movement, regardless of terrain!) Anything you have to say on this would be appreciated!

[UKScud]

If you read the thread I started about oil and the implications it would have on your actions in the industrial/modern ages you'll see a variety of opinions regarding your 'problem'.

After the discussion kinda petered out, I'm left with the opinion that denying the oil resource is the best way to get a significant advantage over a competitor Civ, but you should be able to put up a good fight if you defend with infantry and artillery.

If what you say happened in your game, happened in EVERY game...or the MAJORITY of games...then fine..I think you have a good point, it takes away from the gameplay.

But, if the game occasionally throws you a curveball and leaves you in a position where you have a real fight to survive on your hands, accept it as such. If you win, so much the better.

Wouldn't you be saying what a cool game Civ3 is, if you had come out the better in the game you mention. Unlikely, but if you had, you'ld be feeling good about yourself.

What it comes down to is this. Ask yourself the question, 'If I knew that every game of Civ3 I played would be biased in my favour (one way or another) would it be a challenge, and would I enjoy it?'

Lady Luck sometimes works against you. Smile and play another game. Tell us how that one goes.

[Soren Johnson]

Originally posted by LordRiker
im tending to agree, these resources are too damned depended on. we are in the modern age and all i can use is rifleman and artillery cuz i cant get rubber or oil and such, several nations have it but refuse to share, I'd goto war but thats just suidice against them. even though we are at peace too they roam my territory even after nemerous pleas to leave, i cant do a damn think about it cuz i dont have the resources to, besides my play style goes toward the peaceful, Devensive and now Culture way but it seems Firaxis is telling me i cant play like that because i have to goto war to get resources that are required to advance my civ. Thats really annoying, i thought the point of these civ games that Sid Meier makes is to rule your nation as you see fit, be it a peaceful victory or a military victory. I see no such choice as it is, Im forced to fight alot or die from lack of resources.

The idea is that you can either acquire them through peacefully through trade or forcefully through war. I still would like to get info from Blackadar as to why he wasn't able to trade for Oil. (Did the AI ask for too much? Did it not appear in the trade list? Had they not discovered Refining?)