Tweet
D**mit, Sid! I've been with ya since the first Civ came out, but I just can't stand it anymore. The look and pace of Civ III is like a turn based RTS, if such a thing is possible. It's very pretty, even though the mountains look like big pimples popping up out of the grasslands. But it was always the GAMEPLAY that mattered.
1- CORRUPPTTTTIOIOOOOONNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! Yes, the smell of corruption rises from this game like a 4 week old corpse. For those of you who prefer to see it as a challenge of the new game, knock yourselves out, it's a free country. But in real life, nothing short of all out, dog eat dog anarchy produces the absolute levels of chaos and waste seen in CivIII. And this is just at Regent level. I shudder to think what Diety must be like! The obvious intention is to stop ICS, (for the player, if not for the AI), but in practice it cripples the entire game.
Let's see, culture out the a$$- check. Courthouses everywhere, capital and forbidden palace well placed- check. Modest, non-sprawling empire check. High happiness levels- check. Switch from Monarchy to Republic, take the disadvantages of Republic on the chin- AND CORRUPTION LOSSES GO UP! AAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
2- Research. This is the most flat, streamlined, uninteresting tech tree I've ever seen. True, the tree in SMAC was a bit much, but did you have to dumb it down so much? It almost doesn't matter what I pick, there are seldom many real choices to make. Early science is painfully slow. It's more viable not to bother with research in the early game, and trade or buy advances from the AI- which seems not to suffer from this problem, same as corruption.
3- Expansion. The AI leaps across the largest maps like a jackrabbit, and they must reproduce like jackrabbits, too, to build sprawling settlements like this. Again, corruption obviously doesn't hinder your opponents, and neither do population constraints.
4- Trade. Never was one of my favorite things in older games, but it sounded like it was going to be much more logical this time around, and I was looking forward to giving it a go. Forget it. You want something, take it. They're never going to trade with you on any reasonable, rational, logical basis. Even if you're on good terms, expect a steadily rising cycle of extortion every 20 turns, even if you've got things your idiot opponent desperately needs.
5- Resources. It's catch as catch can, and about as random as a game of Monopoly. Oh look! My opponent landed on saltpeter, and I rolled a double six and went to jail! Looks like he gets guns and I don't! Sure, you can see if he's got extra, but in that case, see complaint #4.
6- Combat. I think I've got it figured out. If I attack his fortified pikemen, I die. If he attacks my fortified pikemen, I die. Simple. I'm taking every variable into account- terrain, unit level, offense and defense bonuses. But there's no way to explain the enemy vs. friendly losses besides AI cheating. A couple of pikers in his city- devastating. A couple of the same in mine- brushed aside like gnats. Consistently. In several games. On several different types of terrain. With or without walls.
Yeah, a challenging and aggressive AI is great, and I particularly like the way it attacks- nothing half a$$ed about it, it comes right at you. But the deck is so obviously stacked against you, I think Civ II needs two rulebooks- the one I got, and the one the AI uses. Maybe then it would make sense.
As it is, this is about as much fun as solitaire with 51 cards. I'm going for a game of Civ II, or maybe even Alpha Centauri. Anyone care to join me?
1- CORRUPPTTTTIOIOOOOONNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! Yes, the smell of corruption rises from this game like a 4 week old corpse. For those of you who prefer to see it as a challenge of the new game, knock yourselves out, it's a free country. But in real life, nothing short of all out, dog eat dog anarchy produces the absolute levels of chaos and waste seen in CivIII. And this is just at Regent level. I shudder to think what Diety must be like! The obvious intention is to stop ICS, (for the player, if not for the AI), but in practice it cripples the entire game.
Let's see, culture out the a$$- check. Courthouses everywhere, capital and forbidden palace well placed- check. Modest, non-sprawling empire check. High happiness levels- check. Switch from Monarchy to Republic, take the disadvantages of Republic on the chin- AND CORRUPTION LOSSES GO UP! AAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
2- Research. This is the most flat, streamlined, uninteresting tech tree I've ever seen. True, the tree in SMAC was a bit much, but did you have to dumb it down so much? It almost doesn't matter what I pick, there are seldom many real choices to make. Early science is painfully slow. It's more viable not to bother with research in the early game, and trade or buy advances from the AI- which seems not to suffer from this problem, same as corruption.
3- Expansion. The AI leaps across the largest maps like a jackrabbit, and they must reproduce like jackrabbits, too, to build sprawling settlements like this. Again, corruption obviously doesn't hinder your opponents, and neither do population constraints.
4- Trade. Never was one of my favorite things in older games, but it sounded like it was going to be much more logical this time around, and I was looking forward to giving it a go. Forget it. You want something, take it. They're never going to trade with you on any reasonable, rational, logical basis. Even if you're on good terms, expect a steadily rising cycle of extortion every 20 turns, even if you've got things your idiot opponent desperately needs.
5- Resources. It's catch as catch can, and about as random as a game of Monopoly. Oh look! My opponent landed on saltpeter, and I rolled a double six and went to jail! Looks like he gets guns and I don't! Sure, you can see if he's got extra, but in that case, see complaint #4.
6- Combat. I think I've got it figured out. If I attack his fortified pikemen, I die. If he attacks my fortified pikemen, I die. Simple. I'm taking every variable into account- terrain, unit level, offense and defense bonuses. But there's no way to explain the enemy vs. friendly losses besides AI cheating. A couple of pikers in his city- devastating. A couple of the same in mine- brushed aside like gnats. Consistently. In several games. On several different types of terrain. With or without walls.
Yeah, a challenging and aggressive AI is great, and I particularly like the way it attacks- nothing half a$$ed about it, it comes right at you. But the deck is so obviously stacked against you, I think Civ II needs two rulebooks- the one I got, and the one the AI uses. Maybe then it would make sense.
As it is, this is about as much fun as solitaire with 51 cards. I'm going for a game of Civ II, or maybe even Alpha Centauri. Anyone care to join me?
Comment