Tweet
I, like most of you, have a great love for the civilization series and began playing the original when it first came out. Civ3 adds a number of elements which I always wished were in civ, civnet and civ2 (namely, resources, enhanced diplomacy, and a more challenging AI.)
That being said, I believe there is a serious design flaw. I am not referring to the bugs which are in EVERY computer game when first released. My problem is with (you guessed it...) out of control corruption. In my opinion, it destroys the game when playing on a huge map. Why?
The joy of the civ series is the competition for space and resources in a cramped world, fighting for control against numerous opponents. You were forced to settle and expand and then fight your neighbors if you wanted to stay ahead of the tech race. On the huge map of civ3, after a certian point, there is no point in expanding anymore. And therefore no point in conflict (which is the nature of the world, seems to me...)
I am currently playing as the Persians on the Monarch level on a huge map of the earth with 8 players (maybe I need more players?... more on that below). I started in India. I began the game the same way I began my civ2 games: building as many settlers as possible. Discovered (to my delight) that I had to change my strategy due to the new rules. Did so. Still need to expand quickly in the beggining, after all. Had cities in east asia and in Iran. My chariot (on a 5 year mission to explore strange new.... wait, different game...) met the Babylonians (living in North Africa) . Unleashed my Immortals on them (Gotta love the Persians... Immortals seem like the best special unit...) under the civ2 strategy of trying to wipe out every ancient culture I run across. Found (again, to my delight) that war was hard. I can't just run over them! They fight hard. Sue for peace after taking three cities (my armies were needed as garrison and I was on the defensive facing a sizable Baylonian force.) I LIKE THIS!
I found that the cities I had taken were worthless to me as they produced nothing! Corruption is too high. But hey, I'm in a Monarchy, maybe that's the problem. Hell, I kind of liked the fact that even on Monarch level of difficulty, expansion seemed pretty rough. Fast Forward a little. I change to a Republic. Little impact. Build couthouses. Don't help. Switch to Democracy years later. Little impact. Manged to build a forbidden palace with a leader. The only thing which did any good.
So here I am, in the industrial age. I have a palace in India and another towards the top of Africa and have a democracy. I have built (or seized) settlements beyond the "radius of corruption." That radius extends (on a huge map of the earth) to the edge of southern China, to Singapore, to Ethiopia to the edge of the Ukraine. My "second" palace enlarges that area by providing another area of working cities from Carthage to Rome and beyond West Africa into the Atlantic. This is absurd and in no way models reality. The Spanish, English and Portugese built empires MUCH larger which brought amazing riches to Europe for hundreds of years (under monarchies, I might add).
Someone mentioned in an earlier thread on corruption that corruption is just part of the new difficulty of the game. This is false. First, all civs have the same limitations and as they are your competition, all it does is change the parameters of the game.
Second (and here's the interesting bit), the Persian empire I described above DOESN'T NEED ANY MORE TERRITORY TO WIN. In fact I have ceased all warfare and ceased bulding settlers. I gain industrial techs in four turns with several hundred gold coming in as well. My cities are just now growing past size 12 so I expect to maintain this pace into the modern era.
Since I have no need to expand (as I don't need land and have ample amounts of every possible resource) the rest of this game will be just sitting back and building city improvements. I don't even need diplomacy. This removes the whole point of playing. And is, I should add, unrealistic.
Next time, I will try emperor level with 16 civs and see where that takes me. However, I fear the result will be the same: at some point there is no point in me expanding anymore and the game will degenerate into me defending territory (easily... since the enemy can't take advatage of captured cities and since I will be able to rush troops to the front faster than he) and building up my cities. Civ3 needs to be fixed so that corrution and waste drops substantially more under a Republic and Democracy. Also, courthouses are absolutely worthless! They should have SOME noticable impact. And don't tell me to play on smaller maps. I like huge maps. I like slowly building a huge civilization. I'm just not allowed to do so under the current rules.
FIRAXIS: PATCH WASTE AND CORRUPTION SO I CAN BUILD AN EMPIRE TO RIVAL SPAIN OR ENGLAND!
That being said, I believe there is a serious design flaw. I am not referring to the bugs which are in EVERY computer game when first released. My problem is with (you guessed it...) out of control corruption. In my opinion, it destroys the game when playing on a huge map. Why?
The joy of the civ series is the competition for space and resources in a cramped world, fighting for control against numerous opponents. You were forced to settle and expand and then fight your neighbors if you wanted to stay ahead of the tech race. On the huge map of civ3, after a certian point, there is no point in expanding anymore. And therefore no point in conflict (which is the nature of the world, seems to me...)
I am currently playing as the Persians on the Monarch level on a huge map of the earth with 8 players (maybe I need more players?... more on that below). I started in India. I began the game the same way I began my civ2 games: building as many settlers as possible. Discovered (to my delight) that I had to change my strategy due to the new rules. Did so. Still need to expand quickly in the beggining, after all. Had cities in east asia and in Iran. My chariot (on a 5 year mission to explore strange new.... wait, different game...) met the Babylonians (living in North Africa) . Unleashed my Immortals on them (Gotta love the Persians... Immortals seem like the best special unit...) under the civ2 strategy of trying to wipe out every ancient culture I run across. Found (again, to my delight) that war was hard. I can't just run over them! They fight hard. Sue for peace after taking three cities (my armies were needed as garrison and I was on the defensive facing a sizable Baylonian force.) I LIKE THIS!
I found that the cities I had taken were worthless to me as they produced nothing! Corruption is too high. But hey, I'm in a Monarchy, maybe that's the problem. Hell, I kind of liked the fact that even on Monarch level of difficulty, expansion seemed pretty rough. Fast Forward a little. I change to a Republic. Little impact. Build couthouses. Don't help. Switch to Democracy years later. Little impact. Manged to build a forbidden palace with a leader. The only thing which did any good.
So here I am, in the industrial age. I have a palace in India and another towards the top of Africa and have a democracy. I have built (or seized) settlements beyond the "radius of corruption." That radius extends (on a huge map of the earth) to the edge of southern China, to Singapore, to Ethiopia to the edge of the Ukraine. My "second" palace enlarges that area by providing another area of working cities from Carthage to Rome and beyond West Africa into the Atlantic. This is absurd and in no way models reality. The Spanish, English and Portugese built empires MUCH larger which brought amazing riches to Europe for hundreds of years (under monarchies, I might add).
Someone mentioned in an earlier thread on corruption that corruption is just part of the new difficulty of the game. This is false. First, all civs have the same limitations and as they are your competition, all it does is change the parameters of the game.
Second (and here's the interesting bit), the Persian empire I described above DOESN'T NEED ANY MORE TERRITORY TO WIN. In fact I have ceased all warfare and ceased bulding settlers. I gain industrial techs in four turns with several hundred gold coming in as well. My cities are just now growing past size 12 so I expect to maintain this pace into the modern era.
Since I have no need to expand (as I don't need land and have ample amounts of every possible resource) the rest of this game will be just sitting back and building city improvements. I don't even need diplomacy. This removes the whole point of playing. And is, I should add, unrealistic.
Next time, I will try emperor level with 16 civs and see where that takes me. However, I fear the result will be the same: at some point there is no point in me expanding anymore and the game will degenerate into me defending territory (easily... since the enemy can't take advatage of captured cities and since I will be able to rush troops to the front faster than he) and building up my cities. Civ3 needs to be fixed so that corrution and waste drops substantially more under a Republic and Democracy. Also, courthouses are absolutely worthless! They should have SOME noticable impact. And don't tell me to play on smaller maps. I like huge maps. I like slowly building a huge civilization. I'm just not allowed to do so under the current rules.
FIRAXIS: PATCH WASTE AND CORRUPTION SO I CAN BUILD AN EMPIRE TO RIVAL SPAIN OR ENGLAND!
This way, I get to maim them and improve my home cities at the same time. 
Comment