Im dissapointed

[Apockoffork]

I know that Civ3 is an entirely different game. They thought of some very creative ideas for SMAC. Why couldn't they do something similar for Civ3. SMAC even had a storyline built into it and a second form of combat Psychic. I know they can't do the same thing but how about doing something else. If they kept some form of the unit lab then you could design say "Guerilla Marines." They would have the added ability of getting a bonus when fighting in a jungle. Something along those lines. Although they added a lot to the peace time game (Culture, improved trading etc...) They didn't really add much to combat.

The one improvment that i liked the best should have been done a long time ago. No city dependency. That thing drove me nuts, mad, and insane all at once.

Heres how they could have improved the Governments:
As in SMAC you chose a method of Ruling. Monarchy, democratic, Republic, etc...
You can also choose a economic method. "Capitalism, Socialist etc..
Then you choose policing method... "Standard police, martial law, free trade...."
Using these you could set up a system similar to the SMAC but it doesn't have to be the same... I know some of it doesn't make sense but it could be feasible. A democracy that shares the wealth a la socialism and has martial law. Hey it could happen

Along the lines of terraforming. People have been using water in many ways. One idea i had was to make a ship and tell it to fish a la Age of Empires 2. Later in the game you could get trawlers which might cause polution and things like that. Sid Mier just didn't seem to be very creative and really add to the game.

[ChaingKaiShek]

Originally posted by freezuch
Suez canal is not something you really terraform. Tell me at least 1 case when tundra was terraformed into grassland. Or desert competely terraformed at again, grassland.


Ok, Iran is Repblic.(Muslim Republic)

PS and tell me names of those MANY MORE governments today.

Actually I'll agree on Calling Iran a Muslim Republic.. I'd say moreso Afganistan was a Religious Dictatorship.

But as for other government types besides (Anarchy, Despotism, Communism, Republic, Democracy) I suppose there really aren't any 'new' ones.. There are however new variations.

Like The US - Representative Republic. Many of these 'mixed breeds' of governments out there.

What would you call Canada, Or Great Britain? Besides borderline socialist? (No Insult intended.)

Any 'True' new forms of government out there? Not really.

I know some of you out there would consider "Capitalist Pigs" as being the name of our government, but sadly no. That is just our way of life.

So To Keep this from being 100% pointless, I have a few questions about the game - first being as I really enjoyed the first Civilization ( Never played the Second, or Alpha ). Think i'd enjoy this one, I even got a fair amount of enjoyment out of Call to Power I/II.

Second question being - In the first Civilization, when you changed government types - do all of your advisors change as well? As while being a republic they'd be sporting garments of the roman era - changing to communism would later cause them to have more of the 'workers' look.

Thats about it!

Chaing

[Baloo]

Originally posted by Apockoffork
Sid Mier just didn't seem to be very creative and really add to the game.

Hey, something that we can agree on.

[Blackadar1]

Not to get into any personal attacks on Sid or anything like that, but I also feel that Civ III is a step back from SMAC in the areas of diplomacy, military and play-balance.

The good thing is that these are issues that can be fixed with patches, AI enhancements or even by using the editor.

[CygnusZ]

I'm sorry, but somewhere back somebody mentioned about why cities were on the trading list. I can field that question...

Cities are useful in Peace Treaty negotiations with another Civ. you've already crushed. I was at war with the Romans, and I had taken Rome and various other cities. However, Rome had two sections, a Northern Rome and a Southern Rome. I had some northern Roman cities and many southern roman cities. When I went into peace negotiations I offered to return one of the northern roman cities for the remaining southern Roman cities (plus a lump sum).

Very useful, the diplomacy allowed me to give back a poor city to the Romans while I used my military might to gain enough leverage to force them to give up three southern cities to me.

It's too bad that I had dragged Egypt into the war... they took Northern Rome in the next 30 turns! Now Rome has one city isolated on an island stuck in the Middle Ages while all the real civilizations are ending the Industrial Revolution.

Another use for selling cities is for cultural assimlation. The cities that one gets through this method *SUCK*. C'mon, how many times has a settler ploped out a city in the middle of the desert? Just accept assimlation and sell it off te original civilization for a per/turn sum. Muy Excellente!

Just showing that Cities are useful in "drastic" negotiations. Their not like a normal commodity which "has its price", they are used in special circumstances.

[Apockoffork]

Im just wondering if anyone has found the price of city. I can't seem to buy one outright.

[Pyrodrew]

I don't believe the AI will "sell" cities for gold.

The cities that one gets through this method *SUCK*. C'mon, how many times has a settler ploped out a city in the middle of the desert? Just accept assimlation and sell it off te original civilization for a per/turn sum. Muy Excellente!

If the AI bought the "*suck* city" & it has a gold/science income < the per/turn gold you are requiring... that's a bug or at the very least a game flaw.

[CygnusZ]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
I don't believe the AI will "sell" cities for gold.



If the AI bought the "*suck* city" & it has a gold/science income < the per/turn gold you are requiring... that's a bug or at the very least a game flaw.

Nope, it's not. He wants his city back and he'll pay for it. The AI is gambling that someday there will be a valueable resource in that spot.

It seems to me to be a fair trade. I get rid of a city I don't want, he gets his crappy city back.

(BTW, you have select the city and the 'what will you pay for this' option)

[morb]

Originally posted by Baloo


Hey, something that we can agree on.

if you read about the development of civ2 and SMAC, you'll find out that Brian Reynolds was really behind both of these games and their genius (even though the game is called Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, once you start it, it even says "A Brian Reynolds design" on the intro screen under the name). Since he got fed up with Sid's way of doing things and figuring he could do a better job with his team elsewhere, he (and the tallanted core of designers/coders) left Firaxis over a year ago to found Big Huge Games, we've been stuck with "the rest" ever since. And Civ3, although solid, is not up to Brian's par.

Sid really thinks we'll go gaga over his silly dinasaurs. pfft. if maxis thought SimVill (which looked so primising) was going to bomb.... well I don't need to say more do I?

[morb]

proof

[Faboba]

Originally posted by Seeker Governments I would add with the editor:
Constitutional Republic, Ancient Republic, Ancient Democracy, Theocracy, Absolute Monarchy (Louis XIV), Constitutional Monarchy, Totalitarianism, Socialism, Sultanate, Aristocracy/Oligarchy, Oriental Despotism, Divine Right Monarchy, and more...

And the imaginative ones that don't exist (or were very small):
Anarchist-Syndicalist Commune, Deep Ecology, Technocracy, Plutocracy, purely Military Dictatorship (like ancient Sparta), electronic direct democracy, Computer Dictatorship, Anarchist-Individualist, Platonic Philosopher-Kingship, True Aristocracy/Meritocracy..

And then not forgeting facism, totalitarianist fascism, ancient facism, true communism, totalitarianist communism, diluted communism, ancient communism, feudalism, true feudalism, modern feudalism, Islamic despotism, Islamic theocrocrtatic democracy, The King Fisherite form of goverment.......

You really need to remember it's a game. Why not amuse yourself and work out how many of the above governments can fit in under the banners of 'Democracy', 'Communism', 'Despotism', 'Monarchy' or 'The Republic'.

I think you'll find it's most likely all of them as all the goverments are concerned with is the form you use to rule your country. All Totalitarianist governments could fit under Despotism because they share all the main advantages and disadvantages.

What they should maybe have done was balanced the governments more and then made them all availibale from the start.

[Faboba]

And remember kids - Civilization does not begin Alpha..........

[Seeker]

"facism, totalitarianist fascism, ancient facism, true communism, totalitarianist communism, diluted communism, ancient communism, feudalism, true feudalism, modern feudalism, Islamic despotism, Islamic theocrocrtatic democracy, The King Fisherite form of goverment"

these are all very similar or nonsensical, the opposite of the clearly differentiated governments I mentioned.

"It's only a game"

THAT'S THE WHOLE FREAKIN' POINT!! It should be about options, flexibility, and customizability to use your imagination, in other words fun....not about being shoved into six narrow categories. This was the best part of SMAC.

[Pyrodrew]

The AI is gambling that someday there will be a valueable resource in that spot.

But since the AI has obviously poor judgement it what can be a successful city it should be programmed to only pay the amount for cities for which they currently bring in. Not saying what you did was wrong, only saying where the AI needs to be made smarter.

[Tani]

i agree on how there are little choices of government and they are not really different. as mentioned already, there are many form of republics, and you cannot just catagorize them into one "republic." i have never played smac, but allowing you to customize your government sounds like an interesting idea, in that way, you have more varities of different architype of governments.

also, i think the introduction of border (finially!) is a good idea, but then physical border is different from "cultural border." cultural influences can defect cities is a very good concept, but using the cultural influence to defind border line is a bad one. well, it's not realistic, simply. physical border is a line that people draw despite of culture. sovereign land is the land that you can put your control on. it is not there until there is a dispute between two sovereignties that a definite physically border line would exist, before that, it doesn't really exist, or it's nothing more than a vague concept at best. basically, i expected more about how border would work.

i think it would be good to show what route trade takes, a little like ctp, since i really don't know how exactly i can block an enemy's sea port.

i've read on other threads how ai now spread like crazy, and in chiften level, they spreaded like crazy already. which brings me to think if expension is necessary, then why necessitate us to control it? it's so mechcanical. besides, it not common in rl to found cities in exodus type of migration like building settlers in civ series anyway. why even bother to make you control it? just like you need to build roads to your cities, but you don't build the roads inside the cities.

anwyay, the first game i played, i won by culture, since luckily enough, i started on a mid size island alone, and i managed to build every single great wonders. all the other games however, i have a crazy expansionist(s) living right next to me that spread his/her/their cities like crazy. and yes, he build on tundra as well. don't even mention city improvements, they don't seem to care, since most of their cities are always under 3 until there is no way expand (actually, i have a case where i blocked the coast of india where it has only one remaining city, it has no way to expand on the same island for i have occupied it all already, but it is still building settlers and ships cause it thinks it can still expand to near by small islands, but of course, it cannot get out because i am blocking the only sea route out for them. while the japanese next to me who also has one remaining city also, - i sadistically left them only one city after a massive military campaign - but has no access to sea, developed to size 12, so you can see the ai is really mad on expansion. i mean japanese are suppose to be expansionist by rules, while india shouldn't be, but look at the result, it's as if they don't make a difference, unless they know there is absolutely no way to make new cities) i play this game to experience building a civilization, not with a player whoes only goal is to "win the game." i don't want to be told that now i should take up the challenge, it's not about challenge, you can set the ai to start up in modern age, and you at stone age, and that would be a real challenge. the challenge argument holds no ground, what i want is the ai thinks like they "live" in the world, not just a player who is trying to win the game. i want to experience a civilization simulation, not just any arbitrary challenge that has a "civilization" label on it.

also i have warriors killing my armors, i think the civ2 approach on fire power shouldn't be taken out in favour of a random roll of dice method.

in regards to trading. well, first of all, in rl there are always trade even if government don't initiate it, with other culture as well, but i have to admit caravan units are a pain, and tedious in civ1 and civ2. anyway, in civ3, the other civ would open trade that is always unfair, it always benifit them more, like i have to put up 2 kinds of luxuries, each with 1 unit for 1 unit of their luxury, even when i have culture rating more than double them, and i have an army of modern age when the ai only has medieval techology. it felt like i am talking to a wall when i try to negotiate with them. though it does deserve credit that now ai don't just hate you for no reason at all.

there's no way to ship food. in rl, after industrialization, cities in reality don't produce their own food. ok, one can argue that in civ3, the surrounding area of a city is not exactly part of the city's "core." but new york don't just import food from its surrounding area, and as well, have to fight for food with cities next to it. like national treasury, there should be a national granary after industialization or something similar to show that food can get distributed around.

graphics are nice, i've seen smac (haven't play it, but seen screen shots), and i like the 3d terrians that's used in smac, but icongraphy has its own different kind of charm.

basically, i have so much hope when i first bought it that i feel dissapointed, even though i must admit this has better graphics and better ai.

worth the price or not is really a personal opinion, you wouldn't know if you like it or not until you try it. but i feel i need to address those people who say, that there shouldn't be too much creativeness, like picking functions of government, is wrong, dead wrong. many complaints of the game has to do with how the game needed to create its own mechanical systems (purely ficitional) to resolve the difficulty of implenting the rl systems, it's absolutely contradictory to then argue "it's civilization, not science fiction." no, it has always been science fiction based on histories of civilization to start with, nothing more.

don't tell me "this is just a game," since for its implication/corollay, it is an oxymoron - ie "this is important enough to be told that, not just this is [b]unimportant[/i], but also, this is just a game."

sorry for the long post/rant.