Tweet
Okay, I'll try again, and I'll try to be more constructive. First off, Civ III IS worth the trouble, and a lot better than most of the other dreck out there. But I still question some of the design decisions made.
- Corruption. There should be more ways to control it. Tax collectors, roads, police stations, and military police should all have some kind of influence. How about this- as you expand, using these measures to control corruption gets tougher and tougher until your empire is so large, it's not cost effective anymore. Sort of like Imperial Rome. It is unrealistically high, even with better gov types. This is not a challenge, it is a flaw. How about, for example, massive corruption in a captured city that eventually diminishes as things settle down. As far as I can see, this is only there to control ICS. There's no logical, satisfying "in game" reason to set it this high. There's got to be a better way to control ICS.
-Culture. Maybe I'm off on this one, but I have a hard time telling what my specific risk of city defection is. Sure, you can tell in a general sense, but I'd like to see some kind of civil disorder or complaint before they jump ship. And units in the city should have a chance to fight or evacuate, instead of just vanishing. Enemy civs plant cities in untenable locations, and all you have to do is build cultural improvements and wait. Inevitably, cultural influence will give it to you. That's silly.
- Trade. It would be great if the AI were as aggressive about trade as it is about expansion.How about a diplomatic option asking a civ to build roads, harbors, or airports. It's a bit silly sending "commando workers" into enemy territory to connect to his capital, or hook him up to resources just so I can trade for them. And personally, I wouldn't cry if strategic resources were a little less "strategic"- in other words, how about spreading them around a little more freely when they show up? Maybe put "abundance of resources" in the game setup menu as an option.
-Technology. Most people agree, the tech tree in SMAC was a bit much. IMHO, they've overcompensated with this one. Personally, I thought the Civ II tree was about right. It had plenty of complexity and choices, but wasn't intimidating once you got used to it. In Civ III, my research is almost on autopilot. As often as not, it really doesn't matter which direction I take. And for no reason I can figure, research is a painful crawl in the ancient era, and it hums along in industrial times. This is more historically accurate, but somehow, for Civ, it just doesn't feel right. I'd like more options to control my research.
-Combat. The animations are fun, the units look good, and I personally like the hit point system for conscripts through elite units. But it wouldn't be a tragedy to bring back firepower, or something to make it tougher for older units to compete with modern ones. As it is, the combat system yields silly results too often.
Anyone agree/disagree? (I've got my asbestos long johns on, so save your flamethrower fuel.)
- Corruption. There should be more ways to control it. Tax collectors, roads, police stations, and military police should all have some kind of influence. How about this- as you expand, using these measures to control corruption gets tougher and tougher until your empire is so large, it's not cost effective anymore. Sort of like Imperial Rome. It is unrealistically high, even with better gov types. This is not a challenge, it is a flaw. How about, for example, massive corruption in a captured city that eventually diminishes as things settle down. As far as I can see, this is only there to control ICS. There's no logical, satisfying "in game" reason to set it this high. There's got to be a better way to control ICS.
-Culture. Maybe I'm off on this one, but I have a hard time telling what my specific risk of city defection is. Sure, you can tell in a general sense, but I'd like to see some kind of civil disorder or complaint before they jump ship. And units in the city should have a chance to fight or evacuate, instead of just vanishing. Enemy civs plant cities in untenable locations, and all you have to do is build cultural improvements and wait. Inevitably, cultural influence will give it to you. That's silly.
- Trade. It would be great if the AI were as aggressive about trade as it is about expansion.How about a diplomatic option asking a civ to build roads, harbors, or airports. It's a bit silly sending "commando workers" into enemy territory to connect to his capital, or hook him up to resources just so I can trade for them. And personally, I wouldn't cry if strategic resources were a little less "strategic"- in other words, how about spreading them around a little more freely when they show up? Maybe put "abundance of resources" in the game setup menu as an option.
-Technology. Most people agree, the tech tree in SMAC was a bit much. IMHO, they've overcompensated with this one. Personally, I thought the Civ II tree was about right. It had plenty of complexity and choices, but wasn't intimidating once you got used to it. In Civ III, my research is almost on autopilot. As often as not, it really doesn't matter which direction I take. And for no reason I can figure, research is a painful crawl in the ancient era, and it hums along in industrial times. This is more historically accurate, but somehow, for Civ, it just doesn't feel right. I'd like more options to control my research.
-Combat. The animations are fun, the units look good, and I personally like the hit point system for conscripts through elite units. But it wouldn't be a tragedy to bring back firepower, or something to make it tougher for older units to compete with modern ones. As it is, the combat system yields silly results too often.
Anyone agree/disagree? (I've got my asbestos long johns on, so save your flamethrower fuel.)
Seriously... a little of the firepower rules from before would be appreciated.
Comment