Is it me, or is Civ3 worse then CTP2?

[SkinJob]

Couldn't firaxis just take the GOOD things from ctp2 into civ3, or do they think, that a "non-SID" civ game doesnt deserve to be a part of an "all-new-SID-civ-game"?

i mean, somehow ctp2 was more fun to play.

Look at the combat:
I mean what is an bowman good for, when he must melee in combat? the troops in ctp2 are DEFINITELY better. Get a line of Swordmen in front, and the bowmen in the second row.


Then this Worker stuf, still there from Civ1 (ok in civ1 the settlers done the work), funny thing, sure! but in ~1900 i had 50+ workers, all in auto, man i hate it to wait two minutes just lookin how they move, whitout the posibility to do anything in this time. Why not the same system as in CTP/2, take a percentage fo all shields, make the improvement where you want it, dont look any further.


City managemnet was just so GOOD in ctp2. Simple but effective.
What's with this "you must put your people on that fluffy squares" stuff? wasn't ctp2 just perfect in this? no ppl on squares, it was an average of all squares in the city limits. wasnt this an advantage over civ1/2/ctp? i thought so, at least.

Then this strategical ressources for units? am i to blame if there are any in my citys/civilzation? I reseach them, i found them first, but i can't use them, because i dont have the frciking startegical resources.

and my absolute hate-point for now is this cultural "we dont want to live in your civ, but in the civ, because they cultur admires to us...blah...blah...now we'll take all your military units with us......" thing. How can a city go over to another civ, when the other civ have only a "SETTLER" left, no cities at all. how can a city with more military units in it, then population overtrow the goverment?

why is a civilazation not destroyed when i crush their last city, and they have a little caravel with a settler in it, hiding somewhere on the seas?
And when i find their new city, travel there, destroy it, there is already another ship with a settler on its way!
It's no fun, to invest 20+ hours in a game (Largest Map, Chieftain, 10 civs,two big continents, random map, on one me, the zulu, chinese, japanese, babylonian, and the rest on the other) in which i destroy the zulus, chinese and the japanese til 1800, minimize the babylonians to 1 settler til 1830, and then all my cities just change to babylonian civ, without teh possibility for me to prevent that. And the Raise-it-and-build-new-city-on-same-place-method is not what i really want as a solution.

sometimes i just wonder about the AI. Why does it seem, that even on the easiest difficulty level the cpu controlled civs get an advantage against you? why does the other civs so fast ally against you, but needs a hell-of-a-work to get one to ally with you against other? i mean i played the tutorial, and i got crushed in the moment where three othe rcivs decided to attack me, because i wanted one of them to retreat from my ground?

i dont want to win on deity difficulty, i normaly play my civ games (civ1,ctp,ctp2) the first time on the easiest level to get a feel for it, then take medium to play some games, and thats it. But for Gods sake, when i chosse the easiest level, i want it to be easy.
I played some ctp2 games on middle diff., and they where easier then chieftain in civ3. and only because civ3's AI is just unfair on some things.

And this production queue goes defintely on my nerves, why cant is just stay on the last unit i choose? why have it to switch to another unit, wihtout me wantig this? it just worked so well in ctp/ctp2. (btw, i know they are not from sid, but from activison)

For me it seems like civ3 frustrates me, where ctp2 was fun, why didn't the firaxis guys just took the good things from ctp2 and put them in civ3?

And that what makes my pain in the ass is, i'm addicted to this game, but why have they destroyed the good gameplay by such annoying stuff?

i think i have to wait (and hope) for an add-on cd, with new features.

so "long",

"a frustrated, and somehow dissapointed" SkinJob


P.S. If you dont like my typos and/or my grammar, you are free to -CENSORED- my -CENSORED-, 'coz i jut don't give a -CENSORED-! ;-)

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's just you

While CtP2 sucked, Civ3 is amazingly fun. Thankfully the annoyance that was Public Works is not associated with the Civ series. Resources and Culture dramatically change the game, and for the better. You are frustrated that a resource isn't in your area? Well, that is the plan is it not? You won't be able to have everything. Trade is the key now! What we asked for!

And I actually do like putting my people in to those 'fluffy squares'.

[Saber_Cherry]

!But for Gods sake, when i chosse the easiest level, i want it to be easy.

Finally someone who is honest!

But seriously, I have heard so much bad stuff about CTP2. And yet, every time I look at it, I see things like combined arms assaults that are actually composed of combined arms, at the same time; and building land improvements instead of having to manage 50 settlers (or whatever) for all eternity. It seems very innovative. The only negative things I have heard are "It got so boring".

So, putting aside your negative feelings for Civ3 now (pretend the first patch will come out tomorrow)... would you recommend for someone (like me) to buy CTP2, or CIV3?

(I already own Civ3 but refuse to play it until it is patched, and am considering returning it.)

[SkinJob]

Well i infact really like civ3, but somehow for now its no fun for me. not in this form.

Sure i have not mentioned the good new things, i never said that civ3 sucks, i just said it frustrates me. i also never said that ctp2 has no bad sides on it. but i hoped that civ3 would be sort of a combination of the good things in previous civ (including ctp/2) games.

@Saber_Cherry : If you can get ctp2 for ~10 bucks, it would be "at least" worth a look. it have it weakness, but for me it made more fun, then civ3 is doing now. but then again, that's just my humble opinion.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Saber_Cherry
!But for Gods sake, when i chosse the easiest level, i want it to be easy.

Finally someone who is honest!

But seriously, I have heard so much bad stuff about CTP2. And yet, every time I look at it, I see things like combined arms assaults that are actually composed of combined arms, at the same time; and building land improvements instead of having to manage 50 settlers (or whatever) for all eternity. It seems very innovative. The only negative things I have heard are "It got so boring".

So, putting aside your negative feelings for Civ3 now (pretend the first patch will come out tomorrow)... would you recommend for someone (like me) to buy CTP2, or CIV3?

(I already own Civ3 but refuse to play it until it is patched, and am considering returning it.)

If the "only" negative thing about a game was that it got so boring, I wouldn't play it either.

And hey, why don't YOU try the game since you've already bought it, instead of letting other people make decisions for you.

To SkinJob, I think Imran said what I would have said. To add, Civ III is not a sequel to CTP 2, and is actually quite innovative. There is a lot you have to get used to before you can become good. Except for a few erros (which will hopefully be fixed in the patch) the game works very well.

[Voidman]

Civ 3 has already entertained me more than the CTP series ever did...yes I bought both games hoping for the "civ experience" and never got it.

Also the AI in CTP is so lame... never attacked effectively...very easy to beat and always had a defensive posture...and yes it was boring...and if you have the game and not playing it, your loss.

[genghisvick]

Re: Is it me, or is Civ3 worse then CTP2?

Originally posted by SkinJob
Is it me, or is Civ3 worse then CTP2?

It's just you.

[bondetamp]

What a coincident! I was just thinking how much I missed some of the options in SMAC.

[WhiteElephants]

and my absolute hate-point for now is this cultural "we dont want to live in your civ, but in the civ, because they cultur admires to us...blah...blah...now we'll take all your military units with us......" thing. How can a city go over to another civ, when the other civ have only a "SETTLER" left, no cities at all. how can a city with more military units in it, then population overtrow the goverment?

I'm sure that one military unit was not intended to be the equivilent, or approximation, of one population point. I imagine that one point of population is above and beyond the entire size of every branch of your military unless, of course, you have exceedingly high conscription percentages.

Edit: For example, if the US military had a million military personel (I don't even think we have half of that, anyone?) it would still only account for roughly 1 and 270 people in the US. So if one population point equals a million people (I don't think that's a real strech) then you'd need 270 military units in that city to equal the cities total population.

[SkinJob]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


I'm sure that one military unit was not intended to be the equivilent, or approximation, of one population point. I imagine that one point of population is above and beyond the entire size of every branch of your military unless, of course, you have exceedingly high conscription percentages.

Ok, agree, but why are they changing? i have far better science and culture then the "one" >Babylonian Settler<, i had twice as the whole babylonian civ on its best point in this game, why are they converting back?

[MonarchyMajor]

I think it is fair to say, alittle both. For the most part, ctp2 was better. It was more realistic. The land scapes and graphics were better. I actaully felt I was a part of the game. Civ 3 is depessing. The world really seems fake.

only good thing about civ3 is its deplomacy. Put that in ctp2 and ctp2 would of been a real winner.

I have had civ 3 since it came out and I haven't played it for 3 streight days now. I just think it is pointless and not rewarding any fashion.

Basically, I don't mind reading about the game here and there, maybe something good will happen. BUt this game is just depressing. The atmosphere is strang, I think firaxis lacks in 3D graphics knowledge. Probably need to hire some more people to help with that. I have yet to see one game by sid where the graphics are really nice

[SkinJob]

@all:

Don't get me worng guys, i LOVE the Civ3, but the things that annoys me (see first post) prevent me to say "YES, Civ3 is FAR better then ctp2". Sure it's no sequel to ctp2, but ctp2 had so much good things, jsut like i forgt to mention the menus, especially the control box in the bottom-right corner.

Or the Hunger message, in civ3 you see it for a short time, when the city scrolls by. if you dont react they will die. In ctp2 there would be an extra window, that reminds you, and warns you, that a citizen will die next turn if you not react.

its sometimes just the small things that makes a game really good.

[Stromprophet]

Re: Is it me, or is Civ3 worse then CTP2?

Originally posted by SkinJob
Couldn't firaxis just take the GOOD things from ctp2 into civ3, or do they think, that a "non-SID" civ game doesnt deserve to be a part of an "all-new-SID-civ-game"?

i mean, somehow ctp2 was more fun to play.

Look at the combat:
I mean what is an bowman good for, when he must melee in combat? the troops in ctp2 are DEFINITELY better. Get a line of Swordmen in front, and the bowmen in the second row.


Then this Worker stuf, still there from Civ1 (ok in civ1 the settlers done the work), funny thing, sure! but in ~1900 i had 50+ workers, all in auto, man i hate it to wait two minutes just lookin how they move, whitout the posibility to do anything in this time. Why not the same system as in CTP/2, take a percentage fo all shields, make the improvement where you want it, dont look any further.


City managemnet was just so GOOD in ctp2. Simple but effective.
What's with this "you must put your people on that fluffy squares" stuff? wasn't ctp2 just perfect in this? no ppl on squares, it was an average of all squares in the city limits. wasnt this an advantage over civ1/2/ctp? i thought so, at least.

Then this strategical ressources for units? am i to blame if there are any in my citys/civilzation? I reseach them, i found them first, but i can't use them, because i dont have the frciking startegical resources.

and my absolute hate-point for now is this cultural "we dont want to live in your civ, but in the civ, because they cultur admires to us...blah...blah...now we'll take all your military units with us......" thing. How can a city go over to another civ, when the other civ have only a "SETTLER" left, no cities at all. how can a city with more military units in it, then population overtrow the goverment?

why is a civilazation not destroyed when i crush their last city, and they have a little caravel with a settler in it, hiding somewhere on the seas?
And when i find their new city, travel there, destroy it, there is already another ship with a settler on its way!
It's no fun, to invest 20+ hours in a game (Largest Map, Chieftain, 10 civs,two big continents, random map, on one me, the zulu, chinese, japanese, babylonian, and the rest on the other) in which i destroy the zulus, chinese and the japanese til 1800, minimize the babylonians to 1 settler til 1830, and then all my cities just change to babylonian civ, without teh possibility for me to prevent that. And the Raise-it-and-build-new-city-on-same-place-method is not what i really want as a solution.

sometimes i just wonder about the AI. Why does it seem, that even on the easiest difficulty level the cpu controlled civs get an advantage against you? why does the other civs so fast ally against you, but needs a hell-of-a-work to get one to ally with you against other? i mean i played the tutorial, and i got crushed in the moment where three othe rcivs decided to attack me, because i wanted one of them to retreat from my ground?

i dont want to win on deity difficulty, i normaly play my civ games (civ1,ctp,ctp2) the first time on the easiest level to get a feel for it, then take medium to play some games, and thats it. But for Gods sake, when i chosse the easiest level, i want it to be easy.
I played some ctp2 games on middle diff., and they where easier then chieftain in civ3. and only because civ3's AI is just unfair on some things.

And this production queue goes defintely on my nerves, why cant is just stay on the last unit i choose? why have it to switch to another unit, wihtout me wantig this? it just worked so well in ctp/ctp2. (btw, i know they are not from sid, but from activison)

For me it seems like civ3 frustrates me, where ctp2 was fun, why didn't the firaxis guys just took the good things from ctp2 and put them in civ3?

And that what makes my pain in the ass is, i'm addicted to this game, but why have they destroyed the good gameplay by such annoying stuff?

i think i have to wait (and hope) for an add-on cd, with new features.

so "long",

"a frustrated, and somehow dissapointed" SkinJob


P.S. If you dont like my typos and/or my grammar, you are free to -CENSORED- my -CENSORED-, 'coz i jut don't give a -CENSORED-! ;-)

OUT!!!!!!!!!!!! DEMONS OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How much have you played Civ really? I've played 10 plus years now. CTP, CTP2 are pieces of shiest from amateurs.

They should not even be compared to any game that firaxis makes.

Here's the problem with CTP in general. 1 and 2. Public works, is the dumbest idea ever, when it is implemented, it doesn't work. In CTP2 it was always hard to get a big empire quick enough. And plus the overspecialization of units made the game crap.

I mean, they unit hopped with every new tech. And once you got into the future? Layers, is a hard idea to sustain. Noble attempt, bud badly made.

CTP2 combat was retarded. Countless reports of the infamous phalanx/catapult army killing of fusion tanks. Number of armies was not limited either. Which made some mayham.

Another thing. CTP2 scenarios, were so sad. They weren't even comparable to the lamest civ II scenarios. The unit movement was tedious, I had groups and if I wanted to watch the cool animations they had move in slowmow.

I played both CTP, CTP2, and I'm sorry there was nothing good about those games. It was a terrible waste of money.

[Sabre2th]

Is it just me or were all of those complaints kinda pointless? You're just complaining that the game takes too much work. The whole point of the game is to challenge yourself, to make yourself think. That's always been the point of civ. If you don't want to think and work for it, go play something else.

[SkinJob]

Re: Re: Is it me, or is Civ3 worse then CTP2?

Originally posted by Stromprophet


OUT!!!!!!!!!!!! DEMONS OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How much have you played Civ really? I've played 10 plus years now. CTP, CTP2 are pieces of shiest from amateurs.

They should not even be compared to any game that firaxis makes.

Oh yes, get me an exorcist, i need to distinguishe the demon that i got obsessed by. Btw, i can't remember playing any game for ten years, and there where many games, between my c64/atari2600 and my pc/ps2/gc days now. The Civilization Box (Amiga) still has a honor place between the other numerous gameboxes on my attic, next to the Colonization package. And if i cram long enough i'll find that damned SMAC box.

Here's the problem with CTP in general. 1 and 2. Public works, is the dumbest idea ever, when it is implemented, it doesn't work. In CTP2 it was always hard to get a big empire quick enough.

I never had problems with PW in ctp nor ctp2. it always worked fine for me, and i STILL see it as an improvment over the old system from civ1/2. And a big empire maybe was not always the best to go on, at least we saw it from the roman empire.

And plus the overspecialization of units made the game crap.

I mean, they unit hopped with every new tech. And once you got into the future? Layers, is a hard idea to sustain. Noble attempt, bud badly made.

Well how about you just product new units, as in reality, you cant just upgrade your catapult to a canon, you have to build a new one. And if your army is not up-to-date, well you see what happens with the taliban-guys in afghanistan right now?

CTP2 combat was retarded. Countless reports of the infamous phalanx/catapult army killing of fusion tanks. Number of armies was not limited either. Which made some mayham.

Oh yes, you're right, the Civ 3 Reports of spearmen hiding in the mountains and destroying modern tanks, well thats more funny, and for sure, it's more realistic.

On the other side where combat in ctp1 infact was broken, in ctp2 i have not seen so many of such glitches.

Another thing. CTP2 scenarios, were so sad. They weren't even comparable to the lamest civ II scenarios. The unit movement was tedious, I had groups and if I wanted to watch the cool animations they had move in slowmow.

I played both CTP, CTP2, and I'm sorry there was nothing good about those games. It was a terrible waste of money.

What you say about scenarios, may be true. But to be honest i never payed attention to scenarios. For me there is only one scenario, the civ scenario, play from the year 4000BC on, and build a civilization to stand the test of time!

I'm sorry if ctp/2 was a waste of money for you, i enjoyed playing them, and with the exception of civ3, ctp2 for me IS the best civ game so far. a patched civ3 /w mp, may earn this title then.

so long,

s-j