I gotta ask: What were they thinking?

[Brutus66]

There have been several good ideas and well thought-out replies to my original thread.

I have come to a few conclusions over the past few days:

A lot of folks have put in a good bit of their time in putting together wish lists and suggestions for what they would have liked to have seen in this game. These are Firaxis' customers- the ones who are financing this game. Seems to me a heck of lot of their input ended up in the company's recycle bin.

Like it or not, this game is the best of the genre at this time, and we are basically stuck with it whether you love or hate it- no patches are really going to cure all the shortcomings. Maybe we just expected too much.

I don't think we will be getting the game we really want until it is created by someone as a work of love rather than being motivated by money. Someone who approaches the community and asks THEM what they want in the game and how they want it to work. Not a company that hides and refuses to respond to the folks that are buying the product (see the Open Letter to Firaxis thread).

[TheDarkside]

Nice discussion on subs. If I were able to, I'd make subs fit into the game alot easier by doing the following things:

1. Create a new overlay for underwater units, which disallows normal above water units to attack underwater units (sort of like how ships cannt attack ground units [in the traditional sense])

2. Give subs a bombard attack, which affects units on above water layer. When a sub attacks a ship, it fires according to its ROF (Rate of Fire) and allow it to sink the ship if it's hit is powerful enough.

3. When a sub encounters another sub, they fight according to their regular attack/defense values.

4. Subs have "ZOC" where they get free shots at any unit passing by them or *ON THEM

*- Any above water units can occupy the same ocean tile as a sub and not know it


Unfortunately we cant make these changes with civ3's current modding support...

[Mauibound]

I have had the game for about a week and have not advanced very far yet, but some of the choices made by the developers have really begun to bother me. This has been especially true with respect to certain features which were in CIV2 and SMAC and which I can not understand why they eliminated. My list, so far:

1. In the diplomacy screen, you can not access either the civopedia or the world map. How to know whether you want an offered advance or what city might be on the table?

2. I agree with comments in various threads about espionage. It has too much of a backseat now and is WAY too expensive. At the very least, you should be able to try to "steal" technology very cheap -- ok, it might cause a war, but you should be able to try to attempt it.

3. The wonder system is now maddening. The decision to eliminate ways to "rush" wonders was crazy. I can understand possibly making it more difficult than it used to be.. but eliminating it to the extent of only allowing it to be done with leaders is crazy -- first off, it forces you to go to war. Second, it eliminates your ability to "beat" another civilization to the key wonder you want unless you play the game PERFECTLY. All that work for nothing is very frustrating; even more so, because (as noted in this thread), you will lose all those extra shields unless you are able immediately to switch production to another wonder. (Also, I miss the wonder movies -- they should add a utility to allow you to download the movies from CIV2 -- but that is actually a minor point). More important is that when a wonder is built, you don't even get a screen telling you what it does!

4. The manual is soooo inferior to the CIV2 and SMAC manual, it isn't even funny. It does not give you half the guidance as to how the game "works." The joy of Civilization is figuring out the system, experimenting with it and then trying to beat it... Civilization should not be an adventure game, where you try to figure out the rules as you play.

ok.. thats my gripe list.. I'm not as concerned about the warrior beating a battleship thing.. I agree with some commentators that any person could get lucky-- as long as it does not happen consistently. I do think the idea of an attack or defense "modifier" when a unit from one age comes up against a unit of another age is a good idea though.

All in all, I am enjoying CIV3, but I feel like a lot of the options to play anyway I wanted from the earlier games has been taken away. It is really hard to stay competitive in the science race and thus I tend to find myself gonig to war a lot more than I used to-- especially b/c that is the ONLY way to get a leader, which you need to rush wonders or create armies-- which you will need later on if you don't want to get crushed. (Why can't leaders be created without battle by extra-happy large cities?). Also, the culture system is way overrated- its kind of neat, but does not add a lot to gameplay.

Still, the AI, resource system and new trade/diplomacy interface are extremely good additions. I just wish they had not "lost" so much of what was good about the earlier games in an effort to be new.

Mauibound

[Imran Siddiqui]

The wonder system is now maddening. The decision to eliminate ways to "rush" wonders was crazy. I can understand possibly making it more difficult than it used to be.. but eliminating it to the extent of only allowing it to be done with leaders is crazy -- first off, it forces you to go to war. Second, it eliminates your ability to "beat" another civilization to the key wonder you want unless you play the game PERFECTLY. All that work for nothing is very frustrating; even more so, because (as noted in this thread), you will lose all those extra shields unless you are able immediately to switch production to another wonder.

I actually like this part. Makes the construction of wonders harder. I remember in Civ2, basically making all the wonders, now it is a challenge!

I just wish they had not "lost" so much of what was good about the earlier games in an effort to be new.

I don't think it is that. Simply that it is a totally new programming team than Civ2 OR SMAC, remember.

[Zylka]

Building wonders has become such a gamble, involving no skill or planning. It's just another luck variable that will screw multiplayer over bigtime.

[Bolleck70]

I wouldnt change combat so much. Why not Auto-upgrade any acient units to something like "submilitary groups" or "Partisanen" when the first player enters the modern ages.
Not as well as Infantry, but able to "hurt" modern units.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Building wonders has become such a gamble, involving no skill or planning.

Better than cheating or buying it.

In the meanwhile, increase your shield production in that city by mines.

[Zylka]

Tehehehe...

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

In the meanwhile, increase your shield production in that city by mines.

What we have here, is a civ genius!#@$D$#@

[Zylka]

Doesn't anyone think that the whole great leader concept is a bit hardcore for the luck factor? On the one hand you have to work for them, but on the other it basically hands out wonders on a near random basis. Hoping for that last card to complete a match for 75 armies in risk comes to mind... This kind of thing should be an on/off option for multiplayer.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Zylka
Doesn't anyone think that the whole great leader concept is a bit hardcore for the luck factor? On the one hand you have to work for them, but on the other it basically hands out wonders on a near random basis. Hoping for that last card to complete a match for 75 armies in risk comes to mind... This kind of thing should be an on/off option for multiplayer.

Another idea: The leader gives you half of the shields for any wonder, so he can instantly finish a half-finished wonder, or half-finish a new one.

Another bug: Longbowmen attack equals Rifleman attack, but Longbowmen are way cheaper. Which makes them better attackers than Rifles in the Industrial Era. Same with Immortals. Nuff said.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Zylka
Building wonders has become such a gamble, involving no skill or planning. It's just another luck variable that will screw multiplayer over bigtime.

So theres no thinking involved when you start building wonders??
First, you should compare how fast you can produce it to the enemies potential to build it. Perhaps they have started building it already, say 3 turns ago. Its fairly simple to work out how much production is done, and how long it will take them to build it.
Now, if your city will build it first, then thats all you need do. If they will build it first, then you need to prevent or delay their production. Some sabotage works well here, or a tactical strike on that city, or other cities in their empire will force them to abandon production in order to defend themselves.
A third option is to get other civs to declare war on the target civ, again forcing them to defend themselves rather than build a wonder.
But it is important to note that a civ cant rush a wonder without a leader, and they cant get a leader without a war. So if they arent at war, then they cant rush a wonder.

Doesnt rely totally on luck

[Zylka]

It relies more on luck than it did in civ2s already flawed model. Another step backwards? How surprising.