I'm getting the impression this game is not a worthy successor to civ I and II

[Robert]

It's because I'm playing a conquest game and hitting the max limit on cities.

I think playing a conquest game results in having corrupted cities.
That's not so strange I think. Of course it's not nice, you would prefer to conquer the world while the people are happily loving you in their houses...... but I think that would be quiet surrealistic.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by CyberShy
with 'fatal' bug I mean: It really matters.
the interception bug is fatal to gameplay.

Still love the game very much though
Ray K, I remember we were fighting about corruption.....
I see you changed mind

A "fatal" bug would be exactly that - fatal to the software involved, as in the software would be unusable. Civ3 is usable as released; it has no fatal bugs. The interception bug is best classified as "serious", meaning there is no reasonable work-around.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Ray K
It's because I'm playing a conquest game and hitting the max limit on cities.

hint: everyone needs to rework their civ2 strategies
IT'S A NEW GAME!!!

[Special_K]

Originally posted by Ray K


Corruption is still a huge problem if you expect any productivity out of your captured cities. I just let them grow slowly and feed the war machine from my core cities.

It would probably be better to raze them instead.

The problem is if you raze they citys the expansion happy AI goes in and builds cities in between the few you do decide to keep.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MisterMuppet

Great a November Whinefest, and me just back from Munich last month. Now where did I put my Stein.

The Beaujolais Nouveau are just coming out.

[Robert]

A "fatal" bug would be exactly that - fatal to the software involved

yeah yeah, you're right.
you know what I mean, don't you ?

[jones]

The jury's still out on this puppy. Maybe I'm just jaded, but when I play SMAC and civ2 they offer just as many FUN strategies as they always did.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by MarkG
hint: everyone needs to rework their civ2 strategies
IT'S A NEW GAME!!!

Oh please. That is already such a tired, old argument.

This game is called CIVILIZATION for a reason. It is the third in a series of world conquest games. It is reasonable to expect there to be some similarities. Sure, tactics will change but the overall point of the game should remain the same. My tactics for conquest in Civ3 are unlike what I used in Civ2.

If they repackaged Warcraft and called it Civilization 4, would you be singing the same tune?

Quit apologizing for Firaxis. They goofed with the corruption levels and have essentially admitted so by saying that they will be addressing it in a patch. There's nothing wrong with mistakes as long as they are identified and corrected.

[MarkG]

at some point we will have to decide if we want a new game or the same game with better graphics....

btw, civ is an empire managment game, not a world conquest one...

[The Templar]

Originally posted by MarkG
at some point we will have to decide if we want a new game or the same game with better graphics....

btw, civ is an empire managment game, not a world conquest one...

No, it's both.

[Robert]

No, it's not both. MarkG is right.
Sometimes war is needed to mange your empire.
But the more war you will make, the less you'll be able to manage your empire (corruption)

It's a personal decision, you can play civ3 the way you want.
But it's not a world conquest game.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by CyberShy
No, it's not both. MarkG is right.
Sometimes war is needed to mange your empire.
But the more war you will make, the less you'll be able to manage your empire (corruption)

It's a personal decision, you can play civ3 the way you want.
But it's not a world conquest game.

Civ is not an empire management game! Managing your empire ismerely the means to world conquest.

This is not a chicken and egg argument, either. World conquest has always been a victory condition for the game. In the original game, you could thwart your enemy's launching of the spaceship by MILITARILY taking his capital. In the original game, the UN allowed you to strategically declare war and peace -- a military benefit.

Even cultural assimilation in Civ3 is merely another means for capturing your opponent's cities. Conquest is what this game is and has always been about. Managing your empire to produce optimal science, production and food has always been a means to further conquest.

If you just want to manage resources, then SimCity is the game for you.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Ray K
World conquest has always been a victory condition for the game.

but NOT the only one...

even more, civ3 adds more victory conditions...

In the original game, you could thwart your enemy's launching of the spaceship by MILITARILY taking his capital.

irrelevant....

In the original game, the UN allowed you to strategically declare war and peace -- a military benefit.

irrelevant as well

Even cultural assimilation in Civ3 is merely another means for capturing your opponent's cities.

or you can say that capturing cities is a way to increase your culture

Conquest is what this game is and has always been about. Managing your empire to produce optimal science, production and food has always been a means to further conquest.

If you just want to manage resources, then SimCity is the game for you.

if you dont like managing resources, go play warcraft....

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by MarkG
hint: everyone needs to rework their civ2 strategies
IT'S A NEW GAME!!!

Everyone needs to have this tattooed to their foreheads.

As with every new game that is truly new, there will be some things that we will like and somethings that we won't. Expecting to like everything or whining to get them to change it to what you perceive is right, is not going to happen, nor should it happen.

[zapperio]

I have to go with the empire management argument vs the world conquest one as it is the only way to explain a really fun game I had as the Indians on regent. On normal Pangea w8 civs I was landlocked and surrounded by 5 civs. I never went to war, I never had to defend my cities and I had only some of the strategic resources. By the end of the game I was on top in culture, pop, tech and second in land.

I spent the game trading, building my empire, racing for wonders and manipulating the AI to attack each other to free up land and waste resources. One of the best games I've had so far and a game that showed me just how far we've come since Civ2.

Zap