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

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
Ah yes, the corruption complaint... Have you ever studied history?

If we're going to have corruption be historically accurate why can't combat follow suit? After all being historically/technically accurate adds to the fun right?

[Imran Siddiqui]

What's the point in going through 6000 years of struggle just to end up in second or third place?

What's the point of Civ games? I finish in 2nd or 3rd a lot, and I'm perfectly happy. Not everyone can be 1st!

[CyberGnu]

Hmm, are you sure? I went back over my posts and did not find ONE that was directed at you, unless you were in the group that I labelled as "whiners" because they had generic complaints about how bad the game was without actual examples of what was specifically broken, ways to improve the game or because their favorite "pet" strategies didn't work from Civ2 to Civ3.

Yeah, I actually did count myself amongst the 'whiners', because I've done a lot of the complaining on these forums...

Who has been complaining? All the people whining about corruption and the fact they can't steamroll the AI with 5 tanks anymore.

For corruption, how is that equated with wanting civ 2 back? I don't mind corruption as long as there is
1) a reasonable way to deal with it and
2) Some resemblance of logic in it.

Sure, overseas colonies didn't contribute much to the production of the mother empire, that is true. But that didn;t mean they starved to death because they didn;t feel like building temples to make themselves happy...

The best way to deal with it in my mind is to split up corruption in two parts: One on production, which should be WASTLY reduced, and one on commerce that should be applied only on the net income.

Example: Let's say we have a city which right now has 99% corr. In base, it has 5 production, 5 commerce. It has one temple (upkeep 1) and one library (upkeep 1). Without any corr, it should have 5 production and 3 income, right? with corr, it has 1 production and -1 income.

Instead, I think it should have 4 production, maybe 3 if you're in a bad goverment. The income should have say, 40% corruption but only on the income after paying for upkeep. Cause quite frankly, England never paid for churches in Virginia... So, the actual income is (5 - 2) * (1 - 0.4) = 1.8, rounded off to 2.

I mean, what are the people doing with all that production going to waste? In most cases it is used to develop their own lives instead of contributing to the Empire... but this is not reflected in the game. Instead it is just wasted.


As for the tanks part, I don't think I've seen anyone complain about that... there has been a LOT of complaints about how the combat system is broken, however. They are not in any way equivalent, however, and the reason I insulted the size of your private parts is because it does piss me off when the legitimate complaints about this is being waved off as an incapability to deal with new tactics. It's not a question of new tactics... It's a bad implementation of a combat system, period. And the fact that I've learned to use the flaws at the expense of the AI is jsut making things worse.

It would be like accusing the people who complained about the ICS tactic in civ 2 of not being able to change their tactics from civ 1... Which doesn't really make sense, does it?

How was culture poorly implemented? Because cities convert/revert without some warning? Because it takes to long to get enough culture? What & why is this broken in your view? What specific things would help make it better? Be part of the solution and not merely complain if you really want to make a difference.

Well, the fact that a library expands my borders while a barracks doesn't... That all by itself tells you that the whole culture thing wasn't all that well thought out in the first place.

The assimilation of cities depending on the surrounding culture wasn't either particulary well thought out. If the AI builds a city right in the middle of your empire, yes, he should lose it eventually. If a border town from one civ goes over to another after a few hunderd years of cultural influence, sure, that's fine. But when I've just conquered another city there is no possibility of a peaceful transfer back to the old civ... Not even of a successful revolt. Come on, how many times in history has a nations army been crushed and the civilians threw of the occupiers instead... Without any losses to themselves, I might add.

I've already written extensively on this in other threads, though, so I didn't think I had to repeat it again...

In civ 2 I always used monarchy, for example... Not to mention a few flings with fanatism/fascism for war. But monarchy is effectively gone in civ 3, since it takes the same time to develop republic... and fanatism is gone, while communism is worse than democracy even in war. Ironically, the only good thing with communism is if you have to deal with corruption on the fringes of a big empire...

Combat "reeks"? Why? Because Firaxis balanced the game so that if you didn't have one of the resoucres to make modern units you wouldn't automatically lose the game? This seems fair to me.

Umm, breaking one thing to fix another badly thought out things isn't exactly good. First off, resources. The way it works now is pitiful. Snd it doens't have to be so hard... A second currency should be a LOT easier to deal with than a lot of other concepts. How about requiring the expenditure of one oil unit for every attack you do with your tank? And each oilpatch will give you, say, 10 units per turn. You could stockpile your oil for a big offensive, or trade it for cash.

Then do similar things for the other resources. If you only grow ten horses per turn, you can only build ten cavalry. If you only have one uranium patch, you can only maintain ten nuclear plants, make two nukes or run four nuclear subs. It's not that different from money after all... It's just that it would be used in production, upkeep and perhaps actions.

BTW, what idiot came up with salpeter? You get salpeter from urine and dung... It's sulphur that is the scarce resource...

If you want more info why the battlesystem doen;t work as it should, check out the other thread on the matter.

Oh, one more thing... Armies does NOT constitute a stacked combat system... It's just a way to create one more powerful unit. That the cost of this (wasting one leader, and sacrificing three attacks for one) are way to high to justify ever doing it makes the whole thing a lot worse.

Although I hated CTP, they did get the combat system right. Combined arms was essential not only to offense but also to defense. It was beautiful.

Of course Firaxis doesn;t have to include a single thing from the list... but why NOT include some of the best features from it, unless they just didn;t care about the projects? It looks like they hired AI programmers and graphics artists, mainly... Adding game designers as an afterthought.

Sorry, not projecting, just missed the meaning of what you said.

Why abolish warfare after the Nuke? It still rages even in the world today. Although I do wish they had made the Manhattan project a MINOR wonder instead.

Well, maybe I should have said 'after two countries has the nuke'. IT's MAD, that's why... A country today can't afford to go to large scale war with another nuclear nation. India and Pakistan are at war, but making VERY sure they don't escalate it... Because as soon as one of them appears to be loosing, both sides know the loser would nuke the winner...

Maybe the concept of 'proxy wars' could be implemented... Using only armies from newly conquered cities, for example, representing not integral parts of your empire but instead 'close allies', just like Russia used Cuban soliders for most of their wars in the 60's. No one would argue that Cuba was part of the Soviet Empire, but it is nevertheless clear that in Civ3 Cuba should be treated as such, and not as an independent nation...

Finally, it is not the complexity that bothers me... It's when they don't make sense I get annoyed....

[WhiteElephants]

Umm, breaking one thing to fix another badly thought out things isn't exactly good. First off, resources. The way it works now is pitiful. Snd it doens't have to be so hard... A second currency should be a LOT easier to deal with than a lot of other concepts. How about requiring the expenditure of one oil unit for every attack you do with your tank? And each oilpatch will give you, say, 10 units per turn. You could stockpile your oil for a big offensive, or trade it for cash.

Then do similar things for the other resources. If you only grow ten horses per turn, you can only build ten cavalry. If you only have one uranium patch, you can only maintain ten nuclear plants, make two nukes or run four nuclear subs. It's not that different from money after all... It's just that it would be used in production, upkeep and perhaps actions.

Or perhaps, they just made the units more competitive with one another by making the offensive and defensive numbers closer assuming that the player would realize that while he didn't have sufficent resources to build entire units of said unit he had enough to suppliment his dated units with comparitive weapons, but fell short of a fully modern unit and thus is refelcted in the fact that the dated units numbers and movement are somewhat lower and thereby avoided uneccessary complexities of every civilization needing the exact resource and technology required to reamain competitive.

I'm still waiting for the most technologically advanced country to conquer the world, by the way.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Am I that good or are you guys that bad ?
CyberShy

Neither. Because you overlooked something:

The problem exists mostly on small maps. Try your approach on a tiny map, and you will see what I mean.

I guess corruption is ok on large/huge maps, but it needs to be fixed on tiny (and perhaps small) maps.

[Howling Chip]

[SIZE=1] .

It seems to me that, in the case of Civ3, overall balance was the the driving force behind the game design and the achievement of that meant taking away the powerful toys (nukes) and toning down the disparity between units (techno debate). It also introduced corruption, culture and resources. And that is what makes the game so damn compelling for me. You are forced to be on your toes from A-Z, there is no easy victory. The game has been remarkably balanced throughout my five games on regent.

Zap

I share this sentiment in that it describes why I've found CIV III enjoyable. I think the scenario/mod and MP community are still owed one from Firaxis. Other than that, whether you like the game or not comes down to what you liked about playing CIV II and SMAC.

[UnBiased]

The concerns most people are mentioning are so ridiculously trivial. "Oh, it doesn't have a tech poster." "Oh, there's no multi-player." "We can't work scenarios yet." "It's too different from Civ II."
Granted, I have never been much into multi-player, but I downloaded and enjoyed quite a few Civ II scenarios, so I am somewhat disappointed that Civ III shipped without them. However, I expect that scenarios will be available within a couple of months. Until then, I am simply enjoying playing the single-player version of the game.
It also seems to me as though many of you are complaining simply because your Civ II strategies do not work as well in Civ III. For example, the problem with corruption boils down to the fact that Civ III is a different game and must be played accordingly. I, for one, would have been extraordinarily disappointed had Civ III shipped and been exactly like Civ II.
Bottom line--this game is the best Civ game ever. It clearly surpasses both Civ I and II, and, importantly, keeps the addictivity factor alive. I expect that both Firaxis and the gaming community will continue to expand and improve the game, and it will become a classic just like its two predecessors.

[n.c.]

Originally posted by Max Webster
Yeah NoClue returned the game so what does he care?

I stated my reason for starting this thread. However, just because I returned my $64 LE beta test doesn't mean I have given up on the game forever (almost, though). Besides, I enjoy tweaking the Firaxis fundies.

Originally posted by LaRusso
you already started a thread like this. when are you opening the third whinefest?

The little lock icon means a thread is closed.

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Well Steve and others, why are you spending time defending the game?

If we who complain about the game are just crackpot whiners, why not just let us be? the 'whining threads' would disappear from the first page, and no one would care.

Or is it that n.c. hit the nail on the head with his theory on what whining about the whiners entail?

I just thought some of you might enjoy re-reading this!

[Venger]

Re: Reading is fundamental

Originally posted by zapperio


Man, I wish you learned to argue without putting people down. It would make your arguments seem that much stronger. As is you come across as a...nah that could be seen as an insult.

Sorry, but I find patronization as offensive as name calling. He patronized, and got it returned in kind.

But to answer your question: Yes. You ruled if you won the game as it is, last time I checked, the object of the game.

The point was really to ruling the world through more than military means - but that ruling the world was how you won. Well, launching into space from a small Civ wins the game but certainly doesn't qualify as ruling.

Venger

[Venger]

The days of wonder...

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Finally, why would I go for RTS game forums? I've been playing TBS games since I had an Amiga.

My first real TBS game was Civilization on my Amiga. For nostalgia sometimes I boot WinUAE and play Civ, just to hear the Roman Anthem when I get a tech...hehe, I just loaded it and am listening now.

God, I loved those days! Remember actually WAITING a couple minutes for world generation? Ah...the halcyon days...I just founded my city. Remember the wagon trains arriving and setting up camp? God - Civ is the oldest of the games but was so fresh at the time, I can still remember all the wonder of it...

TBS is still my game of choice, and it deeply saddens me that Civ 3 is a step back from Civ 2 in terms of sheer enjoyment.

Sigh...could be. I still have hope though that thorough patching can get a game worthy of the lineage. Both Civ and Civ2 were watershed masterpieces...

Venger

[n.c.]

Re: Re: Reading is fundamental

Originally posted by Venger
He patronized, and got it returned in kind.

Damn, that's spooky- I just said essentially the same thing to zap on another thread.

[zapperio]

Yeah, I've got my eye on Venger too. Bad, bad boy, Venger.

Zap

[Venger]

Pay no attention to the man who should be in restraints...

Originally posted by Ozymandous
Tell me, what's the difference between a unit with 2 offence and a firepower of 10 and a unit with 10 offense and a firepower of 2?

You will get different damage results than with more reasonable firepower units - and hit points also matter. You'll see units never damaged by the combat, or units annihilated by them. Sometimes the 10 firepower unit will never score a hit, and hence leave the opposition untouched. Other times it may score a hit on the first strike round, leaving it unscathed. It does affect how combat works.

And what, SPECIFIC, diplomatic feature did they not include from SMAC?

The ability to have one ask a Civ to influence another on your behalf?

Why should they include anything from SMAC? Because it was the "logical successor" to Civ2? Or because they are done by the same company?

Because they are the same basic type of game, and SMAC included many innovations? Because it would make a better game?

Ok.. So what's broken on the Manhattan project? Seems to work almost exactly as it did in Civ2.

Which is precisely the problem. Dude, I REMOVED the Manhattan Project from Civ2, along with Nukes, because the game didn't handle them properly. Bulding Manhattan shouldn't give EVERYONE the ability to build nukes - it should be a minor wonder.

Hmm, planes sinking ships, wlel based on how overpowered air superiority was in SMAC I believe Firaxis said they decided to tone it down some so people would actually HAVE TO MAKE ground units.

That's what I heard. I never played SMAC all that much, I ditched it when the planet started talking to me...

Seems balanced from a game standpoint to me, even when using a carrier you attack with planes to soften the enemy ships and finish them off with your own naval ships that *should* accompany your carriers.

Well you're not going to like it when they patch this...

Airbases? What about them? They were deemed unneeded and so taken out of the game. Gee I guess folks can't surround their cities with airbases now and get max resources and invulnerability from air units now.

Yeah, thats called a bug, genius.

I believe air units have the range to attack most anything in the game from cities and where they can't attack from a city the player has the option of using an aircraft carrier. Seems balanced to me.

What about an airbase unbalances the game?

Oh, I can see foward and backward "progress", but unlike you I accept changes to see how they work, I don't blindly lash out because some features I might have liked were removed.

No, you're apparently just blind...

Hmm, try ruling the world with cheap consumer goods? Hmm, how about these examples...

Big Mac's
Coca-cola
Levi's
Nike

So does the presence of multinational corporations allow the US to rule the world? No. Are you arguing we should enjoy playing a game where we build a Golden Arches wonder to win the game? Please...

Get the idea yet? Oh, and for the record, ruling the world is but ONE way to WIN the game. You know, the ultimate goal, to WIN the game?? Sure you CAN rule the world but it's not the ONLY way to win, and if you DO choose to try to rule the world then you have to accept the limitations to that, like cities not being as productive as your home cities and foreign citizens not liking your beating on the rest of their folks. Just using WWII for example, I think the game matches this scenario pretty well.

Well sure, WW2 covered all of about 5 turns of game time. How about expanding your horizons to see how the Roman, Ottoman, and other empires ruled disparate lands for hundreds of years and manged to eke out more than one shield per turn? And I also believe that France manged to produce quite a bit during WW2... while occupied by the Germans.

Oh, and for the record, you almost made it one whole post without beinbg personally insulting. Congratulations, you're almost out of the grade school mentality, try harder next time you just might succeed.

For the record, your patronizing hasn't taken a break, you are still acting like a jerk.

Venger

[DinoDoc]

Idiot

Originally posted by UnBiased
The concerns most people are mentioning are so ridiculously trivial. "Oh, it doesn't have a tech poster."

Yeah those silly people paying 64$ expecting to get their money's worth and actually get some decent goddies. How dare they!

"Oh, there's no multi-player."

Check out the jackal.txt file in your Civ3 root directory to see proof that this was to have been included in the game.

"We can't work scenarios yet."

Before calling concerns such as this one, I would take a look at the list of advertised features on the back of the box.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Ozymandous

Ah yes, the corruption complaint... Have you ever studied history? How about Rome and Russia?

Yes, have you? Corruption in Russia was far worse after the fall of communism than it ever was during it. Production fell, real income fell, real standard of living fell, life expectancy fell. So, what was keeping all of that together? The strength of empire.

Even England and it's far flung empire.

Yeah, those loafers in Hong Kong never could get any production going...

Have you ever heard how poorly their outflung colonies and cities did because they were so far away from the capital that the people essentially did what they wanted? How about the French underground during WW2. All of these are valid reasons on why corruption is modelled as it is. Although I do think there should be another city improvement to help with corruption I don't see it as "game crippling" as you and others apparently think it is.

Because you have a disdain for conquest. There is no real world correlation between what happens to conquered lands in Civ3 and what happens to conquered lands. Are you telling me the citizens of a conquered city really don't want a hospital, an aqueduct, a granary, a marketplace, all because you took it from some other owner? If anything history shows cities just keep on keeping on despite a change in ownership.

Of course we could always go back to the "conquer enemy city in one turn, and they have a WLTKD event the next turn", that was *really* balanced and realistic, sure.

Who said that? Go read my thread on WLTPD being a game crutch. I have lauded the concepts in Civ3 of both quelling resisters and acculturation. But the system has serious flaws - cities revert and you lose a great number of units you stationed there. What sense does that make?

Firaxis appears to have went with the "simpler is better" approach which is better, IMHO.

Yeah, I'll buy that you appreciate the simple...

Firaxis never said they would use ANY of the issues on the list, yet some made it in. Resources, and even stacked combat (that's what ARMIES are for) made it in.

Try putting your army on a ship. Oh, cannot. Yeah, that's not broken. I guess the face that launched 1000 ships launched 1000 empty ones...

You like how you could play and beat Civ2 and because Civ3 is different you didn't enjoy it.

How limp. I enjoyed Civ for what it was, and Civ2 for what it was. Civ3 was named...Civ3 - it is a game in the same tradition. Nobody asked for the same game, we asked for a better game, and we have yet to get it delivered.

Seriously I am asking because most of the people that have been complaining seem to like the simpler, yet broken, aspects of Civ2 & SMAC over Civ3.

Both of those games had systems that worked better than Civ3 in many ways. Combat models, diplomacy models, etc. Which is why we bring them up when expecting Civ3 to build on these, not regress from them.

Venger