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

[Stuie]

Originally posted by CyberShy


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

Yes. Sorry. I work in software testing.

[Velociryx]

Just saw this thread and had to chime in on the side of Civ as an Empire-Building game, rather than a war game.

Want to play a wargame? Check out pretty much anything ever designed by Gary Grigsby. THAT, my friends, is a war game. It's all about command radius of leaders, armor types, firepower ratios, unit support and supply...tons of stuff that just are not a part (by design, I might add!) of the Civ series.

And you know what, they're a helluva lot of fun to play!

Certainly warfare plays a role in the creation and maintenance of most (not necessarily all, but admittedly, most) empires, but it is not the end-all, be-all, and should not be. That's why, from the very first civ, there were other things to do besides just bash the AI civs. It was an attempt at capturing the feel of creating and managing an empire, and *everything* that went along with that. A splash of warfare, a LOT of resource management (especially in this latest incarnation), and now...the recognition of national culture as a viable, valuable force in the game.

Wargame = Gary Grigsby
Empire Building Game = Sid Meier

Check out the latest Grigsby title....the differences will be readily apparent.



-=Vel=-

[CyberGnu]

Ozy: And I think they who insists that people who are complaining do so because they can't figure out new strategies are compensating for their fantastically small penis size.

Shall we try going back to constructive arguments?

Velociryx et al., I agree completely. Civ is an Empire building game. I wouldn't mind at all if large scale warfare was abolished completely after the invention of the nuke. Let's trade each other out of existance instead...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well... uh... I like this game

Except for the scenario editors being a bit broken, I have little complaints. I'd like Firaxis to fix the bug that made my first save game corrupt, but all in all, a very fun game. That one more turn feeling is definetly back.

And corruption is supposed to be majorly crippling. Firaxis is changing it, because people are complaining so much, not because they think it is broken.

And yes, Civ is an empire building game, NOT a wargame.

[MarkG]

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

are you talking to me?

well, if you are, i'm not defending anything, i'm just posting my opinion just like everyone else...

[MarkG]

Re: Very curious...

Originally posted by CDN_Harbinger
So I guess my question is: What are all you supposedly happy Civ3 campers wasting time here attacking the "whiners" when you could be playing this 'fantastic' game from Firaxis/Infogrames?

same to you, are you talking to me?

anyway, first of all, i'm not attacking anyone. second, beyond civ3, i enjoy having a good civ discussion every now and then. is there something wrong with that? must one quit his job and play civ3 24 hours/day so that he can convince people that he likes the game?

[CyberGnu]

Mark: yes, yes and yes

Nah, I enjoy a good discussion as well. It's the 'Civ 3 is a new game, get used to the crappy parts' that feels uncalled for.

Not to mention the one I really have learned to hate... 'You just need to figure out new strategies'. Well, I kicked seven AI's a$$ on deity... and I get that kind of vacca feces from people who still play on regent... I don't think you are guilty of that one yet though...

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by GP
I'm getting sick of the blame Brian excuse.

Well, yes, GP, but you must admit there are other excuses that alternate with 'Blame Brian', such as 'Blame Infogrames', 'Blame the Messengers' etc.

[Comrade Tribune]

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

Mark, I have to agree with Ray here:

Lots of Corruption is OK, but 98% is a bit surreal. Razing cities should rarely be the most efficient way to conquer.

Leave Corruption as it is, but increase the benefits of:

1) Courthouses
2) We Love the King Day
3) Being Commercial
4) Communism/Democracy

[TCO]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Well, yes, GP, but you must admit there are other excuses that alternate with 'Blame Brian', such as 'Blame Infogrames', 'Blame the Messengers' etc.

Hee hee. Well there's also the DMV* response. Go send a note to the official help line. We just come by here for useless shmoozing...not to actually answer real questions.

*beaurocratic part of local governement that does drivers licences.

[EnochF]

I'm not ready to say Civ 3 is flat-out worse than Civ 2... and I'm not returning it, either... but I will say that Civ 3 simply does not fit my gaming style.

It seems to be geared toward the power-gamer set, the people who complained that Civ 2 on Deity level was "too easy." Well, Civ 3 is not "too easy." In fact, I find the game very hard on Chieftain level. So hard that I lose interest in playing. What's the point in going through 6000 years of struggle just to end up in second or third place? I've finished only one game, on Chieftain level, with a quick unsatisfying Diplomatic victory (I couldn't win via any other method, except maybe cultural, because I had no uranium or aluminum to build the spaceship). Even on Chieftain level, rivals civs (supposedly suffering from production penalties) routinely outproduce me in settlers and military units, and beat me to the early Wonders.

At this point, I've decided I simply am not good enough at this game. My attitude is "Okay, you win." "Now where's my Test of Time disk?"

However, I will wait for the patch to the editor so that I can at least have fun changing things.

[Venger]

Reading is fundamental

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....

How about a game that builds on the successful foundation of previous games and adds those things missing along with some new things? Do we have to throw out the old imperfect system to create a whole new imperfect system?

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

You know Mark, maybe if you read the box, you'd see the numerous references to RULING THE WORLD. If I want to manage an empire I'll join the bureaucracy...

Venger

[Fidel]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Not to mention the one I really have learned to hate... 'You just need to figure out new strategies'. Well, I kicked seven AI's a$$ on deity... and I get that kind of vacca feces from people who still play on regent... I don't think you are guilty of that one yet though...

haven't you returned the game?

[MarkG]

Originally posted by EnochF
So hard that I lose interest in playing. What's the point in going through 6000 years of struggle just to end up in second or third place?

who said you have to finish your games?

I've finished only one game, on Chieftain level, with a quick unsatisfying Diplomatic victory

are you saying you have played one game or that you have finished one game(but played more)?

However, I will wait for the patch to the editor so that I can at least have fun changing things.

you cant make scenarios, but you can change things now with the current editor.

[MarkG]

Re: Reading is fundamental

Originally posted by Venger
How about a game that builds on the successful foundation of previous games and adds those things missing along with some new things?

one thing of the things missing: conquering half the world in 50 years and having problems or resistense from the conquered population

You know Mark, maybe if you read the box, you'd see the numerous references to RULING THE WORLD. If I want to manage an empire I'll join the bureaucracy...

it's "empire", not "nation". empire always fought big wars. but empires were not just about wars....