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

[Ozymandous]

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? Do we have to throw out the old imperfect system to create a whole new imperfect system?

So tell us Venger, what about Civ3 did not "build on the successful foundation of previous games"? Last I checked you still have to build settlers to found cities, build defensive units to protect said cities, build offensive units to show people you aren't a wimp, and build city buildings to either boost your economy, military or science for the empire.

So which of these concepts were left out from Civ2 to Civ3? Last I checked these were indeed the foundation of the game, and all were included in Civ3. In addition to armies, unique units, culture, small wonders and resources.

Seems like they did keep the foundation and did add new stuff, but maybe just not the new stuff like you wanted? Is that the problem? Please tell us hat they left out of forgot, then we can talk about hoe these items could be aded and not break the game. How about it?

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...

Hmm, ruling the world. Funny, I always thought this could be done diplomatically and maybe with commercial marketing and the need for your goods by everyone else. Nah, I guess the only "valid" way to "RULE THE WORLD" is through military means, eh?

[Buster13]

Hey, someone mentioned earlier about a commercial and religious civ, of which there are none in the game.

How about the Jewish tradition (I hope I don't offend anyone, as this is certainly not my intent...). I mean, they have a VERY storied history...and even though aside from Isreal they have assimilated into other cultures...this is a game about rewriting history...and CONQUERING THE WORLD!!!!! Just kidding....

Maybe someone could get Ancient or another mod writer to work that into thier mods.

Civ name: either the Hebrews or the Isrealis
Leader: King David ??? I think it's the best choice.
Attributes: Commerical and Religious
Special Unit: Don't know

It would have to be something from either the 12 tribes of Isreal days or something from modern Isreal (pretty much our military).

Anyway, what do you all think?
E

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Dev
So calling someones BS is an offence ?

Please.

On 2nd thoughts that's pretty cool, I can bully people just by threatening to post in their threads

/dev

NO, launching personal insults because their view doesn't match your own is an offense.

Prove how he was wrong through facts and examples, not simply trying to strike out because you think differently than he did. I believe that was what Mark was saying.

[zapperio]

Originally posted by Ozymandous


I never said the game was perfect,

I'll say it. This game is as close to perfect as any I've picked up in the last 5 years or so. Yes, with bugs, warts and all, this game shines. It is just so damn fun to play, and knowing that it will only get better is quite a thrill. Happy, happy, happy, joy, joy, joy. [dances around his office and throws daisies around]

I've probably ruined any chance of people, here, taking me seriously, but do I care? Not really. I've got Civ 3 and it is as good a gaming experiense as most aficionados can hope for. Oh sweet life, grant me plenty hours to sleeplessly waste in Civ 3.

Zap

[Ozymandous]

Heh Zap,

Depends on what you're looking for.

RTS = Age of Kings, Starcraft, Warcraft2
FPS = Half-life, Quake3, Unreal Tourney
TBS = Civ3, SMAC
RPG = Baldurs gate 2, Icewind Dale, Diablo2 (kinda)

Other games not quite fitting into a "specific" category:

Rollercoaster Tycoon, Jagged Alliance 2, Zoo Tycoon.

All these games have something to offer if you don't go into them with only "your" way to win. Thats what makes games fun for me.

[zapperio]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
RTS = Age of Kings, Starcraft, Warcraft2
FPS = Half-life, Quake3, Unreal Tourney
TBS = Civ3, SMAC
RPG = Baldurs gate 2, Icewind Dale, Diablo2 (kinda)

Out of these only SP Half-life comes close in giving me that intense gaming goodness. Though MP Starcraft still holds it's charms. For pure funfactor Civ 3 wins, IMHO, handily, over SMAC and Civ 2. For me, there hasn't been an empire building game that has been so captivating since Sword of Aragorn.

Sleepless nights are here again.

Zap

[zapperio]

I believe that the flare-ups we've been seeing are probably sides of the age old argument between gamers and grognards. Fun vs Realism. Only Grogs argue that realism = fun. We, the less dedicated folk, don't really care about the mechanics as long as they translate into a fun game.

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.

Sometimes restating the obvious is helpful.

Zap

[Dev]

Originally posted by Ozymandous


NO, launching personal insults because their view doesn't match your own is an offense.

Prove how he was wrong through facts and examples, not simply trying to strike out because you think differently than he did. I believe that was what Mark was saying.

Ok, I suggest you and Mark read mine and Mr. LaRusso's posts from the last 3 days before you post anymore about my supposed personal insults, facts and examples then.

Thank you.

/dev

[Venger]

Re: Re: Reading is fundamental

Originally posted by Ozymandous


So tell us Venger, what about Civ3 did not "build on the successful foundation of previous games"?

They removed the successful revolution of the concept of firepower from Civ2. They didn't allow many diplomatic features found in SMAC. The list can go on. Or did the only requirement for Civ3 be better graphics than Civ2? Should we ignore the gameplay revolutions found in other Firaxis and Civ titles as well?

So which of these concepts were left out from Civ2 to Civ3? Last I checked these were indeed the foundation of the game, and all were included in Civ3. In addition to armies, unique units, culture, small wonders and resources.

Such tired stuff out of you. How about they fix the Mahattan Project? How about they not break air combat by making planes unable to sink ships. Airbases? Come on dude, alot of people see steps forward and steps back, and unlike you, I can take a step forward and keep my eyes open to the attempts to step back.

Hmm, ruling the world. Funny, I always thought this could be done diplomatically and maybe with commercial marketing and the need for your goods by everyone else. Nah, I guess the only "valid" way to "RULE THE WORLD" is through military means, eh?

Try ruling the world with cheap consumer goods, simpleton. You can achieve victory any number of ways - ruling the world is but one of them. You can be a puny weak civilization and launch a spaceship to win the game. Does that mean you ruled the world?

Venger

[zapperio]

Re: Re: Re: Reading is fundamental

Originally posted by Venger

Try ruling the world with cheap consumer goods, simpleton. You can achieve victory any number of ways - ruling the world is but one of them. You can be a puny weak civilization and launch a spaceship to win the game. Does that mean you ruled the world?

Venger

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.

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.

Zap

[Jkondrac]

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

Originally posted by n.c.
The following are not "actual arguments" according to Apolyton management:

1) fix all the bugs and
2) gameplay imbalances
3) no mp
4) air/naval units are pointless
5) governments are done crapilly
6) civ3edit cant make scenerios
7) there no historicle starting places on ma
8) only "in-house" testing
9) serious bugs -- like the airpower-SAM thing in particular
10) corruption bug and
11) air unit bugs
12) This single player version is really no better than a beta you pay for.

Markos, it's okay to admit that some decisions are personal.

I feel this game is a worthy successor to Civ I & Civ II. To be honest, I've never played Civ I. I've played Civ II and Alpha Centauri a ton though. I played Alpha Centauri/Alien Crossfire BEFORE I played Civ II. This is probably why my opinion differs.
After playing SMAC, I guess you could say I was somewhat spoiled. I love that game. I was expecting CivII to be somewhat similar. To me it wasn't. It was very hard to move around and the gameplay was unbelievably slow.. So I held out hope that CIV III would use alot of what made SMAC great. It did! I was very impressed. CIV III is awesome. Its a huge improvement over CIV II.

Sure it might have a few minor problems. I'm sure the only reason people are whining about them being "serious bugs" is because the AI used the bugs to decimate the human player.. Deal with it. Its just a game. Firaxis, like every other gaming company, will release a patch to fix the obvious bugs.

Once that is done, people will find something else to whine about.
Some people will never be satisfied.

[CyberGnu]

LaRusso, yep. That was the last game I played. Greek, started out next to the Romans, took Rome with one archer and a hoplite, exploited the ridicously weak ancient AI by letting the romans seed cities I took over... As soon as the romans were killed I basically set out to kill the rest. Piece of cake.

Ozy: Flame? I beg to differ. I take offense when people repeat inane insults at me, however.

Repeat again: Who is complaining about how civ 3 is not civ 2? So far I've only seen one, who was more complaining about the toughness level, not the actual game.

I've been complaining that it's not sufficiently different from Civ2... Apart from culture, which I think was a nice idea but very badly implemented, extended diplomacy and a better AI in the modern age, there isn;t much improvement. Instead we've found that the whole concept of choosing goverments has disappeared (at least I haven't found a reason to EVER deviate from Despotism - Republic -Democracy), combat reeks, corruption is gone haywire, wonder movies are gone, the ancient AI is a moron, naval combat is a joke... etc etc. Resources, while a concept, are also really badly implemented... As long as you have one oil patch you can build tanks (not to mentione that in one of my games my only link to that oil was an airport... I'd like to see the gray hairs of that poor logistics guy making sure my war effort was supported through airlifted oil...), but if you lose the patch you can still run the tanks endlessly... Just not build new ones.

What happened to all the things we included on the list? Religions, a resource system that worked (just introduce oil as a second currency...), STACKED COMBAT etc...

Finally, I have no clue what you are takling about in your last part of the post... My bitterness and sarcasm? I think you're projecting... I was perfectly honest when I said I wouldn't mind abolishing warfare after the invention of the nuke. That's the whole point of nukes, anyway... War to the finish isn't possible between two empires who have nukes.

Finally, why would I go for RTS game forums? I've been playing TBS games since I had an Amiga. Sure, I enjoy Age of Kings, and it is by far the most well thought out historical game to date, but what has that got to do with things? 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.

[Ozymandous]

Wah, you called me a simpleton...

Originally posted by Venger


They removed the successful revolution of the concept of firepower from Civ2. They didn't allow many diplomatic features found in SMAC. The list can go on. Or did the only requirement for Civ3 be better graphics than Civ2? Should we ignore the gameplay revolutions found in other Firaxis and Civ titles as well?

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

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

Well?? Which is it?

Such tired stuff out of you. How about they fix the Mahattan Project? How about they not break air combat by making planes unable to sink ships. Airbases? Come on dude, alot of people see steps forward and steps back, and unlike you, I can take a step forward and keep my eyes open to the attempts to step back.

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

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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

Try ruling the world with cheap consumer goods, simpleton. You can achieve victory any number of ways - ruling the world is but one of them. You can be a puny weak civilization and launch a spaceship to win the game. Does that mean you ruled the world?

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

Big Mac's
Coca-cola
Levi's
Nike

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.

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.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by CyberGnu

Ozy: Flame? I beg to differ. I take offense when people repeat inane insults at me, however.

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.

Care to explain why you replied to me personally first with an insult? I would appreciate it because I usually don't like people insulting me in general, unless I did it to them first and IMHO, if you complain about smething but provide no proof then you're wasting air.

Repeat again: Who is complaining about how civ 3 is not civ 2? So far I've only seen one, who was more complaining about the toughness level, not the actual game.

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

I've been complaining that it's not sufficiently different from Civ2... Apart from culture, which I think was a nice idea but very badly implemented, extended diplomacy and a better AI in the modern age, there isn;t much improvement. Instead we've found that the whole concept of choosing goverments has disappeared (at least I haven't found a reason to EVER deviate from Despotism - Republic -Democracy), combat reeks, corruption is gone haywire, wonder movies are gone, the ancient AI is a moron, naval combat is a joke... etc etc. Resources, while a concept, are also really badly implemented... As long as you have one oil patch you can build tanks (not to mentione that in one of my games my only link to that oil was an airport... I'd like to see the gray hairs of that poor logistics guy making sure my war effort was supported through airlifted oil...), but if you lose the patch you can still run the tanks endlessly... Just not build new ones.

You know what's funny, I posted almost the exact same complaints about Civ2 when it came out vs. Civ1. The amusing aspect is that everyone (but me apparently) loved Civ2. Now how is it that Civ2, which was essentially a clone of Civ1 with better graphics, was such a surperb game when it first came out yet Civ3 vs. Civ2 is not? Who knows.

To answer your specific examples...

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.

Not much difference between Civ3 & Civ2? Hmm, when did you ever use any government in Civ2 other than Democracy? I hardly ever did. The only game that ever offered a large mix of governments to choose from was CtP.

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. Or do you mean because you can't use 5 tanks and roll over an opposing Civ using their own rails now? What about combat (naval and ground), specifically, is bad?

Wonder movies are gone? This is a complaint on game play??? You are kidding right?? Did you ever watch the wonder movies after the first 2-3 times you saw them? Or the throne room?? I know I sure didn't. They were great the first few times I saw them, then I turned them off because they were old and I wanted to p[lay the game, not look at movies. Sure, if this game had an unlimited bugdet and time they could have been added, but why should Firaxis have spent time, money and resources on making something most people would ignore after a week or playing??

Ah yes, the corruption complaint... Have you ever studied history? How about Rome and Russia? Even England and it's far flung empire. 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.

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.

Hmm, Ancient age AI seems to be a lot better than in Civ2, at least from my view. I have had more fun in the ancient age than in almost every other age in the game. Of course I like Huge maps with 16 Civ's, so maybe that's why I like it so much, who knows.

Well with resources, I like them how they are. If they included a EU model then some people would complain that the resource model was too hard to understand, etc. In this case Firaxis appears to have went with the "simpler is better" approach which is better, IMHO.

What happened to all the things we included on the list? Religions, a resource system that worked (just introduce oil as a second currency...), STACKED COMBAT etc...

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. Remember the goal of the list was to offer suggestions, I believe the saying was "If even one idea makes it in this is a success" or something close to that.

Finally, I have no clue what you are takling about in your last part of the post... My bitterness and sarcasm? I think you're projecting... I was perfectly honest when I said I wouldn't mind abolishing warfare after the invention of the nuke. That's the whole point of nukes, anyway... War to the finish isn't possible between two empires who have nukes.

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.

Finally, why would I go for RTS game forums? I've been playing TBS games since I had an Amiga. Sure, I enjoy Age of Kings, and it is by far the most well thought out historical game to date, but what has that got to do with things? 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.

Ah, the root cause. You like how you could play and beat Civ2 and because Civ3 is different you didn't enjoy it. Do you wish Civ3 had merely been Civ2 with better graphics and the options from SMAC thrown in? More of a SMACIV? Would that have been more fun? 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.

[Buster13]

Hey Oz....

I don't know if you are familiar with a game called Warhammer. It's a tabletop strategy wargame with miniatures and the like. In this game's combat system, there are seven main statistics: movement, weapons skill, ballistics skill, strength, toughness, weapon damage, and wounds. Movement is pretty obvious, but either weapon skill or ballistics skill, depending on whether the attack was HTH or ranged, would be used with modifiers (cover and the like) to determine if the attacker HIT the target. This type of system could be used to replace the attack/defense system.

After a hit was established, the attacker would use the weapon's strength, or his strength if it was a HTH attack VS. the target's toughness to determine if a wound (or wounds) were inflicted. This could be modelled in CIV as the "Firepower" and "Armor Class" statistics for units.

Thus, the difference would be if your unit had a low Attack value, and a high Firepower...it would likely not hit often when attacking a fast target (air support, cavalry) or a target with cover (in city, mountains)...but if it hit, it would likely destroy the target in one shot. A unit with high Attack and low Firepower would be a great unit for rooting out infantry and the like hiding out in the mountains, since despite the penalties...it's chance to hit would still be decent, but it's lack of Firepower would make it less likely to do well against Tanks and Mobile Infantry in any event.

I hope that was an adequate explanation. I know adding more stats adds complexity and bug potential, but is seven equations for your processor all that much different than four? On the surface anyway...I'd say no. Besides, CIV players are a pretty intelligent, astute bunch...they wouldn't be complaining about lack of complexity if they weren't. I would welcome a little more complexity to the combat system, anyway.

If someone would write a patch allowing total world domination and complete personal gratification for players, then maybe Venger and those like him will go away and play a game with no challenge that will allow them to believe that they are great strategists and world leaders and leave the rest of the intelligent community...you know, the one's who don't have to use name calling to put someone down...to discuss the pros and cons of CivIII in peace. Ancient? Vel, know anyone? Please?

Later all,
E