Announcement

**Venger** · November 13, 2001, 23:05

Re: A Realistic View on CivIII

Originally posted by Necro

Combat
Aside from certain units not being totally realistic in implemenation, its not that screwed. I think most of this 'Tank lost to Spearman' has something to do with the spearman (or other unit) being in some huge town.

It's not that screwed. But it is broken - and hence can be fixed. Some things are done well - armies are nice but need some work, bombardment from range, air defence, all excellent concepts (although needing bug fixes). The unit strengths and how they relate do however need alot of work - either changed values or implemtation of firepower and playtested combat that makes sense.

Semi-useless and a waste because the borders don't do jack in controlling AI colonists from staying away. Although taking over towns this way is nice...though there should be some repercussions from the towns original 'owner'.

I've been somewhat disappointed in this as well - the only affect it seems to have is in a) creating a way to win by getting X culture points and b) absorbing cities you don't want that the AI has dropped down to you for no intelligent reason.

Scrolling
Make it freaking smooth. You would think this wouldn't be THAT hard.

Agreed - I shouldn't have to retrograde drivers. And this should have been caught in ANY gametesting - NVidia owns the graphics card market.

Tech/Units
There is NOTHING special here. The tech is blah, the units are blah. Nothing really makes you go 'Damn, thats cool' - aside from the civ specific units.

I'd hoped for alot more - there is alot of been there done that. But there is enough new to make it worthwhile, and I imagine there will be alot of additions to the tech/unit tree from the mod community...

Welp, I guess thats everything. Back to the game of SMAC I started up to compare it to CivIII (so far, SMAC is pulling me more to play than CivIII, but that could change with a decent patch to CivIII)

Again, Civ3 has alot of potential - but the betatesters should have seen the potential and we should have seen the product finished and more polished than it is...

Venger

**Imran Siddiqui** · November 14, 2001, 00:11

Agreed - I shouldn't have to retrograde drivers. And this should have been caught in ANY gametesting - NVidia owns the graphics card market.

Er.. what?

I have a Voodoo3, but I still have slow scrolling. What we get for such a complex game, I figure.

**Venger** · November 14, 2001, 00:14

Scrolling scrolling scrolling...

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Agreed - I shouldn't have to retrograde drivers. And this should have been caught in ANY gametesting - NVidia owns the graphics card market.

Er.. what?

I have a Voodoo3, but I still have slow scrolling. What we get for such a complex game, I figure.

There was a bunch of threads with Windows XP and Nvidia owners complaining and Firaxis said retrograde your drivers.

The problem I have is that I have no frame of reference. The scrolling isn't smooth on my system, but it may be compared to somebody's! But I have enough power to choke a horse here, dual 850's with 512MB and a 64MB GF2Pro...

Venger

**Monoriu** · November 14, 2001, 00:33

Combat: with one exception I am very happy with the combat system. That exception is the air superiority bug, which is inexcusable but I trust that it will be fixed. Aside from that, combat is a major step forward from civ 2 and SMAC and it is thoroughly enjoyable if you change your style of play to outwit the system instead of complaining.

Culture: I don't understand why everybody is complaining about AI settlers founding cities within your borders. I have played 3 games now, and the AI only successfully built a city across my borders in my first game. In the next two games, I just made 120% sure that absolutely no open and available real estate is up for grasp within my empire. So no AI units has ever settled within my empire, only me sending units founding units in theirs

Besides, itsn't this representative of a good AI? At the cost of 1 settler and 1 escort, its manages to seriously upset your plans and make you furious.

Speed and scrolling: they can do better but I can live with it with a p2 450 3-year-old system. That's the price we pay for all the goodies like graphics, a lot more units, a lot more civs and a better AI.

Tech/units: come on. Civ 2 WAS my favourite game (civ 3 now takes its place). I want an update to it, not an entirely new game. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Civ 3 has made enough additions and changes to make it a much better experience than civ 2.

**Venger** · November 14, 2001, 05:20

Maybe Sid will give you a banana...

Originally posted by Monoriu
Combat: with one exception I am very happy with the combat system. That exception is the air superiority bug, which is inexcusable but I trust that it will be fixed. Aside from that, combat is a major step forward from civ 2 and SMAC and it is thoroughly enjoyable if you change your style of play to outwit the system instead of complaining.

Translation - click your heels three times and whisper there's no place like home.

Why do you refuse to allow what is patently obvious to many - that the release of the game needs adjustments to the combat system - and instead pander like Sid's lap monkey about how people who don't like the system are somehow the one's with the defect? Look at some of the combat values. Have you USED a privateer? Have you attacked something with your musketeers? Enjoy 1500 years of technology research and lost production to produce a near useless unit? Enjoy not being able to sink a ship with an airplane?

Culture: I don't understand why everybody is complaining about AI settlers founding cities within your borders. Besides, itsn't this representative of a good AI? At the cost of 1 settler and 1 escort, its manages to seriously upset your plans and make you furious.

Look dude, you have seriously confused challenging with tedious - the border system is a nice beginning but it needs work to be effective. Rewriting history shouldn't include making the earth a checkboard of land rushing Civs. Additionally, when the Canadians make a town north of Minnesota, the border of Minnesota does suddenly move. It's not a border, it's a miasma...

People want the Civ game to give them a feel of directing something close to an alternate, sensible world history, not one with arbitrary wacky rules and behaviors that make the game into just finding the rules and bending around them.

Venger

**Robert** · November 14, 2001, 05:30

About culture,

it is important to expand your borders because:
1. if your borders are wide enough the AI can't build cities in your land anymore
2. you can get the right resources
3. If your culture is stronger then your neighbour's one you can push back his border and get more land. This is for sure important when the cities are close to each other.

Well, trow in the other benefits of culture, and you'll have a great concept.

**Fidel** · November 14, 2001, 05:31

Re: Maybe Sid will give you a banana...

Originally posted by Venger
Translation - click your heels three times and whisper there's no place like home.

Why do you refuse to allow what is patently obvious to many - that the release of the game needs adjustments to the combat system - and instead pander like Sid's lap monkey about how people who don't like the system are somehow the one's with the defect? Look at some of the combat values. Have you USED a privateer? Have you attacked something with your musketeers? Enjoy 1500 years of technology research and lost production to produce a near useless unit? Enjoy not being able to sink a ship with an airplane?

Look dude, you have seriously confused challenging with tedious - the border system is a nice beginning but it needs work to be effective. Rewriting history shouldn't include making the earth a checkboard of land rushing Civs. Additionally, when the Canadians make a town north of Minnesota, the border of Minnesota does suddenly move. It's not a border, it's a miasma...

People want the Civ game to give them a feel of directing something close to an alternate, sensible world history, not one with arbitrary wacky rules and behaviors that make the game into just finding the rules and bending around them.

Venger

venger, do you ever tire yourself. okay you think the game is broken, return it and play quake.
combat is broken, culture is broken, etc. pyramids are not broken - so egypt has free granary in every city. also spanish had extra movement of their ships after magelan sailed the world. uh-huh. also it is proven that library increases 'science output' in a city by 50%. any library. even belletristics. of course, you can have only one library per city. and so on. and so forth
the point? this is a game of abstractions. use your imagination sometimes and stop being caught in civ2 world. it was far less perfect than some of you tend to imagine now (amarcord effect, i guess)

**Fidel** · November 14, 2001, 05:37

Re: Maybe Sid will give you a banana...

Originally posted by Venger
People want the Civ game to give them a feel of directing something close to an alternate, sensible world history, not one with arbitrary wacky rules and behaviors that make the game into just finding the rules and bending around them.

try 'the man in the high castle' by philip k. dic*k (damn, his name is really like that, the filter crossed it out)

**Venger** · November 14, 2001, 14:45

If you take an infinite number of LaRussos and an infinte number of typewriters...

Originally posted by LaRusso

venger, do you ever tire yourself.

No but I tire easily of you...

okay you think the game is broken,

The game is not broken, some of it's sub components are...

return it and play quake.

Talk about whining! P.S. I'd kick your sissy ass at Quake.

combat is broken,

Yes. And I bet they fix it. Where will all your stupid pontifications about game balance be when they change the privateer attack, allow sea units to be sunk by planes, adjust gunpowder unit attack strengths, and revisist the combat engine? Will they have unbalanced the game? It can't be balanced now and balanced later. So which is it, is the first try balanced, or will the patched version be?

culture is broken,

Culture isn't broken, it's just sorta weak.

etc. pyramids are not broken - so egypt has free granary in every city. also spanish had extra movement of their ships after magelan sailed the world. uh-huh.

Seeing as having the pyramids doesn't sacrifice something else about the game, then it's not really an issue is it?

also it is proven that library increases 'science output' in a city by 50%. any library. even belletristics. of course, you can have only one library per city. and so on. and so forth

Great here comes the "it's only a game" flat earther. Yes, it's not really a library, and all the settings are indeed arbitrary. But they aren't nonsensical.

the point?

Oh good you have one...

this is a game of abstractions. use your imagination sometimes and stop being caught in civ2 world. it was far less perfect than some of you tend to imagine now (amarcord effect, i guess)

How about I forget every game I played so I can be in the same infantile mindstate you are about it. Forget about Civ1, Civ2, SMAC, CTP, AoE, and every other game like it so I can stand in utter awe of the Emperor's new clothes, just like you...

Venger

**Jolard** · November 14, 2001, 15:08

All these complaints about the combat are frustrating to me. After 4 games, the combat feels great. Comments like "Have you ever attacked something with your muskateers?" make no sense, muskateers are a defensive unit with low attack strenght. If you are attacking with them you are asking for trouble. "Have you ever used a Privateer?" Well actually this is a known bug and is already on the patch list. "Have you ever tried to sink a ship with a plane?" I have no problem with this. It means you actually have to have a navy as well as an air force, and this is a good game balancing issue.

I DON'T want them to make all the changes people are requesting. Having higher tech units always win (or nearly always enough to satisfy these people) only means a less interesting game. Surely it may be more historically accurate, but it is no fun if the whole point of the game is to be the first to a high tech unit and then take over the world with your unstoppable units. Having aircraft and bombarding units be able to destroy ground troops and ships only means that I can do my old trick of getting to aircraft first and then destroying everyone around me without any chance of them fighting back. It is much better to have to have a balanced force, and that is what gives the game strategy and makes the game fun. It is fun the way it is, it is not broken except for some well documented bugs (air superiority, privateers) and if Firaxis changes the game the way some people want, then it will no longer be a strategic game with plenty of options.

I am happy to grant that some people don't like the way it works now, that is why there are editors available. However if Firaxis makes these changes in the patch, then I will be unable to get the actual big fixes, because there is no way I will play a game where higher tech units are invincible.

Please leave combat the way it is.

Let the flames begin!!!!

**TCO** · November 14, 2001, 15:50

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Agreed - I shouldn't have to retrograde drivers. And this should have been caught in ANY gametesting - NVidia owns the graphics card market.

Er.. what?

I have a Voodoo3, but I still have slow scrolling. What we get for such a complex game, I figure.

Imran, Firaxis admitted that the problem was their fault for using old code from the SMAC engine. They tried to fix it but couldn't and then just shipped. Sounds like it's a pretty deep bug of theirs.