Broken Beyond Repair....:(

[Velociryx]

Hey all...on my way out to lunch....and thank you all for the positive comments here! I think that sometimes, in the heat of all the arguing back and forth, people tend to forget that it really is just a game....no matter how awesome and addictive....

Dino....your complaint about the editor is indeed a valid one....as are the other complaints I mentioned in the first post (and prolly a handful more that I forgot about/don't know about yet). It's comments and complaints like that....about things that are indeed hobbled or missing from the game that will make it better! But....having said that, it seems clear to me from reading the majority of posts in the general section (especially in the "battle-threads") that the bulk of players with gripes that go beyond the points previously mentioned are more stung by the fact that they can't just mindlessly conquer the AI anymore....that they actually have to work for the victory.

Personally, I kinna thought that was the point of a worthwhile gaming experience, but...::shrug:: That's just me.

-=Vel=-
PS to Player3 - Ohhhh, an' you guys are *really* in trouble if I'm the voice of logic and reason! Everybody knows we artist-types are freaks....

-V.

[sachmo71]

When a group of spearmen kill one of your tanks, maybe it will help you deal with it if you imagine that the spearmen have LASER SPEARS...ohhhhhh

OR, Spears...with a side of anti-tank rockets.

OR, Nuclear tipped spears.

Pick one of the above, or make up your own, but remember to HAVE FUN

[monkspider]

I agree with your sentiments completely! Good show Vel.

[Chowlett]

Vel - you seriously had me worried with that thread title there! The game is released here tomorrow (although I won't open it until saturday, my birthday. See associated thread "A test of willpower", by now somewhere on page 5 probably), and I really value your opinion.

Good to see it's just Vel being humourous and sensible at the same time. Business as usual.

BTW - you may be an artist type, but weren't you an economist first? Anyway - you're one of the most logical artist type people I know of, and you're pretty good for people in general!

[Zakalwe]

Originally posted by sachmo71
When a group of spearmen kill one of your tanks, maybe it will help you deal with it if you imagine that the spearmen have LASER SPEARS...ohhhhhh

OR, Spears...with a side of anti-tank rockets.

Well, an anti-tank javelin was actually considered by Finns during World War II...

And of course the Japanese did have shaped charges attached to long bamboo poles. The idea was to stab the tank with the pole and the charge would go off. Not very friendly for the user.

Z

[TCO]

Vel,

Great peice. You should also add that some (not all) of these guys are complaining cause Civ2 WAS a challenge for them. Many of these guys actually don't understand how Civ2 itself worked, especially in combat.

[Capt Dizle]

Vel,

I am just about two shakes from being insulted by your attitude here. You are flirting with sterotyping. This is a bad thing.

Given your preferred style of play there is no surprise that you like some of the concepts in Civ3.

I personally see the game as huge step backwards from where we were with SMAC. I could, and in time will, post about 100 things we have lost from Civ2/SMAC in this current Civ version.

The result is a game that is boring if played the way its designed to be played (peaceful, cultural expansion) and frustrating if played in the manner that the designer intended to thwart (warlike, military expansion).

Some pleasure might be gained in a hybrid approach, but (here I go again) there are tons and tons and tons of features not present in the game. It's like nursery school, make nice with everyone, sandbox sim-civ. It's lame Vel, its lame.

And you know me and you know I am not the type that is interested in steamrolling the AI on easy levels. I am having a real hard time seeing any sort of multiplayer game in Civ3 at all. There is such limited unit interaction.

Where is the game Vel. Is it no more than build settler, garrison, temple, library, rinse repeat. Thats just no fun Vel.

I predict that once people play a few games there will be a general loss of interest in Civ3.

[Capt Dizle]

let me add this...

I think the idea of relocating your palace nearer your opponent's border to culturally assimilate them is the lamest game concept I have ever heard of.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by sachmo71
When a group of spearmen kill one of your tanks, maybe it will help you deal with it if you imagine that the spearmen have LASER SPEARS...ohhhhhh

OR, Spears...with a side of anti-tank rockets.

OR, Nuclear tipped spears.

Pick one of the above, or make up your own, but remember to HAVE FUN

Nah, due to the fact that you can't really stop the black market the other civs have managed to get ahold of small quantities of weapons. They haven't been able to pull them apart to study (since they need them against your tanks) but they have some. It's not the same as having the equivalent units (they'd need the appropriate civ advance) but it is enough to give their weaker forces a chance.

...or maybe I should just rip off the excu-er, explanations given in SMAC as to why you couldn't build airplanes yet.

[Raleigh]

I love Civ 3, I think it's great although it still needs improvement in certain key areas, like courthouses that actually fight corruption.

However, the combat is somewhat annoying. Believe it or not, one of the larger fixes I was looking for from Civ2 was the inability of a phalanx to ever defeat a tank or worse a battleship.

The designers, for their conception of game balance, regressed on this issue. I don't think their solution solves what they argue it does. They claim decreasing the power of advanced units gives players a chance that fall behind. However, if you are building musketeers vs. tanks you will still lose. Therefore, all their solution does is make incongruous battle results that occasionally pop up and disrupt the flavor and pace of the game.

IMHO, people want stability more - that is, yes, they want excitement when a muskateer, fortified in the mountains may or may not repulse a valiant calvry charge, but they don't want the horror that a destroyer might be sunk by caravel. That is just plain stupid, period.

[Velociryx]

Back from lunch! And again, thank you for all the kind words here!

Chowlett....::blushin':: What can I say man....than you! That's high praise indeed! Not to worry, I LOVE this game! Money well spent, IMO.

JT: My apologies bud...I definitely don't mean to come across as stereotyping people....just pointing out a general trend I'm seeing here on the boards that goes beyond clamoring about bugs. Hey...in truth, if it's a bug, I'm all for *****ing about it! That's what'll get it fixed....but clearly, in just a casual look through the threads, there's a lot more going on than that.

And, the comment certainly wasn't meant to be applied to everyone. "They" know who they are, I suspect, and I've never been one to get into the whole name calling bit.

I've played a number of partial games out so I could focus on different eras and see what it's like, and I've found that you CAN be a world conquerer!! In fact, it's an exquisite balancing act between conquering the world, keeping the peace at home, and expanding culturally. And, it's a mix of all three (hybrid, if you will) that seems to stand the test of time the best, in the sense that there are clearly times when rapid, ruthless expansion (preferably under Despotism/Communism, and to a lesser extent, Monarchy), and other times when you'll find it easier/better to relentlessly beat another empire down via your "cultural superiority." Most challenging of all of course, it to battle on multiple fronts simultaneously....sending your military units off to fight a conventional war, while absorbing another culture into your own.

It's true...if all you do is build cities and perfect them, you're right...that's pretty dull. But at that point, it's dull because you're not taking full advantage of all the options available.

Having just finished a game in which I ran over two civs, and could have gone on to conquer them all (without ever leaving the productive blessings of Dem, I might add), I can tell you that the conquest game is alive and well in Civ3....but it takes more work and setup time than in Civ2. IMO, that's a good thing....

-=Vel=-

[Leonidas]

Vel, I have a lot of respect for you, for the tremendous efforts you put into SMAC - especially the strategy guide you wrote - and I understand it was published. Congratulations.

Are you also planning to write a strategy guide for Civ3? Are you hoping it will be published?


I have played countless hours on Civ3. I am no expert. But I have played all the Civ games.

1) The combat - while generally OK - works on the principle of hit point-for-hit point. To say that a tank's hit point is equal to a knight's hit point - is just crazy.

The fact is, the combat system was "dummed" down to avoid a lop-sided game.

Too bad the game AI wasn't improved to give the player a "better", more strategic game. Don't get me wrong, the AI is VERY aggressive (of the kind you'll find in RTS games like Red Alert). But aggressive, doesn't equal SMART. It can be down right stupid - like attacking a well-fortified place of mine with the same units in the same way, turn-after-turn. . .

The AI will also send a settler into the middle of nowhere, and be totally cut off, and be easily captured. . .

2) Culture - a city reverting back to its former Civ is fine - but what is totally unbalanced is the fact that city takes all of your military units with it. It's bad enough, when in enemy territory that all your units are unable to use the enemy roads properly, but to lose all military units in a city, and without warning - tells me that this game was not playtested properly. It only adds to hamper the player, without adding anything fun or "strategic". This element of frustration means that you will never know when the AI will arbitrarily decide, on a roll of the dice, to scuttle your military drive, if you happen to be winning. . .

3) Contrary to what some people have been led to believe, the AI cheats at every level of the game. I have played a number of games on the first three levels (where the AI, supposedly, doesn't cheat), and have encountered it many, many times.

Just four examples:

A) Playing on Chieftan (yeah, I know), I was bombarding a city. I destroyed a road, yet, on the next turn, it was built again. Has anyone ever had a single worker build a road in just one turn? But worse than that - on the very next turn - the AI had built a railroad - again - with only the same worker. I destroy those buggers on each turn - but they are re-built on the very next turn.

B) On Regent level, I had a settler and archer trapped - they were the last units left of a Civ. After I had declared war on that civ, and after I left the diplomacy screen, that settler and archer jumped into the air and landed 10 tiles away. I kid you not. When faced with extinction, the AI can pull off some dramatic events. . . (

Or, I could use my imagination and believe that in 1600 AD, that settler and archer had invented a springboard and parachute, and then with superhuman skill miracluously escaped

C) On Regent level, the AI almost always seems to "know" when its cities will fall to another culture. How do I know? Just before it reverts, you will see that city dwindle to maybe a 2 or 1 pop city before you take it over. However, the human player is given no such warning. . .

D) The AI also always knows where you are the weakest, and what units you have in your cities.

4) The game is filled with bugs. While most of the core game is good and playable, it was still rushed out the door, and it shows:

* Broken scenario/map editors. Even the user made maps available for download tend to screw up the tech tree. Sloppy programming? But let's pretend they work.

* No multiplayer - but I'll use my imagination and pretend it exists

* Air superiority and coastal fortess don't work as advertised. I have yet to get the regular fortress to work the way it should, although the AI has no such handicap.

* The game, rather then intelligently allowing you to select unfortified units that are logically near to each other, instead, jumps all over the screen, from unit to unit, in a crazy jumping match. This can be frustrating, when you're trying to put together an attack.

* When you are beginning your turn, the screen does not stop to allow you to deal with rioting, etc, forcing you to scan the entire map looking for cities in disorder, etc.

* The governors are dummer than door knobs - they always switch production, no matter what I do, and they always build units that are weaker than what I need. . . Again, you have to check on each and every city by scanning the map, and this becomes a real bore and a chore, after a while. . .

* If you're on an island, and are behind in the tech race, AND do not have any resources - you're had it. This adds NOTHING to fun. Make it a challenge yes, but don't leave me so hamstrung with no chance to fight back. Apparently, MY knights do not stop the AI's tanks. So this appears to be slanted in the AI favour.

* With all due respect to all the options for victory, because of the small, selectively placed resources (the AI never seems to have this problem), you almost always have to build an army and take out a neighbouring Civ to get that resource. Welcome to warmonger heaven. In Civ2, at least I could live peacefully.

* Even the diplomacy, while initially interesting, can be maddingly linear - the AI ganging up on you, making demands, unwilling to trade much-needed resources, etc. Plus it has numerous bugs that have already been noted in this forum.

* I could go on and on like having no wonder movies (yes, I really like to see a great little movie after spending years to build a wonder. There's something special about seeing them).

Almost all of the issues have to do with playtesting and play-balance. Since so little of it was done, then we don't know what should or should not work properly in this game. An open beta test would have corrected many, many of these issues.


With all the above said, there is much in this game that I like - I really do. The units, the sound effects and their animations are terrific - like the Samurai, the bombers, etc. The core game is great, despite the very obvious problems and bugs.

But you can clearly see the rushed nature in many areas of the game.

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Given your preferred style of play there is no surprise that you like some of the concepts in Civ3.

That's what it comes down to, imo. Civ3 can't be all things to all people (even civers, as in the example that I hate SMAC but love Civ2). If you cannot or will not adapt your play style or strategies (or too stupid to use the editor), then find some other games where their play style matches yours. However, I believe the editor, even in its incomplete stage, can alter the game enough to one's preferred style of play but some just don't want to believe that.

I know it's difficult to accept that perhaps Civ3 is not right for you and others. Just like it took me 4 long weeks to accept that EU was not right for me. That was no big deal, I just moved on to something else. So that's the point: either 1) adapt/change, 2) use the editor or 3) move on.

[Velociryx]

I agree with you, JT, that relocating your palace closer to the front to absorb rival cities isn't very realistic.... No other way to put it...you're right....it's lame.

But it's equally lame in Civ2 to overrun the world with a single rogue squadron of tanks, would you not agree?

Sure, there ARE things that aren't the way I'd like them to be. I'd like the implementation of culture much better if, instead of capturing enemy cities outright, you could continually "drain" pop points from border towns (and further in, depending on the power of your culture vs. the rivals). These points would be "free growth" in any town that could bear the added population....to me, that would rock...MUCH better than simply taking over a city.

But are there not a gazillion similar game mechanics things that human players can do in Civ2 and SMAC that net you a gain you ought not otherwise have (build queue bug comes to mind here, and a whole host of others)?

As to sometimes bizzare combat results: I think that Sinapus hit the nail on the head here....the unit in question is not "really" a spearman at all....that would be silly in the modern age...but he is a scrappy rebel who maybe got ahold of a stinger missile or two.

They don't win all the time...hell...they don't even win often! But now and then, one of those scrappy underdogs actually does pull a victory out of his a$$....happens in real life....ask the Russians in Afghanistan....or the Americans in Vietnam, for that matter, who got their butts handed to them a time or two DESPITE having all their high tech toys and fighting essentially a peasant army.

Again, my thinking is that, since the game is an abstraction....since 5-100 years pass every time you press that space bar, there's clearly a LOT going on that's simply being glossed over. There's backroom arms deals that technologically disadvantaged civs are making that ENABLE their crap units to win sometimes.

Same with a frigate vs. a destroyer.

There was no way that little boat that pulled up alongside of the USS Cole could have won in an open gun battle, but take a look at the size of the hole it made!

Or...no?

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Good points all around! LOL...and the replies are coming in as fast as I can respond to them too....makes the (otherwise slow) day at work positively fly by!

Leonidas, thank you! And yes...I'd very much like to do a strat. guide for Civ3, if the interest in it is there. Early indications seem to be that the interest IS there, so that's a good thing!

I think your post quite succintly sums up the majority of what's wrong with the game, and with the exception of the combat system (as I've said in other threads, out of all the wars--both short and long-term--I've had with AI Civs, I've *maybe* seen ten really mismatched results. Hell...you find more than that in our own history! But yes, I TOTALLY agree with the bulk of your list, and it is my *fervent* hope that those things are fixed in the upcoming patch--tho in truth, now that I"m used to playing with corruption as it is, if they make it easier, the game will seem....well...too easy...lol

-=Vel=-