Broken Beyond Repair....:(

[kmj]

Originally posted by jimmytrick

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).


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.

I really don't think the intention of the designers was to "thwart" the military victory; only to make it more difficult to accomplish, which is certainly a good thing considering the way it was in Civ2. The game was not designed to be played with solely peaceful, cultural development, but it was designed to be played with much more diplomatic interaction between civilizations. In this it has succeeded, and made Civ3 (IMO, obviously) a much more complete and fun game than Civ2.

As far as "where is the game?"... I don't see how the aspect you mentioned ("lather, rinse, repeat") is much different from civ2.

Where is the difference between Civ2 and Civ3 that makes you predict people will lose interest much faster?

regarding this "move your palace" tactic, is this described somewhere? I don't understand how it would work, I mean a palace only generates 2 culture per turn... is there a thread I missed that describes this?

[Velociryx]

Hey Kmj! I wrote about "Cultural Kudzu" in the strat. thread I started over in the Strat. section.

Essentially, it is a plan whereby you relocate your palace closer to a rival civ's border if you have a significantlyl higher culture value than he does. One of the more important "checks" made when cities defect to another civ is how close they are to the capitol of a rival civ with a stronger culture.

Sooo....if your culture is stronger by far, you can move your capitol (eating a corruption hit and tying up the production of the city you temporarily build the palace in), absorb some border towns peacefully, and then relocate it again.

I see it not so much as physically rebuilding your palace as *intentionally* committing resoruces to woo the populace of neighboring civilizations.

-=Vel=-
PS: Once you capture the cities peacefully, you can opt to relocat them closer to the "new front line" of rival cities and try to capture those, or simply move your capitol back to its original position. If your culture is really THAT much stronger than that of your rival's....the cities won't revert.

[Blunderdog]

Vel, your original post made me laugh.

As for the combat system, maybe the folks who get tweaked about it should play a little Texas Hold 'Em. Your pocket pair of aces (tanks) will occasionally get cracked by some moron with two-three offsuit (spearmen), but hey, you're going to win with that hand in the long run. Sometimes you make the right play and you still lose. (Or make all the wrong moves and win.) It happens.

[Deathray]

Think of those hoards of warriors beating up your tanks as a very large and very angry mob armed with molotov cocktails and home made explosives.

[PGM]

Re: Broken Beyond Repair....

Originally posted by Velociryx
Combat is totally unrealistic! In Civ2, I used to be able to take four tanks and conquer the whole world

I'm not even reading any further. So THIS (to take four tanks and conquer the whole world) is your idea of combat realism?

edit: sorry, I hadn't read the intro. I'm tired of many long intros that don't say anything relevant, and I wrongly assumed this was the case. Good humour.

[Velociryx]

::as he glances wryly around the room:: I ummm...guess that PGM didn't read the italic part of my post....



-=Vel=-

[Zylka]

Wow, Vel. You copied my thread and turned it around, all the while basing it on arguments non of the critics have used. Very original.

[/golf clap]

[PGM]

Originally posted by Velociryx
::as he glances wryly around the room:: I ummm...guess that PGM didn't read the italic part of my post....
-=Vel=-

you're right, but I've just edited my 1st post. You know, one gets used to reading stupid complaints... that's why I jumped ahead, sorry. Besides, I haven't slept in a while. A LONG while.

[Velociryx]

Zylka: That's why it's called "tongue in cheek" humor - an exaggeration of stated fact, coupled with a twist of sarcasm?

PGM - Quite alright...that gave ME a good chuckle!

-=Vel=-

[TCO]

Is PGM the same guy who's sarcasm meter was broken in my thread??

[Myrddin]

Great post

But of course if you're the type of player who wants to roll an army over the whole world you should be palaying CtP2 - shame there is little else to do in it

[Zylka]

How I destroy your parody, let me count the ways...

Originally posted by Velociryx

Why Civ3 is Broken
Combat is totally unrealistic! In Civ2, I used to be able to take four tanks and conquer the whole world! Now, you actually have to slog through tough, entrenched AI units who hide in the mountains, and who may be technologically inferior, but still sometimes pull out some mojo and kill a unit or two!

Yes, we openly accept tought, realistic guerilla warfare. Yet this is not what we recieve, but rather knights defeating tanks, wooden frigates sinking nuclear subs. Firaxis has openly admitted they pushed off combat realism in large tech disparity situations, so a human player who is stupid enough to be so far behind in research can still have a chance. Did you hear that? They dumbed tech disparity combat down so the idiot player can get a second chance. I believe the common moron should rather accept their in game faults, and try again on a lower difficulty level - rather than cheapen combat for this rest of us. My humble opinion, sorry if I've insulted those who are still using pikeman against ai tanks.

Conquering cities is totally unrealistic too! In Civ2, I used to be able to roll in with my aforementioned four tanks and all the citizens would instantly love me! Now, they don’t! And worse, I actually have to garrison troops IN the newly conquered cities in order to quell resistors?! You’ve GOT to be kidding! Don’t these people know that I’m conquering them in order to bring them out of the dark ages and into ultimate enlightenment and happiness!? They should LOVE me! In fact, I think that when I easily defeat the hopeless AI (and please fix this wretched condition….I want it to be EASY to beat up on the AI, ‘k?)….anyway, when I slice through the AI’s pitiful resistance like a Ginsu through butter, I think I should get a WLTK celebration in each town rather than all this resistance and corruption nonsense! It’s CLEARLY broken the way it is right now!!!! Anyone who can’t see that is obviously either blind, stoopid, or the son of a Godless DOG!

Tongue in cheek is especially fun when you cite arguments no-one has yet used. I love the new opposition resistance and garrison features which add realism, as do almost all critics. This won't even be a challenge if you're going to make things up.

Resources SUCK! In some games, I might not have at least six of each and every resource, which would enable to me simply run roughshod over all of my opposition! What gives with that! I don’t actually want a CHALLENGE….I just wanna….you know, get to tanks, build four, and conquer everybody! It’s TOTALLY unrealistic to expect that, as the HUMAN PLAYER….the person who is PAYING GOOD MONEY for this damned game, I might start off lacking the basic resources I need to build my four tanks and conquer the world! Trade with the AI!? Bah! If I’m trading with them, how do you expect me to conquer them!

I'm sorry, did you win your civ2 games with 4 tanks? I know you are exaggerating, but it's a very poor example. Try playing civ2 multiplayer and trying to win with that strategy (which no one, not even the critics uses). Moving on, resources do suck. A lot of the time they simply "drain" before you even use them - do you like that feature? For the placement of resources, I again argue for realism. I don't mind lacking certain resources and having to trade for them, it's very interesting. I mind having retarded 10 hex clusters of gems popping up out of nowhere, what the hell is that logic based on? Many other examples follow suit. As with the "I don't actually want a challenge thing"; I know I certainly do - but am most definitely not getting it with civ3. THAT'S WHY I'M COMPLAINING.

Culture!? You HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!? That’s just for wussies who don’t want to build four tanks and conquer the AI! What a stupid, useless idea!? Probably that was something you guys came up with while half drunk on tequila and eating nachos or something. It shows. And even worse....when an AI civ has been dutifully investing in all the cultural enhancements I ignore so I can stomp everybody....sometimes, when I take a city, the AI gets it back! TOTALLY UNFAIR!!!!

The problem with culture is that it was executed in an unrealistic manner, based on a fantasy scenario that was not prevalent in history. Firaxis attempted to use culture as a function of expressing immigration and emmigration due to the attractiveness of opposing states, fair enough. Yet given time constraints and the will to streamline the game to please the common idiot, look at how they executed it. Instead of a slow flow of citizens from one side to the other on a function of cultural value, whole cities hand themselves over to the opposing empire in erratic and non proportional means. What the hell events in history are they referring to in describing this? Furthermore, if you have recently conquered a city with a strong, oppressive military force, how would a city council hand itself over to outside interests? Are they refering to the fact that the military force present is as well defecting? Source please. This is not history, and it did not happen on a scale as constant as the game represents. Worst of all - culture does not work according to the games description. There have been many instances where a civ with a far lower culture has absorbed my own borders. When the game does not function according to the description you so lovingly defend, you have absolutely no argument left.

And what’s all this about having to honor my mutual protection alliances!? Bah! That’s ALSO totally unrealistic! In Civ2, the AI was really stupid (much more realistic, since everybody knows that politicians are all stupid!), and you could backstab them over and over again and they’d NEVER be any wiser for it! That’s what I want! I want to be able to lull the AI into a clever diplomatic trap and then backstab them! I don’t want to actually have to KEEP a commitment! That’s too much like real life….oh wait….I keep saying that I WANT the game to be more like real life.

I've heard one person argue against mutual protection, wow. Keep in mind you shouldn't have to honor it if you don't want to, less of course a huge penalty in international credibility - kind of like real life. Oh wait, civ3 kind of dropped off the whole credibility thing to dumb the game down as well. The ai in civ 2 had much more caution in relations with you as a backstabber than number 3 does. Keeping the ai in mind, have you seen some of the ridiculous bugs that got past "playtesting"?

Oh yes, the ai is very challenging indeed *please note sarcasm*

Yes….and real life can sometimes be a pain in the a$$…so THAT’s what I’m looking for in a game! Errr…no…that’s not right….I…no wait! I’m not finished yet! I want….I want….Civ2 with better graphics! Yes…in the end….that’s what I’m looking for.

Did I not already tell you that civ3 wasn't based on realism? I applaud them for a lot of the improvements, but criticize them for the steps they've taken backwards in streamlining the game.

In conclusion:

The civ3 critic demands realism, especially in the areas that civ2 is more realistic.

The civ3 defendant loves the fact that much of the game has been dumbed down to their level. They completely miss the point that realism was the compromise.

[Myrddin]

Unrealistic cities defecting?

Think Herat

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Zylka: That's why it's called "tongue in cheek" humor - an exaggeration of stated fact, coupled with a twist of sarcasm?

PGM - Quite alright...that gave ME a good chuckle!

-=Vel=-

Oh, I know this quite well. Problem is, the common moron actually accepts exaggerated "fact" as the oppositions argument. The result is people who think that the critic who argues for realism wants a game where they can "conquer the world with 4 tanks".

Sarcasm accomplished, friend. Swaying the masses has never been so easy

[Zylka]

Yes, Herat - a barely relevant example according to what the game executes. Care to provide enough relevant examples to justify the level and consistency the game describes this concept?