Poor concepts in the game

[Monoriu]

"Um, maybe for you. Some of us expected to have a chance to re-write history. "


If I want realism, I go for Europa Universalis, Steel Panther etc. If you accept that it takes 3 centuries to build a band of warriors, that Egypt has granaries in every city because they built the pyramids, that it takes 20 years to move the distance between San Francisco and LA, then why do you have trouble with the other things in the game? When realism and fun clashes, fun should take precedence.


-"using THEIR rail system."
He said road. I agree that rails should not be available (unless between cities perhaps).


You know what I mean. I should have said raid/road system but you are just picking on words.


-"The ancient unit CAN beat a modern one"
Except that they do not actually exist at the same time (in reality).


See above.

[n.c.]

Originally posted by Monoriu
why do you have trouble with the other things in the game? When realism and fun clashes, fun should take precedence.

Lack of realism is lack of fun for some of us. Yes there are other examples, some of which are easier to take than others. How is that relevant?


-"you are just picking on words."
The two are very different, and I agreed with you to a certain extent.

[Capt Dizle]

let me add this...

I am not judging the game on the basis of just playing versus the AI. I agree that Firaxis has done a good job of making it harder to beat the AI (at least by military means).

I am looking ahead to multiplayer (PBEM for me).

There was nothing wrong with pop booms in a human game. All those types of things are fine with real people playing and it was fun to be able to do. Like trying to build a solar park in SMAC and someone comes in and tears it up! Argh!

Now, what are multiplayer games going to be like? I am having horror visions.

What will I do when all three of my neighbors decide to relocate their palace next to my border? Get the Hollywood crowd to put on a "we are the world" style benefit to up my culture? Build opera centers? Invest in renaisance era paintings? Pipe Beethoven into my den.

Maybe I can just hire Hannibal the Cannibal as the curator of my Great Library? Sniff, sniff, hello Clarice!

[cassembler]

1. Colonies -these aren't colonies, they have no population, do not grow, control no terrioritory. They are simply resource production centers. Very weak.

Agree. The idea is kinda nice, maybe colony attributes will be able to be edited...

2. Borders - AI units ignore with impunity. Pointless implementation. Weak.

Somewhat disagree. If they trespass, that's valid diplomatic reasons for war.

3. Corruption - The concept of corruption has been around a long time. In this implementation the level are insanely high. I refuse to believe this game was playtested at all.

Somewhat agree, though I play commercial civs so it's not really that much of a problem...

4. Culture - Highly amusing. The Palace Rush. This concept is so bad I can't find one good thing to say about it. Someone tell me exactly how this is reflected in world history.

Completely disagree. Yes, it's exploitable, but the concept is nice. There are hundreds of examples... a history book is a good start.

5. Inability to use roads in enemy lands. I could see a movement reduction but really this is crazy.

Somewhat disagree... perhaps not roads, but definitely with rails (A tank hijacking a caboose? come on.)

6. Resource affect on combat- so the reason that an ancient military unit can beat a modern one is to fix the problem with lack of resources. Lame. Did someone get paid to come up with this?

I don't see what you're sayin' here so I can't comment. I will say that resources are a nice idea, though implementation could be better. It will be when scenarios get created.

7. Leaders and armies- hard to get in the first place and lame when you do.

Completely disagree. Rush build wonders? Not realistic, but definitely not lame.

8. Eliminate all fun concepts - this is the worst of all, the design team seems to have begun the process by taking out all of the stuff from which fun derived in the earlier versions...

This argument is an obnoxiously personal stab at good people.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In closing:
Civ3 has bugs, we ALL know that. Civ3 has design flaws, we ALL know that.

Civ3 was created by normal working people with budgets and deadlines to meet.

Civ3 has TREMENDOUS potential... PLEASE take a look at how much of the game is a shell that WILL be poked, prodded, and manipulated to implement just about every feature most of us see missing now.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Capt Dizle]

I got a D in world history so maybe I am wrong. I have been before. I don't think the Spanish conquered the Incas due to their culture though.

My view of world history is that there was one constant...war. Cold steel. Not pomp and circumstance.

What is culture anyway? "I wanna be like Mike"?

Someone help me out on this, give me an example. I am willing to look at this with an open mind.

[Dis]

culture is in reference to modern day U.S.

look at our immigration.

poorly implemented though. as has been said before, the enemy should lose population, and that should shift to your cities. gaining territory is not the best way to implement this!

[Felch]

I agree there are problems, but I'd say they are largely limited to the following:

• The lack of a decent editor. There is no macro language, no ability to create scenarios, and graphics have been made in a format that is virtually impossible to edit. Thus, we're stuck playing vanilla Civ III when we've been spending the past few years enjoying all sorts of scenarios and mod packs for Civ II.
  
• The hyper hostility of the AI. Several of my games have been ruined because I've been essentially gang-banged by seven or eight AI civs at once. It's not realistic or fun, and there should be an adjustment to the diplomacy model. Even peaceful civilizations get involved in these rampages. World wars should be between opposing coalitions of multiple civs, unless there is some reason for every civ to hate me.
  
• The AI's super-production skill. Somehow they can have the same number of cities as me, with the same level of overall development, and still have dozens of every different unit. I know this is the reason for the computer attacking me en masse, but it just seems to get to be rediculous. I'm not a bad player, I could win Civ II on deity on a regular basis, it just seems that the computer uses its micromanagement capabilities to overwhelm me. And of course, the governors they have in the game don't have nearly the same effect for the human civ.
  
• The diplomatic victory. It happens too quickly and too abruptly. It should have been implemented in a way closer to SMAC, with points and an overwhelming majority needed to win. It's not that I've ever lost to the computer because of this, it's that it doesn't seem like a very satisfactory victory.

[Ancientfool]

Have to agree with many of the points here...Especially regarding the diplomatic victory. Planetary council in SMAC was just awesome compared to this boring version of the UN. Also, there were so many cool options for terrain alteration in SMAC let alone the diverse technology. CivIII graphics are better of course but all in all a step back to appeal to the casual gaming market, to which Ill admit I dont belong.

Also have to admit that ive already taken the game off my HD and dont feel the need to put it back at the moment. IMO, SMAC was a much richer *game*. I wont take it back though, just check back when the good patches/mods are released.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Dissident
culture is in reference to modern day U.S.

look at our immigration.

poorly implemented though. as has been said before, the enemy should lose population, and that should shift to your cities. gaining territory is not the best way to implement this!

Yes, the lost of population seems a better concept (my standard disclaimer: I haven't played the game, yet; I'm waiting for a good patch to give me a "final game").

This way you could also have a warning pop-up that your city is losing people to the admired culture. Maybe a City that lost the last citizen to another Civ should change owner as in today rule.

Loosing every military units during city revolting back it's another oversimplified point, IMHO.

OTOH culture dominance game coding should be changed quite enough, so I don't hold my breath for a change into next patch

[Jokka das Trevas]

(dupped msg )

[Jokka das Trevas]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I got a D in world history so maybe I am wrong. I have been before. I don't think the Spanish conquered the Incas due to their culture though.

My view of world history is that there was one constant...war. Cold steel. Not pomp and circumstance.

What is culture anyway? "I wanna be like Mike"?

Someone help me out on this, give me an example. I am willing to look at this with an open mind.

I'm not an expert on USA's geography so I can't give you the State name, but you know the one USA's state that is right above Mexico?

It was Mexico's land once.
Ok, USA's people moved to there too, but you can't say the area was unhabitated. In truth, I dunno if this territory was bought later by the U.S from Mexico as they bought Alaska.

But a real example are many europeans countries. Before they changed to the countries we have today, dominant cultures assimilated lesser ones to form contries.


Oh, and sorry to whoever said that, but culture has nothing to do with immigration in real life. People immigrate to USA looking for better conditions of life and work, and not culture. No illegal immigrant wants to enter USA because he wants to visit a library, a temple or a cathedral, or even watch cable TV.

So please don't comment on what you don't know, ok? An old saying tells that "any fool will be mistook for a sage if he kepts his mouth shut".