Patch Update

[woody]

Re: My $0.02

Originally posted by Vonotar
I personnally would prefer NOT to see a Civ4 anytime in the near future (yes I said NOT). Instead I would prefer to see Firaxis build on the foundations they have with Civ3, now i'm not a serious programmer but even I can see that Civ3 is designed to be heavily customizable which means that if we are mature and adult about the way we complain about bugs it will be easy for Firaxis to fix them, and when the eventual editor tools appear they will be very extensive!!!

Be constructive and Civ3 will have a long future.
Vonotar

Agreed. Civ2 had a long future, and I expect Civ3 will be played for years to come. It does, of course, need a good editor, but that will come. I expect we'll get a much improved editor sometime next month.

I'd eventually like to see a Civ4, but not for about five years. That schedule seems to have worked out well, so far.

[Arkatreides]

To the whiners that expect the combat rules to be changed to what they were in Civ2: forget it. They ain't gonna unbalace the game for you.

No but they could add a FP/HP option to the editor so that I can (un)balance the game for myself

[FALVES]

Re: My $0.02

Originally posted by Vonotar
"Civ3" IS A VERY GOOD GAME

"Civ3" IS NOT "Civ2 + Extras" IT IS A GAME IN ITS OWN RIGHT

OK it does have some bugs, it does have some strange quirks but spamming these forums and cursing the programmers of Firaxis there family and future offspring will not solve anything.

I'm 100% with you!

I've been having one hell of a good time playing the game and I dont understand all this winning about oblivious details.

It's not perfect (yet), but hey, neither is the world...

[NeoBlade]

Perhaps if you people stopped calling everyone whiners just because they have complaints with the game, you'd be more liked.

I haven't played the game yet but I have played every other civ game ever made and I must say that if they took firepower out of the combat system then they've majorly screwed up.

Civ 2 had a PERFECT combat system, that is undenieable. Now, if you guys have never played Civ II, then please don't comment on this statement. Some say howitzers had an unfair advantage. Thats true, but thats also why they introduced "bombardment"

Sure, its got alota great features, ecspecially in the diplomatic area. Thats great if you like playing a game of "Adventures in Diplomacy and Capitalism" . But I want a WAR!!!!!!

As it stands CivIII has to much stacked against wageing war. THe corruption bug, air superiority problem, lack of firepower, culture, deposements and revolts. Sure, citys revolt, but they don't over take an entire army. Corruption can be bad, but lets take our country for instance. Our capital is on the east coast, yet Los Angeles is one of our most productive cities, and its alll the way over on the other side of the continent, not to mention america has many, many cities. If real life were like CivIII, Los Angeles and most of america whould be a gang ridden, lawless, post-apoctolyptic anarchy. Which it obviously isn't.

Now, the corruption bug and air problems will be fixed as well as some lag issues. But that still leaves the core problem of the combat system.

If Firaxis whouldj ust comeo ut and explain WHY they did what they did, I'd be happy, thats all I want, an explanation.

_________________________________

In the End, we have to decide how much "fun" were willing to trade for "realism".

[Roman]

Originally posted by NeoBlade
I haven't played the game yet but I have played every other civ game ever made and I must say that if they took firepower out of the combat system then they've majorly screwed up.

I have to second this.

[siredgar]

Deposing should be deposed!

However, I would speculate that the game designers had it so that the calculations for a struggle were already made when the opportunity for deposing occurred.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by NeoBlade
Civ 2 had a PERFECT combat system, that is undenieable. Now, if you guys have never played Civ II, then please don't comment on this statement. Some say howitzers had an unfair advantage. Thats true, but thats also why they introduced "bombardment"

Bull****e. no stacked combat for a start. You attack with one unit at a time, defend with one unit at a time, and then if that loses, you lose every unit on the tile. Thats screwed up.

[Libertarian]

Civ 2 had a PERFECT combat system, that is undenieable (sic).

I deny the truth of that assertion.

[Vonotar]

Originally posted by NeoBlade
I haven't played the game yet......

But still consider yourself able to comment on the game?

Civ 2 had a PERFECT combat system, that is undenieable. Now, if you guys have never played Civ II, then please don't comment on this statement.........

I have played Civ2 extensively. It was not perfect. It is a matter of belief for me that perfection does not exist and something can always be bettered in the same way that there is always a number higher than infinity (this annoys the hell out of my girlfriend!)

As it stands CivIII has to much stacked against wageing war.........

Yeah cos war in real life is sooooo easy, how dare Firaxis invent ficticious things like war-wearyness (who ever heard of people disliking a war)

Come back and tell us what you think WHEN you have played Civ3

[NeoBlade]

If I had said I played the game, whould you people respect my opinion..No, so I won't shut up.

FIrst off, quit picking apart posts, Why must everyone in here be so political. Your takeing everything I say out of context and bending it for your own arguments sake.

Let me refrase what I said, when I was refering to Civ 2's "perfect" combat system I was refering to the Attack/Defense, Firepower/Hit points system that made the fighting very realistic as far as the match ups were concerned. Everything made SENSE.

Of course Civ 3 has improved on the same areas I had problems with, mainly ATTACKING ONE AT A TIME. Which has bothered me from day one. BOmbardment seemed like a duh and even the fact planes don't "kill" units is good too since really all they do is soften targets, not kill. Stacks are great but I think CtP did a better job if what I hear of Civ3 stacks is true.

There are many great features to this game, don't get me wrong, they've done alot to help the combat system, but THEN they have to take away firepower. It dosen't make sense to me, why add all these periphiel enhancements to the system then take away an INTEGRAL part. It boggles me and along with the other flaws, preventing me from buying the game since it is non returnable. I'll wait for FIraxis to get its act together first.

____________________

P.S. I just now realized how much time I spend at this forum, I know every facet of this game and its gameplay without even playing it for a minute. I have no life.

[woody]

Originally posted by NeoBlade
I haven't played the game yet but I have played every other civ game ever made and I must say that if they took firepower out of the combat system then they've majorly screwed up.
Civ 2 had a PERFECT combat system, that is undenieable.

Well, that settles it. You're a complete idiot.

[Simpleton]

Originally posted by NeoBlade
If I had said I played the game, whould you people respect my opinion..No, so I won't shut up.

Advice: It would be a really good idea for you to play the game before you comment on how it plays. Reading reviews only give you part of the picture and taking anything from this forum, the way it is now (negativist), you will definitely get a skewed picture of it. Either way I don't think you can truly appreciate the game for it's good and bad qualities until you've play it.

[AzureFlame]

Well I would say in the final analysis the game is broken if it is not fun. Well I've been playing Civ3 a lot and enjoying it, but here are the things that are not fun:

• Deposing of cities and losing a lot of units, with no way to stop it
• Air superiority
• Naval units not powerful enough
• Crashes to desktop, slowdowns (rare for me so far)
• Excessive corruption
• Wonders not expiring

So I would say these things should be fixed in a patch. Something like cities deposing or corruption might be "working as designed" but if they make my gameplay experience negative they need to be fixed. Does anyone actually think they make the game more "fun"?

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi there,

I'm afraid that I'm another person who hasn't played the game yet, for 2 good reasons:
1) I'm waiting until my computer is upgraded (sometime in the next couple of weeks)

2) Even if I had a computer capable of running it, I had always planned to wait until they came up with the first patch (based on my experience with other games immidiately after release.)

With that aside, like NeoBlade, I feel like I know this game so well because I have read 100's of posts (both good and bad) about the gameplay experience!
My overall impression from these posts is that, at its very fundamentals, it is a great game (better than Civ2) especially in the AI department, culture/borders and bombardment areas. Most of the complaints I've heard are about relatively minor and easily fixable problems like the intercept and money bug, the inability of aircraft to kill when bombarding and the weakness of nuclear missiles (not to mention the editor!) I feel, however, that in 1-2 patches (optimistically) these issues will be FIXED!!! Then we will have a truly superior Civ experience in every respect, and Civ2 will become just a DISTANT MEMORY!!!!!

Anyway, sorry for the rant, just thought I'd add my $.02c worth!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

P.S: Dan is right, by the way. Almost NO software in this world is released in a 100% complete and bug free form!!

[Dr. Nick]

I agree, the Civ2 combat system was great.