Realism may have killed this game.

[Chevin]

One of the most hotly debated topics that crossed this forum was the call for more "realistic" and "historicly acurate" gameplay.

I am afraid you may have gotten what you asked for at the sacrafice of some of the things that may have been very unrealistic but fun.

I saw the argument about how "unrealistic" it was to be able to flatten a mountain into farm land. Well as unrealistic as that may have been it gave the player the option to make better use of his land. But realism won the battle and that option is gone.

I saw the argument that resources in Civ II were meaningless to trade and gameplay, they were just bonuses to the city they resided in. Well gues what you got that too. Now they are vital to the things you build. Because they are vital you got collonies to help you gather resources from areas that you can't build cities in because they are all desert or mountains that you can't teraform anymore.
And now you argue that collonies don't grow into cities. How many threads on how to make collonies useful are we going to see? How long before you realise they are just there to help you get the resources you demanded play a more important role in the game?

I saw the posts about how rediculous it was that you could build a small mass of tanks and take over the world in Civ II. That your population should object to long bloody wars, how many examples from our history did you point out?

So now you have war weariness.

How many threads on fundamentalism isn't a real government did you start?

well its gone.

How many times did you say that huge globe spanning empires would be very hard to control and riddled with corruption?

well you got that too.

I would like to thank firaxis for giving us what we said we wanted. For listening to us and delivering a product that was right on the money..

Now that we released Civ III (an experiment in community tampering) can we make Civ IV a fun game.

[HalfLotus]

I see the realism brigade on the horizon. Surely the "who-cares-about-realism" faction will arrive soon as well.
**Braces for long, cold winter full of realism threads.**

[zapperio]

Good points Chevin, one and all.
Yes, we got what we wanted, but it seems everyone has his or her own idea as to how it should have been implemented.

Nowhere is it as arrogantly stated as here in the apolyton forums.

Surprise, surprise.

Zap

[jgflg]

Your post seems to imply that everyone hates the new changes. From what I've seen posted here, the people who've really spent time playing the game enjoy the challenges that all the new gameplay features pose. Most of the complaints have come from people getting frustrated because they don't understand the big picture and how all the pieces of the game work together in a much more cohesive fashion now.

The one legimate complaint that I've seen consistently is about corruption, but I think it's about the rate of increase vs. distance from the capital, not the overall idea of it, that is bothersome. And of course some major gameplay bugs, but that's not part of your post.

And how about posting some suggestions for how you would do it differently than they did? Since otherwise you just sound a little preachy.

[gamma]

I agree with, umm, jgflg. (Is that one glottal stop or two?) I love the resource feature; it made my game interesting in the modern era where it would be pedestrian in Civ2. I like that you can't just terraform the world a la SMAC or Civ2. The combat seems fine to me; not too unbalanced (although my elite swordsman just defended on tundra against 16 barbarian horsemen and lost 1 (count'em, one) hit point, which was certainly aberrant...). I like armies. I like the colonies. I like the culture reversions. I like the war weariness better than the senators. I love how hard it is to dominate the world.

In my opinion, there were a few flaws in implementation, true. The corruption seems to be truly more than even they planned on, and air combat is definitely bugged. But as a whole, I think Civ3 made many steps in the right direction, and only a couple in the wrong.

[korn469]

first thing, instead of all of these arguments you so called saw, would u please use the search function and give us a quote or two?

furthermore

I saw the argument about how "unrealistic" it was to be able to flatten a mountain into farm land. Well as unrealistic as that may have been it gave the player the option to make better use of his land. But realism won the battle and that option is gone

most likely firaxis slimmed down the terraform option for two reasons, one is to make the game more challenging for the player, and the other is to make it easier for the AI to decide on what to do

I saw the argument that resources in Civ II were meaningless to trade and gameplay, they were just bonuses to the city they resided in. Well gues what you got that too.

overall strategic resources is one the brightest points about civ3, it gives the player a real reason to goto war, it is also the best part of the diplomacy system, it makes the game more challenging, more unpredictable, and in the end more fun, so wht is the problem? anyways u can edit out luxeries and strategic resources if you don't like them

I saw the posts about how rediculous it was that you could build a small mass of tanks and take over the world in Civ II. That your population should object to long bloody wars, how many examples from our history did you point out?
So now you have war weariness.

yes now we have war weariness, and i don't see what people are complaing about it isn't prone to army laundering and democracy needs something to slow it down...while i don't agree with not being ablee to use roads in enemy territory i got over it and moved on...it's certainly better than howitzer blitzkriegs across the map

How many times did you say that huge globe spanning empires would be very hard to control and riddled with corruption?
well you got that too

corruption is too high for the number of anticorruption buildings in the game (which is 1, the courthouse) however i doubt anyone wanted corruption that would basically make all but one or two cities useless, firaxis went a little overboard on this and hopefully they don't go too far in the other direction with the patch

I would like to thank firaxis for giving us what we said we wanted. For listening to us and delivering a product that was right on the money

there is nothing wrong with listening to the fans, but at the end of the day it is still up to firaxis to take the fan suggestions and either make them work or not use them...but it is a good thing that firaxis listens and certainly not a bad thing

[DarkForce]

i agree with jgflg 100%

civ3 is a really great game. i think the best part of it is its realism.

in civ2 you knew you were playing a game on your computer.
however in civ3 i have the feeling that i have a picture of the real world on my monitor and i can control it. everything is so much closer to reality. and because reality is very complex, difficult and unpredictable, civ3 is complex and difficult? as well.

i've played civ1 and civ2 for many hours but after i installed civ3 i threw both civ1 and civ2 in the dustbin.

some people (very few) don't like this complexity of the game. well you can play age of empires or red alert then......(i'm not saying that these games are bad-they are great-)

the great success of the civilization series is based on the fact that it always tried to reproduce reality as closer as possible.

the only bad thing about civ3 is some bugs it has.i hope the patch that will be released next week will fix these and make civ3 even better!!!(almost perfect...)

[TheDarkside]

Well, not to show my colors for either camp but. based on what the original poster is complaining about, it seems he dosent want change. So then you have what you wanted all this time already, it's called Civ2!

[Wrong_shui]

Well theres things that are totaly unrealistic that balance it, like culture that takes back cities one turn after they have been conquerd.

But I love and hate it at once.

[dissent]

I also agree with jgflg, and CTP (for me, anyway) is a prime example. I remember looking forward to the game when it came out, only to find most of the Gameplay, with a few exceptions, were the same as Civ2. Pretty much if you could beat Civ2, you could beat CTP without much trouble. So, you play once, see all the new technologies/wonders (ooh, Sensorium, wow), then where do you go? Been there, done that. By making Civ3 more realistic and a little more challenging, Fireaxis has essentially reinvented the game for us. Beating Civ2 is *not* a guarantee you'll beat Civ3. They are two different games entirely. For that I thank the team.

Since the release I have played several games, and even waited through the nasty 5 minute turns. Each game has turned out differently. I haven't won each time, but I have enjoyed the game 10x more than I enjoyed CTP.

[CyberGnu]

I don't mind complexity, I'm really looking forward to MOO3.

I don't mind the 'tougher game'... I wish it was harder. I haven't lost a single game since the first week of the release, and I only play deity. In civ2 I would usually lose one deity game in five or so... The only thing that worries me nowadays is getting the greeks as my next door neighbour, cause that means taking over his empire might not be complete until 0 A.D. instead of 1000 B. C.

What amuses me is that people attack other when they complain about the resources or combat system or culture or whatever with a childish 'you need to learn how to play the game'.

In reality, however, all these factors makes it EASIER for the human, since the computer doesn't deal well with them. The flawed combat system means I can still kick AI a$$ with my army of cavalry vs. his fortified riflemen, or even worse that my army of archers easily defeats his fortified spearmen.

The resources - Well, by taking over your neighbours areas, which they so nicely claimed for you in their mad settler rush, you are virtually guaranteed to get every single resource. Your AI competitors aren't so fortunate, however. Single out the one AI closest to you that lacks the resource and start your next war... Wait until next discovery, repeat.

civ 3? *bah*

[Ghengis Brom]

Re: Realism may have killed this game.

Originally posted by Chevin
I saw the argument about how "unrealistic" it was to be able to flatten a mountain into farm land. Well as unrealistic as that may have been it gave the player the option to make better use of his land. But realism won the battle and that option is gone.

I'm torn on this one, while it seems a bit fantastic, there are modern mining companies that are tearing down mountains everyday. Of course they usually leave large gaping holes of unusable land when they're done.

Originally posted by Chevin
I saw the argument that resources in Civ II were meaningless to trade and gameplay, they were just bonuses to the city they resided in.

I definately like the old CivII way of trade, I liked building caravans and sending them off to foriegn cities. I also like the way CivIII handles resources now. I think you should have to have a certain resource to build things and trade for it if you don't. I wish Firaxis could have found a way to meld the old with new when it comes to trade.

Originally posted by Chevin
How many threads on fundamentalism isn't a real government did you start?

well its gone.

And so is the Taliban

Although I loved it, Fundamentalism was too over-powered anyway. I think it should have been nerfed a little bit and made into a tech which allowed the building of Fundamentalist units that have no upkeep cost.

Me at work ---->

[taco]

I don't know, all those things you say ruined the game i think improved it(yes, including war weariness, which is more manageable than some of you guys make it out to be, and i have played almost all Democracies thus far).

I suppose its easier for someone like me. I played Civ1 a lot, but never really got into it. Played it more like a turn based starcraft. Same with Alpha Centauri built lots of units and all the buildings, not knowing what they really did, never played Civ2. However Civ3 is the first turnbased game i am REALLY getting into, so i don't really care that its not identical to past gamess, like the majority of detractors seem to be upset about. Hell the fact that it got me addicted to it when the past games didn't says a little on how the game isnt "broken", or "ruined".

To each his own i guess.

Edit: Actually i should add, while i like the idea of corruption i am not to fond of the execution. Corruption as a whole should be lessened a bit but not to much. More importantly though there should be ways to combat it, and in my opinion making courthouses work better is not enough. There should be more original and numerous ways to combat it, each way with both its positive and negatives. However, this idea is more for civ4 than civ3 fix. Corruption, besides bugs here and there that will be fixed, is my only real complaint about the game. And it may be fixed a bit in a patch, who knows.

Didn't want to give the impression that i thought the game was perfect

[Comrade Tribune]

The only problems with CivIII are where the game is not realistic enough.

-Fast units are overpowered.
-Walls are underpowered.
-Forced Labour is ridiculously over-powered.

Which altogether leads to the totally unrealistic and idiotic 'Pop Rush'.

[mongolhorde]

I love every single change you listed.

I think all the new changes add to the FUN of the game. Its the restrictions that make the game fun. How boring would it be to play tennis without the net.