Civ3, major disappointment. It's "ordinary".

[Count Brass]

First, let me state my credentials.

I played Civ when it first came out. I bought my first PC solely so I could play it (previously I had to borrow a work laptop!) It's the only game ever to keep me up all night.

Then Civ2 came out, I loved it so much I wrote a pretty popular faq for it.

And when I heard Civ3 was on it's way the drooling began.

But what a disappointment. Same units. Same wonders. Hmm.

Let's see, so what's new. National borders ? Nope those came in AC. The new diplomacy ? Nope, again, they came in AC.

So what does that leave ?

= Strategic resources
= National special units

One a disaster and the other not really worth the effort and difficult to justify.

So, the disaster first then. Strategic resources, sounds kind of cool doesn't it. After all, access to oil was a big deal in WW2. Great, it reproduces that. Well yes, it kind of works for the later resources - but Iron ? IRON ?!? Give me a break, one of the most common elements in the world. Yeah right. Even the Aztecs, once they knew about the stuff quickly found their own deposits.

So for an historical point of view, it can't be justified. How about from a gameplay point of view - perhaps it makes it more fun. Err no. What fun is it, to be on a continent with one other civilisation and the only iron deposit is in their half. So you don't have access to swordsmen - but you have to beat them in a war of conquest in order to even the odds. Yeah right, you might as well quit now and restart. The idea of early "strategic resources" was very badly thought through.

Ok so that's the disaster out of the way. What about the waste of time - national special units. Again lets see if we can historically justify them. Is there really something about the Greeks that makes them inherently develop Hoplites ? Is there something in the English genes that leads them to develop superior wooden warships, or in the Americans that mean only they can develop the F-15. Of course there isn't, in each case it's a product of the society, world position and technology of those people/nations at that time. And those are precisely the things that we are going to vary by playing the game. Maybe my English nation won't start on an Island (very likely in a random map) so why is my penchant any greater than anyone elses to be great sailors ? So from an historical perspective there's little justification. Then perhaps it makes the game more fun ? Well no, frankly these special units are of such limited use that they might as well not be there.

Anyway, rant over. . Just wish it had taken me less than 10 days to realise that Civ3 is just "ordinary", otherwise it would have been taken back to EB.

[Venger]

I guess I too find Civ3 more evolutionary than revolutionary, the way I found Civ2 vs. Civ1. It does sort of feel like Civ2.5.

Alas, once these bugs are fixed and the gameplay patched and tweaked, that will be good enough for me. A nice step forward, but not the step I expected. Civ4 baby!

Venger

[Count Brass]

Civ4 !

By the time that comes out my children's children will have children. And I don't even have children yet ;-)

[mtgillespie]

I'm enjoying civ III, but i have to say i agree about the UU's. I thought the concept was flawed from the start. the reasons that most of them developed was geographical. England/Britain is an island, so they have a good navy. Would Rome have had legions if they couldn't get iron? Of course not. I felt at the beginning, the only way it could work properly would be to have several better units allocated at the start of the game, one to each civ, not nation specific but resource or geograpgy specific. So if you're close to oil, you might get the equivalent of the panzer, near horses you'll get a rider or cossack etc. That could also be quite fun when you not only discover a resource with a new tech, but also get the nice surprise that you've got an even better unit than you hoped for!

[Robert]

Count Brass,
either you didn't play the game or you don't know the differences.

- culture
- diplomacy mixed with trade
- luxerious system
- settler system (anti ICS)
- workers
- air combat
- roads mixed with trade
- great leaders
- minor wonders
- capturing workers / settlers
- bombarding
- faster units can leave combat
- colonies
- airports harbors mixed with trade

civ3 changed more to civ2 then civ2 did to civ3.
And if you don't know how to use strategic resources, that still doesn't mean the system sucks. I 'm very capable to use it. It's not a game problem, it's a personal problem.

Unique units are nice, no more no less. You can turn it off if you dislike it.

You're allowed to have your own opinion,
but plz........... make it a good one.
the 'only 2 things are new' thingy just makes no sence at all.

[Boracks]

Uhm, I don't think I can apply the word ordinary, unless you mean ordinary CIV game. And the CIV games are above the ordinary TBS games with, IMHO, the MOO series being their only competition.

Unpolished is the word I've used (and someone then went on to give a better explanation of it in the thread I first used it in) and still feel applies.

Strategic resources?
Given their importance in the game, there should be an option to vary their abundance. In another thread, someone proposed an option of 1.5 times (score penalty), normal and 0.75 (score bonus).

But most like the concept. The warriors like having something to fight for (and deny the enemy) and the builders like having another item to use in trade. It just needs some polish.

Unique Units?
I must admit that I generally ignore them. They don't really add much and, given that they are NOT in the upgrade line, they are not worth it. Why would the French build musketeers when they can't upgrade to riflemen?


I think having unique units available to civs that either discover a tech first or build a major wonder would be more to the point. And it would give some use to some of the 'filler' techs that currently do nothing.

Yes, its an ordinary CIV game. Which means I'm still losing sleep over it.

[rid102]

It's not a game problem, it's a personal problem.

But why add in a feature which alienates a chunk of your fanbase?

To me, resources seem akin to CTP's Public Works. i.e. it's very much a personal thing. Many people think it's the best thing since sliced bread, others don't. It's swings and roundabouts.

Saying to someone, "Oh it's you. I can use them fine." is churlish.

You can use the same argument with PW - that doesn't make it good or bad.

You're allowed to have your own opinion, but plz........... make it a good one.

That's just a silly statement. So, according to you, no-one's allowed to make any criticisms of Civ3? No-one's allowed to voice their opinion unless it's positive? Gimme a break.

I'm glad you don't mod here, at least.

[Moraelin]

Amen. Civ 3 looks to me like milking a franchise, not like a new game. (Like we get sports games published again every single year, only with the player names changed.) It barely has enough original content to be an expansion pack to Alpha Centauri.

The changes are totally minor. Like that now rivers are between two squares, instead of through the middle of one. Whoppee. Big freakin' deal. I wouldn't even have noticed, if I hadn't read about that somewhere.

And even in an Earth setting, Call To Power and Call To Power 2 did all that, and did it better. Yes, they didn't have Sid Meier's name on the box, but you can buy CTP2 for like 10 bucks nevertheless. Either way, just pointing out that it's all been done before.

Here's an idea for Firaxis. Instead of having pages after pages dedicated to enlightening us about how totally great a designer Sid Meier is, PROVE IT. Make him actually design a NEW game, not just milk his old franchise with verbatim remakes. Otherwise my conclusion is that he WAS a great designer. Past tense.

And no, I didn't want Civ made into an RTS or any other "modern" thing. But there was so much room for improvement. There was plenty of room for new stuff, while preserving the game's basic turn based idea.

E.g., off the top of my head: Why not give me an actual government? Not "advisors". Actual dukes, high priests, or members of the cabinet, depending on your era or government. People you can give some higher level directives on a national scale, and let them worry about the details. Like "ok, guys, we have enough army as it is, now we need lots of culture, followed by workers as a second priority.". Or "Ok, so we're at war, but stop insisting on producing longbowmen already. Make me some of that new infantry." Basically let me set some priorities, then have those guys follow them to the best of their ability. (Of course, I could still override in some cities, if I want to micro-manage some stuff.)

E.g., if they really wanted to improve trade, why not let me trade manufactured or agricultural goods? Not just some abstract "resources" that appear randomly on the map. Sort of like nowadays Japan. They have to import most of their raw materials, but they more than make up for it by exporting manufactured stuff. Or why not let me manufacture luxuries, instead of just bringing existing ones to the cities? A lot of todays' luxury stuff doesn't grow on trees and hills, but is actually manufactured.

E.g., Alpha Centauri had configurable units. Why not do the same in Civ 3? In fact, see above. Why not give me an overhauled version, that allows for some trade, too? Like I could have one or more cities making swords, others making shields, and others making chain armour, and voila, I could make swordsmen dressed in chain armour. If I can't afford to make chain armour for everyone, I'd try leather instead. If I also have horses, I could make them horsemen instead. And/or I could export the surplus of weapons or armours to my neighbours, or import the stuff that I can't make.

[Wrong_shui]

civ4!

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Moraelin
The changes are totally minor.

The changes that the CTP/CTP-2 team did to their game, was totally major, compared to Civ-2.

What was the results of that? Well, CTP got VERY mixed receptions (mostly bad), but sold anyway because of Civ-2 upgrade expectations. Then came CTP-2 with bad review-scores, and totally catastophic sale-figures. So much for the "change everything for the sake of changing everything" approach.

[Raleigh]

I feel like they updated civ2 nicely but definitely could have added better touches here and there (wonder movies, slightly better interface like civlopedia accessible in building que, etc.) and I think they totally screwed the combat system. In any event, I'm pretty happy with everything ESPECIALLY the strategic resources system. Their lack of abundance is the 1 thing that really keeps the game hopping!

[yin26]

When people start chanting for Civ4 just a few short weeks after Civ3 is released, you know what you have on your hands.

[Dis]

those credentials don't check out. you aren't allowed to post your opinion here . Just kidding. But credentials aren't really necessary. Just post your opinion here, and I'm sure some vets will say you are a moron .

[cassembler]

I happen to like Civ3.
I'm sorry for those that don't.

Flame away. I won't be comming back to this thread.

[cassembler]

Oh yeah, I have played, more than several hundred hour each, Civ1, 2, SMAC, and others... Civ3 is a good game, FLAWED, YES, but once the editor is up and running...