There can never be Civ3 MP

[EyesOfNight]

And it's true. Just picture the game right now. No expansion abilities, massive corruption, impossible to take another civ over. Every game will be a space race with players doing nothing but building their empire. No war, no fighting, no decisive gameplay. They've put so much emphasis on culture that it now dominates the game. The strategic resources are going to make MP a nightmare. Whoever gets the resources will win the game and no moron is going to trade a resource that gives a decisive advantage. The combat system is atrocious and brings back memories of civ 1. Who is going to want to play competitive games when entire wars are decided on what turn of the game it is? Who really wants to build 20 cities and then stop because the corruption is so bad that it's not worth it to build anymore? What's the use of fighting if it's more valuable to raze a city than keep it? And what the hell were they thinking with the new tech system? I played a game today where Republic was going to be 32 turns no matter if I turned my tax rate up to 90% or if I turned my science rate up to 90%. 32 turns to get 1 tech!!! Nobody is going to play MP if it takes 2 hours just to become a monarchy! What once was a game that relied heavily on war is now a game that resembles Sim City. It's not that the game has become harder, it's not that I'm annoyed that my strategies from civ2 won't work for civ3, and it's certainly not that I find the game too difficult. The simple fact is that there are less options available than there were before. So much emphasis was put on creating a challenging AI that they have literally bogged the game down to crawl in order to bring you down to the AI level. Just think about this next time you start looking forward to MP.

[yin26]

What once was a game that relied heavily on war is now a game that resembles Sim City.

Your quote reminds me of the 'review' I wrote months before the game was even released:

What does this mean in gameplay terms? Obvious, isn't it? You'll be tempted to literally stuff your cities with building after building just to see how far your cultural influence can spread. Then a creeping question will settle in: "Wait, is this even fun or challenging? Does it really add anything to the game?" ... one begins to feel at times that Civ 3 is a sort of grand Sim City or Tropico.

LOL!

[Dis]

impossible to take another civ over? haven't seen that, I've done it many times

I can't see how to play mp anyways even in civ2. too friggin' long. the smac pbem games I played people just quit when they realized they were losing. losers

[Ming]

While I don't agree with your title...
I fear I must agree with many of your points.

They have done MANY things that slow down the start of the game. The 32 turn no matter what sciences alone are enough to make you scream. One night games won't be a heck of a lot of fun Regularly scheduled games might be ok... And the fight for the strategic resources could be "fun"... we all know how hard those games are to continue, and is one of the reasons duels or one night 3 to 5 person games were pretty much the standard deal. Duels will now be VERY boring

The combat doesn't really bother me. There have always been SO MANY different elements of luck in the game... one more doesn't really matter. It all washes in the long run anyway.
The lack of ZOC's also makes for a different type of combat, and does take some of the strategy out of it... (spoken like a true old time board gamer )

[Kaak]

"I am jack's broken heart..."

[EyesOfNight]

quote:

What does this mean in gameplay terms? Obvious, isn't it? You'll be tempted to literally stuff your cities with building after building just to see how far your cultural influence can spread. Then a creeping question will settle in: "Wait, is this even fun or challenging? Does it really add anything to the game?" ... one begins to feel at times that Civ 3 is a sort of grand Sim City or Tropico.

Exactly. I've been playing this game for 10 years and I can't stand it. How can they ever hope to bring in new customers with such a boring and dreary game. First time I played it I almost fell asleep.

[ChrisShaffer]

Some of us like Sim City. And some of us like builder-style games.

LOL.

However, I disagree with your idea that they've taken all the war out of the game. If anything, they've made it more warlike. It's much more difficult to play a perfectionist builder game, and there are huge stretches of time (the entire industrial age, for example) when there is nothing to build but units.

[pg]

have to agree with you. i'll use an example/comparision...

it's sorta like quake1->quake3. some of the newer games of older titles(and game types) are super balanced to appeal more to newbies and turn off hard core gamers. afterall, newbies pay as much for the game as the hard core gamer. even if the newbies only play it for a short while they still pay the same amount. basically since game design and how fun games end up being is an art, it's simpler to appeal to the newbie who is much easier to please(and less knowledgable). i think it's perfectly possible to appeal to both the newbie and hard core gamer, but it's obviously harder.

btw, after playing civ3 for a week i'm returning it. the main thing is that it's too tedious/balanced. now i'm not dissing civ3(even though it seems like i am), it's just that i think i can find something better to spend my money on since i already own civnet/civ2mpg/smac.

[cassembler]

No war, no fighting, no decisive gameplay. They've put so much emphasis on culture that it now dominates the game.

If another player puts his freakin' city next to my borders on a splotch of land that I'm just about to control, you can be damn sure I'm gonna go beat his *** into his brain with a shovel.

That's tough to pull off, but at least it gives me a reason to do so.

As far as the culture, and the SimCity-esque-ness of the game, I rather enjoy blissful periods of prosperity. The thing I hated most about Civ2 is once you were at war, you were at war for the REST OF THE GAME. period.

As far as MP, I think we'll all be pleasantly surprised. Call me an optimist if you will.

[Sarxis]

There can never be Civ3 MP

"There can be only one." - The Highlander

[Raleigh]

1. Yes, they need to do something about rampant corruption but since all other players labor under the same constraints it is equal. Nothing like Razing a city to show your genuine affection for an enemy though!

2. I am convinced, the science is not flawed just not explained well. Your science rate does shift. It looks like science goes from anywhere from 32 turns to 4 turns (although in limited circumstances I've been told I am not making ANY progress if I set it too low). Some people claim to have beaten the 4 turn minimum and many complain about it, but IMHO 2 vs. 4 turns I don't think makes such a big deal. As for not changing from 32 turns, that is because you still don't have enough science power. The game, in fact, is DOING YOU A FAVOR, with that minimum. If you are saying you are too bored because you are researching too quickly... Anyway, the solution is to expand faster.

[yin26]

IMHO 2 vs. 4 turns I don't think makes such a big deal.

Well, the first issue is one of having an apparently enforced limitation on the rate of reasearch. Thus, there is no advantage past a certain point to having massive research ability. This is an entirely unsatisfying limit on the game, one that seems imposed on the gamer for two unsatisfying reasons 1) to keep an otherwise weak computer opponent in the game and 2) to force the tech tree to spread across X amount of turns.

Those other issue as to 2 v 4 turns, it makes a HUGE difference! Over the course of the game, you'd be able to have an enormous tech advantage and, thereby, have much greater control over the tech trading the comp does and be able to capitalize on techs much sooner. Think about it.

10 techs at 4 / turn = 40 turns

10 techs at 2 / turn = 20 turns

Play that over the course of the entire game! In other words, the artificial limits (if that's really what's going on, but who can possible say with all the great info we get?) simply punish a good player and reward mediocrity.

[Vympel]

"In other words, the artificial limits (if that's really what's going on, but who can possible say with all the great info we get?) simply punish a good player and reward mediocrity."

That is simply the most precise, simple statement about the main problem with CIV 3 ever ... it punishes the good player and rewards mediocrity.

Look at the research system ... enough has been said about that in this thread.

Look at the combat system ... whether your Modern Armor is killed by a spearman (yes this actually happened to me, more than once, something like three times in the course of my war against America) is entirely dependent on what game turn it is. You have a technological advantage? Hah, doesn't mean anything. The game doesn't care. The combat system has to be this stupid in order to keep the AI even remotely competetive, its so pathetic watching HORDES of spearman and horsemen running around and its 1940 AD.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Ming
While I don't agree with your title...
I fear I must agree with many of your points.

They have done MANY things that slow down the start of the game. The 32 turn no matter what sciences alone are enough to make you scream. One night games won't be a heck of a lot of fun Regularly scheduled games might be ok... And the fight for the strategic resources could be "fun"... we all know how hard those games are to continue, and is one of the reasons duels or one night 3 to 5 person games were pretty much the standard deal. Duels will now be VERY boring

The combat doesn't really bother me. There have always been SO MANY different elements of luck in the game... one more doesn't really matter. It all washes in the long run anyway.
The lack of ZOC's also makes for a different type of combat, and does take some of the strategy out of it... (spoken like a true old time board gamer )

32 turns - well you can hike up your science rate the minute first road is built. cuts it to 16 immediatelly....
as fot the zoc-no zoc debate...its kind of a transition form the russian campaing to the russian front...hope you played both AH games

[Akka]

Originally posted by Vympel
"In other words, the artificial limits (if that's really what's going on, but who can possible say with all the great info we get?) simply punish a good player and reward mediocrity."

That is simply the most precise, simple statement about the main problem with CIV 3 ever ... it punishes the good player and rewards mediocrity.

Look at the research system ... enough has been said about that in this thread.

Look at the combat system ... whether your Modern Armor is killed by a spearman (yes this actually happened to me, more than once, something like three times in the course of my war against America) is entirely dependent on what game turn it is. You have a technological advantage? Hah, doesn't mean anything. The game doesn't care. The combat system has to be this stupid in order to keep the AI even remotely competetive, its so pathetic watching HORDES of spearman and horsemen running around and its 1940 AD.

I wanted to express the exact same feeling for weeks now, but couldn't put words on it
That's EXACTLY that
And I would add what the first poster was saying :

So much emphasis was put on creating a challenging AI that they have literally bogged the game down to crawl in order to bring you down to the AI level.

Same thing as before, just couldn't put the words on my feeling, but that's exactly that.
In fact, the AI act a LOT better than before, but I think that half of the challenge it represents comes from the limitations they put to the human to ensure that whatever the way you play, you would end in a certain bracket of possibilities. Just look at that :
- science, except if you put 0 %, is ALWAYS 4 to 32 turns, and if a tech has already been discovered by another civ, it costs less to research : it's a sure way that the AI will not be TOO far away in tech regardless of your playing style.
- corruption will nullify the advantage of expanding far and fast, ensuring that regardless of the quality of your gaming, you end with roughly the same quantity of "useful" cities.
- combat system will reduce the advantage of your tech lead.

All these facts look to me as some kind of limitations put on each player to be sure that whatever they do, they all end into a limited bracket of possibilities, so that the AI won't be distanced by too much. It has its advantage (more challenging, less incongruous 1500 years gap in technology between too neighbour civ, work for the human player too if he's in late), but as a whole it feel somehow cheesy, some kind of trick to slow down the best player and boost up the mediocre one that get distanced. Again something that should be optionnal (or at least moddable), to allow to people that want it a more challenging game, and people that want it a game that rewards their game abilities to the fullest.