There can never be Civ3 MP

[Special_Olympic]

Originally posted by Ming




Second... You truely don't understand this thread. I think the Civ II MP experts are saying that the current game is not as well suited for MP play as the game they are used to.
I will admit I fall in that category... I see some real problems with the current game as a MP game. I hope some things will be modified to make it better for MP.

Ummm, I do understand the thread, but got a little off track with my last post, hehe. I posted earlier in this thread that I felt the game needed to be modified for MP, pretty much the same thing you said.

I agree that right now the game wouldn't work for MP. I could see this being a good MP game with a few rule changes.

[War4ever]

Dont be so quick to come down on EyesofNight or Kaak...two of the best players to play civ2 MP.... their knowledge of the game is surpassed by few if any...

as for their knowledge of civ3..... listen to wise ones even if you don't like the presentation.

civ 3 will suck for MP....culture..yawn what is this..the new way to war.....i don't think so...

resources...like i am going to trade my saltpeter or rubber for 10g per turn

tech takes way too long..what you started on a river ....only 30 turns now

corruption..... watch me build that building in 80 turns.... oops , no ....watch me rush build things every 7-10 turns b/c despot will be the only way to go.....

space race in MP....hahaha the game will never be continued to get there...

civ attributes..were going to have everyone playing the same races.....

leaders..whoever gets the first one has a huge advantage no matter what they do with it..
they greatly unbalance the game

starting positions.... these are even more unbalanced than in civ2

this game isn't worthy of the civ title

[EyesOfNight]

The real problem is this. The designers never really considered MP when they started developing it. You're right, not many people played MP. More than 100 or 200, but compared to the thousands that played Age of Empires it's nothing. And don't think for a second the designers don't know this. As they see it, it's more profitable to do an SP game and then rape the hardcore MPers for their money a second time around. So, all these new improvements were made with the AI in mind. That means they never even considered what the effects would be on MP. They were so bent on creating a more "challenging AI" that they found it easiest to simply create more rules. Human gets 2 pop points taken away for settlers, AI doesn't. AI gets little to no corruption, Human gets massive corruption. See a trend here? The AI isn't any more difficult than the AI in Civ2, and in fact in some ways it's worse. At least in civ2 the AI saw government changing as valuable, this AI takes forever to research a new government. Not only that, but all the AI does is horde massive amounts of warriors and spearmen. The only reason it is even challenging in a war is because the combat system is so horrible that warriors can beat just about any units on a given turn. This isn't a more difficult AI, this is a more constrained human.

P.S. My games in MP only last about 20min-1 hour depending on the skill of the player.

[Ka Shima]

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.

Oh boy, second post to apolyton ever!
But, I feel a lot like Harrison Bergeron when I play Civ3.

If you know who that is, then you need no further explanation.
If you don't know who that is, well, then you need to read a bit more!

If you do know who it is and don't agree, well, you're entitled to that opinion.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Ka Shima

Oh boy, second post to apolyton ever!
But, I feel a lot like Harrison Bergeron when I play Civ3.

If you know who that is, then you need no further explanation.
If you don't know who that is, well, then you need to read a bit more!

If you do know who it is and don't agree, well, you're entitled to that opinion.

I'm afraid I have to read more then

[Rasputin]

i love the cultural takeover aspect and would love to use it in an MP game, i have palyed a few game sin civ3 where the AI coems take my city vy force but it revolts straight back to me because the people love me!!!! My type of game !!!!

[yin26]

Face it. Civ3's days are numbered.

[VetLegion]

I also think civ3 is a bit "strict". more than previous titles, much more like EU.

personally I am irritated by two things:

- time. this game CAN be faster, it was design decision not to make it so. the result is, I am playing every free moment (I have the game since it was released) and I have till now finished one game on regent and one on monarch is near end. with the amount of time I could like finish 10 civ2 games or so

but come on yin, if the firaxis show at least half the dedication EU team shows (EU2 intro starts with "This game is dedicated to our fans - EU2 crew") and show it with number of patches, some 6-7 may be needed, then not all is lost.

while I like civ3, if we take out the graphics, everything else is pretty dark.

I really dont see how this can be played in MP, I mean fortifying a unit takes a second instead of being instantanweous!

[VetLegion]

This "bracket" that the rules keep the player in are meant to try and simulate the rise and fall of nations by helping eliminate the snowball effect.

yes, I know. however it irritates me to see my civ looking "by the book". I never played by the book, now I have a forbidden palace in right spot, temples, libraries, I go to war when game wants me to...

I agree with all points war4ever mentioned. while I think it can be patched for SP, MP.... how?

[VetLegion]

Half finished != broken.

did anyone think that != is much more like = then notequal (something like #)

I know some c, but the expression still looks more like 'equal' then 'not equal'.

[HalfLotus]

Originally posted by EnigmaticGod
Human gets 2 pop points taken away for settlers, AI doesn't. AI gets little to no corruption, Human gets massive corruption. See a trend here

This is simply not true. Soren has stated that the AI suffers from the same corruption, and pays the same price for settlers.

[player1]

TECH prices ARE FIX (always the same)
but some techs, like Republic are EXPENSIVE.
Some other are CHEAP.

When I play the game, in ancient age, many techs are discovered in 32 turns. But in Industrial, I discover EVERY tech in 4 turns.

And, one more thing.
The way science works now is a little more realistic then it was in civ2.
It doesn't mean that if you have huge amout of commerce that you must research advances quicker then some optimal limit.
On the other hand, if you have poor commerce that doesn't mean that your country can't discover something important.

Civ3 tech rules are just that (maybe a little to much simplified, but OK)


P.S.
But, on the other way, combat is a little more UNrealistic then in Civ2.

[UncleBeef]

Ok, enough is enough

I've read enough of these rants for one day, thanks. The corruption improves multiplayer- just think it through before you whine about it.
Corruption evens the playing field by restriciting each player to X productive cities, regardless of how many they actually have. Therefore the game doesn't become inevitable as soon as someone conquers another empire and has twice as many cities as everyone else. That means that people give up early less often, have a fighting chance until the end of the game = more fun.
As for CivIII being like SimCity, I've never played a peaceful game of civ and I doubt the AI would let you get away with it. The cultural system has diminishing returns built into it and the most effective way to get big borders / get defections is not just to stuff every city full of everything you can build. You need to balance culture and warfare, which is as it should be. A big advantage of culture vs the computer is it makes them less likely to attack you- that's not going to happen in MP.
If you don't want to deal with any of the "sim city" aspects I hear there's a really good game called "The Operational Art Of War" that you should probably be playing instead. The same goes for you people complaining about there being no FP so you can't make your Operation Barbarossa scenario in appropriately tedious detail. The game is called Civilization, not Wargame Construction Kit.
Don't get me wrong, it sucks that they released an unfinished game that didn't have advertised features and you should be all over them for that. But there are lots of changes, including the corruption system, that are different, but in the end better than the way civII used to work, esp for MP.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by yin26
Face it. Civ3's days are numbered.

oh cmon yin, you are just stealing the limelight
anyway, much praised EU is actually pretty boring. i beta tested it and played it a bit later and it kinda sucks....
too repetitive, too constrained...actually it was better before those 'realistic' patches....

you build preordained thingies, research linear techs, build armies....diplomacy is non existant and boils down to maths...you have to watch all expiration dates of the treaties....it's just plain boring after some time, unless you are a portuguese and are struggling to build trading empire....doh...

[Vympel]

Operational Art of War

If you want to play the BEST wargame ever made, play the latest incarnation, Operational Art of War: Century of Warfare. You won't be disappointed. If you want to play a Civ type game, I recommend Civ 3; even though I have problems with the game I'm ADDICTED.