Civ3 - a one time bit

[Zealot]

I have to be on Venger and Yin's side on this one! I really expected that Civ 3 would need much less micromanagement! It just sucks the way it is! I think I don't need to repeat Venger's words, but to all those who think Civ 3 is ok and playable, let me say to you that you are ignorant. Because you didn't play enough games to make a good comparison. Civ 3 is fun at the beginning, but dull in the middle/late game.

I can't trust the automated workers, and I can't trust the governors. I couldn't trust them in Civ 2 and SMAC, and it seems so in Civ 3.

Long live Civ.

God damn it! I don't want my governor to build any kind of military unit! Why does he do so?!? And a 3000 years old unit when there are resources available?

[rid102]

What were you thinking when you researched railroads? Why wasn't the need to seek out coal part of your strategy? Why weren't you prepared to seek out appropriate terrain? Why weren't you prepared mentally that you might not have coal?

From discussing this very thing with other people on other threads, it seems to me that the "you" part is what it comes down to here, i.e. it's the player's fault or is a contingence the player needs to consider.

You're left with only three (yes 3) viable strategies for playing the entire game:

a) You have the necessary resources (e.g. Coal). Fine. Lovely.

b) You have an opponent who has the resource you want and is stupid enough to trade it with you.

c) You keep starting wars with everyone over resources all the time and enjoy having a fragmented empire being beaten into the ground by war weariness and corruption.

Most games fall into catagory c) and where's the fun in having a game with an apparently high replay value in which you apply the same strategy everytime as it's the only viable one?

As people have said, this isn't Civ2 + Extras. It's a whole new game. Strategy-wise.

That is very true. Many people (including myself) expected this to be more of a Civ2++ type game and it isn't at all. It's much more of hybrid between various influences of the genre (Civ, SMAC, CTP etc.) and this means Civ2 strategies don't work.

The thing I'm worried about is the more I play, the more I feel that there is just one or two distinct viable strategies for winning Civ3 and nothing else works. Contrary to something like Civ2 where there were many different successful strategies and it was down to personal taste as to which you chose.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by yin26
I had a very hard time getting into EU as well. But trust me, stick with it!

hmmm, i am surprised. shouldn't it be perfect straight out of the box?

[yin26]

Actually, I've never held that position. You, on the other hand, cried big tears at not having the right shape cookie tin. Shoo.

[Libertarian]

rid102,

Why is trading resources "stupid"? It can be stupid, but it can also be very smart. Plus, you left out an option. Go out in search of resources that are not yet colonized. Quite often, they're there. Finally, in your resources wars, don't make them all out world wars. Make them precision strikes: take your resources and sue for peace.

With respect to the strategies, you are demonstrably incorrect, as Vel's thread proves. Do yourself a favor, and have a look at it.

[Nexus VI]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Strange? That's the same way I put my own workers to work on tiles, whether pollution control or planting trees or building roads or whatever. I do this because of their cumulative effect. With two French workers in the ancient era, I can build a road in a single move.

If I have forty Workers on the field I'd like them to divide the work with intelligence. But, at the moment, a Worker situated on a side of my nation often walks to go and clean a polluted tile on the opposite corner together with the latter 39. To me this is strange...

What were you thinking when you researched railroads? Why wasn't the need to seek out coal part of your strategy? Why weren't you prepared to seek out appropriate terrain? Why weren't you prepared mentally that you might not have coal?

First, Civ3 is not Settlers, so, why introducing resources in this way?
However, ok for the resources, but I think they should be more easily found. Think on it: on a huge map (which represents a whole planet I guess) the resources are really so scarce? I really don't think so...

Gold is a luxury resource. Why is lots of gold a problem? It did wonders for Charlotte and San Fransisco.

I believe Luxury resources should be far more rare than Strategic ones. Gold is one of the rarest element (compare it with Coal or Iron...).

I don't get that, either. If you are literate, you should be able to read enemy plans and so forth.

My fault, I wasn't clear enough. I meant the button for espionage appeared too early. The manual says it should appear with the discovery of Espionage.

Then kill them.

Diplomacy does exist. Borders should be respected. There are other ways to go where you need without passing through other nations territories (usually).

How hard should it be? Road blocks are made to be busted. I've respected (though I haven't understood) your other complaints, but this one flirts on the edge of "whiny". I often blockade access to key resources or cities. Why should that become problematic for me?

You can be right, but there's something missing. How can I defend a road that goes straight on a vast continent? Putting on every tile a Unit? It can't be done... The AI tries in every way to cut our network and does it easily. But this is my opinion of course...

I've seen similar complaints, so I'll take your word for it. But oddly, on our PII clunker running W98, we've never had the slightest problem with waits between turns.

I assure you. The wait is enormous at the later stages of the game.

Overall, I think you might find a lot more fun in the game if you reassess your approach to it. As people have said, this isn't Civ2 + Extras. It's a whole new game. Strategy-wise.

As I said, I like the game, but I'd like to see it tuned. That's all. I played the first Civ as soon as it was avaible in my country and I loved it. Now I will do the same with the third episode.

It's good to hear from people like you and Venger who don't personalize their issues, and attack Soren, et al. Hang in there. Read some of the great threads in the Strategy section. Especially Vel's. You'll see what I mean about needing a new approach to the game.

I'm not the enemy to wipe out. I'm just another player like you and many others who express some thoughts about a game I like.


PS for everyone: Bombarding a unit should kill it instead of just wounding it...

[Libertarian]

Nexus,

Though I think a couple of your points are debatable, I won't belabor them. I can only respect you for your opinions and the manner in which you've stated them. Here's hoping you find the enjoyment you seek.

Lib

[korn469]

different strokes to different folk...

after playing Civ3 more and more i have came to the following conclusions

*it is not a bad, nor unstable game...in fact it is a fairly good game
*it is not even close to the expectations that i had for civ3, and although it is a fairly good game it has been a disappointment

i am not disappointed at civ3 not having multiplayer, but as i suspected it was a glimpse of things to come...while the editor is easily the most developed editor on the UI side, it probably has the least abilities out of all of the editors for any civ games except civ1

then there is the problem of game balance...a ton of techs that do nothing, with a few techs that do almost everything...combat balance is also off, and civ3 lacks anything new or interesting on the building side

then you have infogrames lynching the people who are trying to help the game...if they wanna crack down on somebody why don't they send a cease and disist order to a warze site instead of people emailing them and offering them help

the most hyped aspects of the game, culture and diplomacy aren't exactly earth shattering...SMAC had superior diplomacy in every category except for the actual trade screen where civ3 is truly superior

however, it does has promise and a few new really good ideas, plus there is a patching come out this week, so lets just see what the patch has in store for us...if it is fairly significant then maybe a few people might change their minds about the game

if not lets rip it to shreads

one last question what would it take to make civ3 worth it?

for me
*about a million editor upgrades
*better combat balance (i am doing this myself)
*pop up events like in EU2 would be great
*changes to the leader system would be awsome
*bug fixes
*more uncertainty
*a little more zing please

[Fidel]

Originally posted by yin26
Actually, I've never held that position. You, on the other hand, cried big tears at not having the right shape cookie tin. Shoo.

well it was misshaped but well, its the transport.
on the other hand, the notes were not there.
i am just surprised that you could ever possibly love EU, given your gripes against civ3. EU is so unimaginative and has so many 'historical' constraints....yet so simplistic. there are only a couple of strategies you can pursue. depth is minimal. you can literally recreate history with some minor tweaks.

yin,i understand you. after so much complaining before the game was even out, you painted yourself in the corner.....

[yin26]

Korn: Very measured and logical.

LaRusso: I may often seem illogical or too demanding, but I really do try to give things a chance. Even when I wrote about not liking EU, I said that I fully appreciate that so many gamers had to be seeing something in it that I didn't but that I didn't feel like any game deserved so long for me to get into it.

I still think that EU's biggest failure is in not grabbing the player within the first few hours of play.

That said, EU for all its faults is a much better game than Civ3 by a much more focussed group of people.

[korn469]

yin

ok forgetting about the companies in every field except one, that being post game support, how has the EU franchise grown because of EU2, and what has EU2 did right that Civ3 did wrong?

lets speak in terms of magnitude

how much of an improvement is EU2 over EU?
how much of an improvement is Civ3 over Civ2?

and what in your opinion is the biggest failure of Civ3?

for me Civ3's biggest failure was for every step forward it took a step back

it include some clear upgrades to the genre while it failed to build upon some of the things that both Civ2 and SMAC actually did right

[Nexus VI]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Nexus,

Though I think a couple of your points are debatable, I won't belabor them. I can only respect you for your opinions and the manner in which you've stated them. Here's hoping you find the enjoyment you seek.

Lib

And I believe I will, especially if Firaxis will turn Civ3 as much customizable as I'd like it to be. So every one of us will be happy with it in the same way.

[yin26]

how much of an improvement is EU2 over EU?

I don't have EU2 yet, but from what I'm reading, not much. However, EU was pretty good to begin with (my noted reservations aside).

how much of an improvement is Civ3 over Civ2?

In terms of fun and satisfying challenge, almost none. The AI amphibious landings are a noteworthy exception.

and what in your opinion is the biggest failure of Civ3?

Tedium. It's just simply tedious to play the game. I might have stuck with all the other issues if the thing didn't just craaaaaaaawl unit by unit. Then again, EU is pretty tedious as well but for some reason the tedium in EU seems to at least lead to some sense of accoplishment. Not so in Civ3.

[yin26]

What has EU2 did right that Civ3 did wrong?

Again, don't have EU2 yet, but I think the big difference overall is one company believes that the fans can craft a superior game while the other company simply has a superiority complex.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by yin26
Again, don't have EU2 yet, but I think the big difference overall is one company believes that the fans can craft a superior game while the other company simply has a superiority complex.

so the difference is in the attitude of the companies. frankly, i do not give a toss about their attitude, i am more interested in the end product.