What is wrong with civ3?

[splangy]

I dont know why everyone thinks civ3 is dead. The only even slightly large (but not game crippling) bug is the Air suppiority. Combat may be flawed but it keeps the game chalenging, and its not like you dont watch a AI tank collapse before your pikemen every now and then. Wars are harder now, witch is what we (The oldies) asked for on "the list". I am amazed that there are some people complaining about a good AI. There are a few minor bugs (the 99999 gold thing, the bombard anything-anywere cheat) but most of them wont happen unless you force them to, they should still be fixed but in the meantime you might not want to press b really fast while positioning the cursor over a place 20 tiles away from your cannon, that should probably solve you problem . I still cant figure out any problems with civ3, infact I just played it for 6+ hours straight (nothing else to do) and was throughly amused. So, what is wrong with it?

[Monoriu]

I assure you that not everyone thinks that civ3 is dead.

[Allemand]

The only real problem I see is the air superiority thing.

I don't like the way railroads give you instant movement but that's been a problem in previous versions, too.

The AI is very, very good.

The random map generator is much better than the one in Civ II (which was the all-time worst). On the other hand, the map editor is not as good as the one in Civ II.

Overall, I like the game.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Optimism!

Well, I like to think that all these ppl who b***h and moan about the game's faults are really just such ardent and fanatical followers of the game that they want it to be the best possible, and that by noticing these "faults", it shows incredible notice to detail - and, this may get me in trouble, but - it's just a computer game! I doubt most of us would bother with posts this critical and pedantic about anything else, unless we felt just as passionate about that too.

Just think of your Mum when you were a kid, telling you not to do things, and how to do them right - whehter she was right or wrong, she was doing it 'cause she loved you.

But maybe that's just me.

[Shadowstrike]

Actually, I'm waiting for the editor to be fixed. But then again, Civ3 had the bad luck to be released two weeks before EU2 (a game that takes forever to finish)

[codemast01]

Re: What is wrong with civ3?

Originally posted by splangy
The only even slightly large (but not game crippling) bug is the Air suppiority.

If I didn't know better, I would think we are playing different verisons of Civ III. There are more obvious problems in addition to the AS bug. Precision strike only targets your own cities. Costal fortresses don't bombard passing ships. Not a bug but still annoying : you are asked to comfirm to build something even when you have queued it. Again not a bug : The F117 is exactly the same as the Stealth Bomber. The sort feature on the advisor screens work until you move your mouse to scroll the list. There is no way (that I know of) to see how much pollution is produced by each city without clicking on each city. There are others.

Before someone calls me a whinner, let me say this. Those who think the game is great could easily be labeled the "Sliced Bread" people (They think the game is the best thing since sliced bread. Ok it's lame. Cut me some slack, it's getting late) Pointing out faults is the best way to get things fixed. However no purpose is served by labeling people (both those who think the game is great, and those who don't).

[Fidel]

Re: What is wrong with civ3?

Originally posted by splangy
Combat may be flawed but it keeps the game chalenging, and its not like you dont watch a AI tank collapse before your pikemen every now and then. Wars are harder now, witch is what we (The oldies) asked for on "the list".

combat is good. i like the way they designed it. outcomes are really great. i just carefully watched my battles over the weekend, every time i lost a battle i knew beforehand i was sacrificing a unit. it was very very realistic.

[Libertarian]

Nothing's wrong with it. There are a couple of bugs that are being fixed.

You'll notice that the reviews, featured on Apolyton's front page, run 10 to 1 as near perfect scores. What you're seeing in here in the forums are a couple of cry babies launching hordes of duplicate threads, some of which the admins close when they see them. These same whiners might likely complain if they were given a thousand dollars on account of it not being two thousand.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Nothing's wrong with it. There are a couple of bugs that are being fixed.

You'll notice that the reviews, featured on Apolyton's front page, run 10 to 1 as near perfect scores. What you're seeing in here in the forums are a couple of cry babies launching hordes of duplicate threads, some of which the admins close when they see them. These same whiners might likely complain if they were given a thousand dollars on account of it not being two thousand.

And you whine about the whiners, much more than they do whine about the game. I suppose it makes you a whiner² and then you must be a cry baby according to your own description.

[Libertarian]

Uh huh. And you're whining about the whiners whining about the whiners whining about the whiners. So there, nyah!

[Phalanx2000]

The combat is FLAWED and there is no excuse for it. Hide behind accusations all you want, but at the end of the day:

1) You didn't code an iota of the game, so quit defending it like you did
2) I paid +$45 for it, I expect a better game than this
3) The combat is flawed

[Akka]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Uh huh. And you're whining about the whiners whining about the whiners whining about the whiners. So there, nyah!

You get the idea

So let's forget the whine stuff and let's talk only about constructive critics. And well, let people shout their frustration/disapointment, sometimes you have to relax by speaking out loud what's bugging you.

[Libertarian]

I don't disagree with you. I'm not talking about people who have complained. As I've explained repeatedly, there is a difference between someone who complains and someone who can do nothing but complain and feels that he must take over the whole forum launching redundant complaint threads.

Wouldn't you agree that a complaint is more effective when (1) it is stated in a civil manner, (2) it targets the software, not the developers, and (3) it offers up a practical alternative or solution? Compare Venger and Yin. Both are complainers. One is reasonable; the other is not.

[Th0mas]

Originally posted by Phalanx2000
The combat is FLAWED and there is no excuse for it. Hide behind accusations all you want, but at the end of the day:

1) You didn't code an iota of the game, so quit defending it like you did
2) I paid +$45 for it, I expect a better game than this
3) The combat is flawed

NO IT IS NOT! ...

1.
I think people are actually defending their opinions. They happen to like the game...you obviously don't. Just as you can be passonate, so can others with a different opinion from yourself. Me included.
2.
Don't know what you expected...but for my £32 I got exactly what I was expecting..the game needs patching, true, but it is still very much Civilization and I am really enjoying it.
3.
No, I believe you are wrong! (Assuming that you are not just referring to Air superiority). The CIV III combat model is attempting to model combat in terms of strategic results. Yes, Spearman can occationally defeat Tanks and this certainly sounds ludicrous from a tactical perspective - especially if this was a 'squad based game' ...but it is not.

War is about logistics and supply chains, attrition, communication, surprise, poor leadership and occationally Firepower - the Civ III Macro-combat model has translated this into giving primative units a chance to defeat more advanced units.

[Fidel]

after 6 full games on regent, i have yet to see a spearman or phalanx defeat my tank. might it be that i am using air and artillery too?