The pace of Civ3

[DomStLeger]

My only major gripe is the pace of Civ 3 (and Ctp 1&2, Smac) compared to Civ2. Civ2 was a game you could get started with very very quickly. The first turns were very quick and so you could get into the game quickly. Unfortunately the length of the early turns in Civ3 is longer and it kind of ruins it, because it takes ages to get established. I miss being a massive civ in under an hour and ready to take on another equally massive computer empire for a nice long war.

[Fidel]

sure, why would you not start a new thread with your second post

you have a 'quickstart' option if you cannot spend 15 mins to 'get established'

[benjy]

ive never looked at the quickstart thing.... whats the deal?

[Grim Legacy]

Part of the problem may the increased system demands inherent to the game -longer waiting time between turns for example.

Also, animated movement slows things down a lot compared to the blinking shield and sliding bmp's from Civ2.

I don't really see a gameplay reason to explain why the game would be slower than need be. Au contraire -many things have been streamlined in this latest iteration of Civ.

[Wrong_shui]

You should be nice to him LaRusso, DomStLeger is from manchester and he could be dead by tomorrow.

Crazy place manchester. About as bad as birmingham

[Morganstern]

Wait until you see the later game. I am on a large world, but last night my turn to go part of the way from 1898 to 1900, in a battle with the Aztechs, took over one hour. I'd like to automate the workers, but they normally tend to change my irrigation to mines when I don't need the production, but want the cities to grow.

[Xenophon]

It always irritated me that you'd only seem to have played for half an hour in Civ2 and you'd already advanced to the modern era and were beating seven bells out of your opponents with Armor and the like. For this reason I quite often made scenarios with a reduced tech rate.

I think SMAC's pace was probably about right. However, I do find Civ3 a bit dull in its pacing.

Clearly, Firaxis have done this deliberately - the four turn cap to research things and the limit on reasearching things in the current era.

[dainbramaged13]

Originally posted by Xenophon
It always irritated me that you'd only seem to have played for half an hour in Civ2 and you'd already advanced to the modern era and were beating seven bells out of your opponents with Armor and the like. For this reason I quite often made scenarios with a reduced tech rate.

what game were YOU playing!!!

damn, 30 minutes.. wow...

anyway, i do agree that its too slow... i took 20 days for my first game. I dont have much free time, and i move slowly, i admit, but civ2 games would only take me 10 days or so.

[Xenophon]

Sorry, dainbramaged, perhaps I should have emphsised the word 'seem'. But you could get to the later techs a lot quicker than you could in SMAC or Civ3.

I should have also mentioned the fact that there are 'filler' techs in Civ3 for exactly this purpose. Why do I have to research Radio? Because Firaxis don't want you to send a ship to Alpha Centauri before about 1900.

Why what happens at 7pm?

[DATarbell]

Morganstern, use shift+A to automate your workers in such a way that they will not alter existing improvements.

With regard to the thread topic: I find that I am having to make more decisions earlier and that, at least for me, this is what is most effecting the pace of the game. Personally, I'm enjoying that! It's making the beginning of the game more interesting.

[Malleus]

The pacing is off. I have been played several games of this and have yet to build a spaceship. Once I won with an accidental diplomatic victory (I should have read what UN does ) and have failed to finish about 7 times. I get too bored with the late game, and since I have a young son to watch over all the time, it's hard to stay into it.
I look forward to some short scenarios that give a more reasonable game rate AND a feeling of accomplishment.

K