Civilization 3: End of the Line

[Velociryx]

Excellent post and excellent points as always, brother JT! And just so ya know, I know you're not a warmonger (though perhaps you enjoy warring against the AI's more than I, but then, that's not saying anything...lol...MOST folks enjoy warring in Civ more than I!)....and you're absolutely correct....unit interaction IS a critical element of the game. In the absence of camels, I DO wish they'd left diplomats in the game instead of the very vague, "top level" syping options we've got now. That alone would, I think, provide enough unit interaction to keep things interesting during some of the downtime.

As to the "jousting with windmills" (GREAT line, btw!)....I agree and disagree in the same breath. I totally get what you're saying, and you're right. If they try to release a new patch to prevent the next generation of human adaptation, they'll a) never be finished, cos we'll always find loopholes to exploit or b) wind up constricting the human player to the point that all he can do is pick his civ and watch the game unfold (governors controlling everything, you're just along for the ride). Taken to it's ultimate, logical conclusion, that's what lies at "that end" of the loophole closing frontier, and nobody wants to see that...UGH!

As to what exploits they should add back in for MP....not sure....definitely NOT IFE. I think the once per tile is sufficient, though if they're gonna leave it like it is at present, then they either need to make forests better (more productive) or remove the option to replant from the worker menu....kinna silly to have the choice to replant forests when every other form of terraforming past rails is vastly superior.

I'm *tempted* to say allow rushing wonders in MP, cos that would lead to a variety of innovative strats, but I'm not sure what else should be changed/brought back along with that.

Also totally agree about the overabundance of food....sheesh....I can grow my cities like weeds!! (and, this is something that has been mentioned in another thread too....the disparity between jungle/tundra/desert starts and plains starts is just obscene.....no banannas/bogs, and what replaced them was disease on all fronts (floodplains and jungles)....makes you wanna restart anytime you see jungle....'least floodplains are manageable, cos the food production is so good, but with jungles, you get no food AND disease....tough to enjoy a game starting like that....

I think essentially you and I are members of the same choir. The only difference is that I've found a number of things that make me wanna play more, and you've found a number that wanna play less, but I think we're basically on the same page, if that makes sense (and, you have to admit, that the fact that we have such differing opinions re: the game in general, and are still essentially in agreement says a lot of good things about the depth of the game, to even allow for that!)



-=Vel=-

EDIT: D'oh! I forgot two things! First, YES! I would love to see some volcanoes and other natural disasters in the game! That would rock, and be a very definite improvement, IMO@!

Second....I agree and disagree about Imp2....I love it....still have it on my hd, in fact, but....

the main reason I don't play much anymore (besides civ3 I mean!), is that after those cursed level 3 forts spring up everywhere, it's just too hard to conquer ANYTHING (esp. the way armies are "everywhere at once"). It'd be one thing if you could use maneuver to your advantage, but in the absence of that, it's an attacker's worst nightmare!

-V.

[StellaRossa]

Originally posted by StellaRossa
Sid gave us Civ and Sid has the right to take it away!

Uh, I meant to sound sarcastic not serious with all the Civ3 bashing going around. As a new Civer I love this game and am totally in awe. So many options, so many possibilities, so many things to keep check of, it's totally incredible. Granted the only other computer game I played before is Chess though

[Evil Robot]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Robot,

But doesn't the fact that we are arguing about whether Civ's dullness is a fact or opinion prove it to be a fact?

Otherwise, instead of defending by offering definitions of terms someone, anyone, would be offering examples of palpable, exciting gameplay.

At any rate, it does not matter because according to your dictionary the world is run by opinion anyway.

But the argument here IS over terms; fact versus opinion. What runs the world is not my concern

[SIZE = 1] Originally posted by jimmytrick[/SIZE]
Rush wonders? Oh no, new rule, wonders can't be rushed.
Wonders rushed by leaders? Let the morons try that, rule, one great leader per 24.3 hours of game play.
Specialist cities? Oh no, new rule, specialists only produce one of this or that and no city bonus.

People were harvesting forests? Oh no, new rule, once per game.
People were rush conquering? Oh no, size one cities disappear.

Can anyone else see the pattern here? Any visible trend. Sire, you may attempt to steal that tech for 47,689 gold pieces and only a 98% chance of the whole world going to war on you!

No concrete proof of ANYTHING in your statement that is negative about the game. The Earth is round is a fact because the majority of CONCRETE evidence supports it. OH NOS ITS NEW AND I DONT LIKE IT == Opinion.

Likewise, I could say:

Rush wonders? Yes! Finally the AI has a chance.
Specialist cities? Finally no super-cities.
Etc.

And it would be my OPINION. You could argue with it; but it is opinion that both you and I would be spouting.

[SIZE = 1] Originally posted by yin26[/SIZE]
So *TO ME* Civ3 is horribly, horribly dull and poorly made.

Thank you for proving my point. Q.E.D.

...oh, and as to the 'newcomers' crack.
<--- Points to registration date.
Hate to break it to you but after six months I think I'm not a 'newcomer' anymore . I may not post here often, but I read and I'm entitled to an opinion.

Trolling is fun and entertaining!

[Capt Dizle]

If you are gonna argue fact then get it straight...

the first post you attributed to yin was in fact mine...

shoo....go edit now

[Venger]

Originally posted by jimmytrick

Hey, that reminds me of my brother-in-law and his vegetable garden. I like to eat the stuff he grows, but, darn he just likes to watch them grow. Not that I am saying he is dull or anything.

There is an extremely elegant point therein. Enjoying squash and watching squash grow are often very juxtaposed positions...

Venger

[Evil Robot]

Re: If you are gonna argue fact then get it straight...

Originally posted by jimmytrick
the first post you attributed to yin was in fact mine...

shoo....go edit now

What are you talking about? There IS no error

-PS: Who's the editing fool now -

[Capt Dizle]

wow,

my excitement is palpable as I run to the dictionary to look up the word
juxtaposed.....

juxtaposed positions...gee, Venger, who knew you would be the one to bring sex into this thing...

[Capt Dizle]

The public, the public - how many fools does it take to make a public?
-Chamfort


I think you should make my size greater than one Robot.

[Nadexander]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I....kinna like the fact that they took out most of the human-driven exploits of the game.

Yeah. But it seems they went out of their way to get the exploits that they missed out on the fun-factor. It also seems like most of the changes were superficial rather than attack the root of the problem (excpet for the notable exception of ICS).

It's no wonder then, that the gaming community seems so divided....that rivalry (builders vs. momentum players) has been a long-standing rivalry indeed (pretty much ever since the creation of the genre). In Civ1 & 2, the Momentum crowd won hands down. In SMAC, I think a balance was struck and would argue any day of the week that the Builder v. Momentum competition would up as a draw, and in Civ3, the Builders win. Global conquest in Civ3, while not an impossibility, has been made too uncertain a prospect (cultural reversion), too unprofitable (corruption) and too tedious (no stacking, weak armies).

This perhaps hits the nail on the head. One of the reason that I am so irked by Civ3 is that it seems like such a step back from SMAC. Although the warfare aspect did pick up some good stuff from SMAC it seems like the builder aspect is even shallower than that of Civ2 and nothing compared to SMAC. The terraforming aspect of SMAC alone is more interesting than all the builder options in Civ3 put together. Which is darn strange considering that the "designers" (in quotes here assuming there actually were designers for this game, asside from programmers and marketing personnel) decided to make the builder strategy a more influential.
One thing i have to disagree with you is that the builder strategy is dominant. I think the builder strategy completely falls apart once a warmonger decides he is going to raze your cities instead of trying to keep them against a superior culture. Aside from the palace bouncing strategy (which is no longer viable with the patch) there isnt a real way to get ahead that compares to taking cities by force in terms of efficiency. If there wasnt the arbitrary 60k culture in one city requirement for cultural victory then i think it would be impossible to win the game through peaceful building. Much easier to get the most culture by conquering everything in sight and slave-driving to put up temples and cathedrels. For some reason communists dictators who like to sacrifice their own citizens are the pinacle of cultural refinement, according to firaxis.

[Ancientfool]

All i know is this. Im a turn-based strategy gamer fan from way back BUT civIII has been off my hard drive for three weeks. I put it back on last night, fiddled around and then deleted again.

Thats all I need to know. NEXT GAME!!! Batter up.

When is CIV IV coming out? hehe

[Badtz Maru]

I can understand why the designers decided to make armies unupgradeable. At some point before release you could unload units from an army, but this can give militaristic civs a huge advantage - if you can upgrade your army, you only really need one for military purposes throughout the history of your civilization. It makes the ability to create armies without a Great Leader a lot less useful, thus making one of the wonders pretty pointless. Having an army will give you a big military advantage throughout the game.

As it is, an army is a short-term advantage. Eventually your Great Leader will become obsolete and you will want to develop a new one. Does it really make sense to have a general who once commanded chariots to be commanding advanced armor and mechanized infantry 5000 years later?

If you don't like it, it's easy to undo in the editor - just check 'Unload' as one of the options available for an army.

[Talenn]

Velociryx:

Concerning Imperialism 2: You know there is a patch (1.03, I think) that addresses the cost of level 3 forts, right? I had the same reaction as you to all of the recurring Siege battles that had to be fought as a result of all of the huge forts...apparently so did a lot of people. The 1.03 cost for forts (of level 2 and 3) is significantly higher and makes the game far more enjoyable IMO.

At any rate, I always considered Imp2 to be one of the best games I've played. Its even better multiplayer, although I havent had time to play it like that in years. The AI was fairly decent, but was easily beatable once you figured out that all you had to do to avoid major attacks was to make sure that SOMEONE was weaker than you were militarily. Multiplayer games are crazy...all of the bidding and subsidies to get trade partners can really get out of hand on your poor little econ. My first few games in MP we got so wrapped up in screwing each other that the AI countries overran us all.

Trying going to Imperialism2.com for the patch.

Hope it helps,

Talenn

[kc1000]

99% of what we see in reality is opinion that the majority of people agree with and assume is fact (notice I said majority, which could mean 51% of pop). Only 1% of our everyday reality is fact, such as gravity and electricity, these things are fact, everything else, including most of our cultural laws are based on opinions that have been turned into reality and been forced on the minority as being fact. Just thought I would put my 2 cents worth into the opinion/fact portion of this arguement.

BTW My opinion is that this game is mediocre, but it was fun the first couple of times I played it, but SMAC I can still play to this day and have fun.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by yin26
LOL! Wow, that was intellectually deep. Still believe the world is flat? People argued about that one too, eh? Try reading more than a dictionary.

Sorry. Civ3 is dull. Fact.

No, a fact would read something like "Civ3 comes in a box or a tin'.

[yin26]

Ah, but what IS Civ3? Is it a concept? A disk? Can you really say that Civ3 is IN a box? Civ3 is like God ... bigger than our human minds can grasp, grander than the ocean.

To name it is to blaspheme.

I shall from now on call Civ3:

YAWEH (help me on the spelling please, religious Civvers)