Disgusted

[Spiffor]

There is a wonderful possible thing to do with Civ3 : adapting his strategies which came from Civ2. In Civ2, I used to conquer the whole world with only howitzers / engineers. Should I complain because this is not possible anymore ?
First time I lost my entire offensive army in a deposing city, I was disgruntled. But I learned : 1° To build big armies, so that losing ten units is not that bad. 2° To let my offensive armies rest next to the soon-defecting city. 3° To rush-sacrifice native citizens of these cities, and to starve them. Less citizens means less deposers.
There are many things in Civ3 which are different from Civ2 in the strategy : you can't hold a city with 2 spearsman anymore, you need large armies to conquer countries, because you'll have large losses... All in all, war became more challenging : you need to think how you will wage it.
It is possible to learn the new strategies fast, but only if you want to do so. And developing new strategies, learning from the mistakes, is fun. It is at least my idea of fun.

[reds4ever]

NONE of the civ GAMES are simulators,

build the pyramids and get a granary in each city?

build shakespeares theatre and get to support an unlimited army under democracy?

build leo's and warriors turn into musketmen?
etc....

things like these are just ways to encourage different tactical approaches.

now if Civ3 has got some of these type of things askew, IMO they are tweaking issues to be addressed in patches, not to be dropped form an "historcal simulator", which it is not

[Kolyana]

Originally posted by reds4ever
NONE of the civ GAMES are simulators,

build the pyramids and get a granary in each city?

build shakespeares theatre and get to support an unlimited army under democracy?

build leo's and warriors turn into musketmen?
etc....

things like these are just ways to encourage different tactical approaches.

now if Civ3 has got some of these type of things askew, IMO they are tweaking issues to be addressed in patches, not to be dropped form an "historcal simulator", which it is not

Chester, ENGLAND?

[reds4ever]

yep, as in dangerously near Wales!

[Comrade Tribune]

I KNOW THAT YOU CAN DEAL WITH THIS.

It´s actually pretty simple:

-Leave just 1 unit in a conquered place, so you can´t lose more than one.
-If they defect, it´s usually easy to reconquer them.
-Raze centers of resistance (high pop/high culture).
-Conquer an entire civ in one sweep with fast units.

I did post all this already a week ago, so don´t assume I can´t deal with it.

What I am -and presumably the original poster is- talking about is SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF. This is a big issue for me, and I am (obviously ) entitled to my view. Suspension of Disbelief is well nigh impossible in CivIII because of a ton of bizarre, totally counter-intuitive rules like this one. Yes, I can deal with it, it just isn´t fun, for me at least, and many others, presumably.

[kailhun]

Originally posted by Bilo
Additionally your assumption of that the Egyptians under your rule are unarmed is not valid, in my opinion. If a group of people have the will to fight against their rulers, they will find the weapons in one way or another(think about IRA and PLO).

Neither the IRA nor the PLO have been very succesful in throwing out the 'occupying forces' (as the British and Israeli's are perceived). Scotland has moved more towards independence than Northern Ireland or Palestina.

I agree that the citizens booting out an occupying army is unrealistic. It probably would never happen. But as a game mechanic I like it. And is has happened to me. Leeds had been mine for a while but after I took London the capital moved to York (which was closer to Leeds than London was). I had moved units from Leeds to continue my war (not realising that Leeds still had an underground resistance). The next turn the limey scum went over to the brits.
Fortunately I had a saved game to fall back on. Perhaps this explains why I think this feature adds to the game. I cheat.

Robert

[bahoo]

Originally posted by Ming


It's one of the rules of the game... deal with it

It's a dumb rule, admit it!

You mean to tell me, and this goes for everyone here, you would not like it better if when a city was about to revolt a popup with your military advisor came up and he said, "the citizens of so-and-so are about to revolt, should we retreat from the city or put them down by force?". This could then be ensued by a cool battle between civilian partisans and your military if you decided to stay. Really, who's gonna argue against that?

And yes I can deal with the rule, I can and have won the game by playing by the rules, maybe not on deity.

I guess as Comrade Tribune stated its a "Suspension of Disbelief". It just doesn't seem to make sense that burning my enemies cities to the ground would make them like my nation any better. That and the fact that whole armies will up and vanish because they captured a city near the enemy capital. Sure, there's some strange convoluted arguments that could support these events, such as the troops marry the peasantry and stay and eat grapes, but that's exactly what they are, strange.

I guess I'm a "Little Napoleon". I'm not really concerned with winning the game according to a well defined set of rules. I just want to have fun playing the game and building my empire according to well thought, intuitive, and semi-realistic rules. I don't like the idea that I'm forced into committing mass genocide just to wage a successful military campaign.

And as far as Infinite City Sprawl, that still seems to be the strategy, the AI uses it to great success, and any game I'm been successful in involves building cities like a mad man. How exactly this deposing strangeness combats ICS I'm not sure. Capturing enemy cities is less viable, so it seems to me it would be more important to crank your own out at a high rate.

[Bilo]

Originally posted by felder


Really...so basically in Braveheart, William Wallace's army chilled in a city for a little while after conquering it. Then "poof" because the English have such sexy women and Shakespeare all of Wallace's army suddenly disappeared and the city was under English control again.

Hmm...perhaps that was the director's cut.

?!?
I think you missed my point. Scotland was invaded by the English, and the English soldiers were chilling out in Scottish cities. Then the Scottish people revolted, seized control in some cities and English soldier were "poof". I belive you'll remember this scene: William Wallace and his followers enter the fort in disguise and pacify the lord and soldiers, the lord says "I have dispatched a hundred troops, they'll be returing now." and gets the answer "Were they dressed like this? They were more like fifty." Then they kill the lord, tell the soldiers to return home, and "poof" the british garrison is gone.

[Comrade Tribune]

EU2 Review at PcIgnCom

"The timeline has been extended all the way back to 1419 and Joan D'Arc, and forward to 1820, the Age of Napoleon. The scope of the game has increased too -- hundreds of new provinces and playable countries have been added to the map, and much of the non-European world, previously inhabited only by non-competitive natives, has been beefed up with full-blown kingdoms and empires. Furthermore, all these countries are playable, so it's possible to carve out an empire using the Incas or Dahomey or the Chinese, well before the European explorers ever arrive. My Japanese grand campaign, for example, is actually very peaceful -- during one hundred years, I've had one minor war with Korea and a couple of random event-created revolts. China annexed Manchuria, Korea is my vassal, and I know absolutely nothing about the rest of the world, and am furiously trying to develop naval technology, because I don't think I'm ever going to get any explorers.

But that's what's fun about this game, every country's position is pretty unique. And what's impressive is that even though you only control one country, all the others are in play too -- an AI traffic control nightmare, I'd have to imagine, which is why this game is so good. I don't know of another strategy game that has as many countries acting independently during a game. You may have anywhere from fifty to a hundred countries all engaging in trade, warfare, and diplomacy all at once, and what happens in one country can have a ripple effect throughout the world elsewhere.

Civilization contains a paltry handful of "civilizations" compared to this game, and the complex web of military alliances, trading agreements, and politico-religious divisions is both compelling and extremely realistic. This is not a game for those who fear complexity, but if you're a detail-oriented kind of person, you'll be enthralled. At one moment you might be trying to calculate if you'll have enough diplomats to create a new alliance, then a random event will crop up that will cost a huge slice of your treasury, or throw you into debt. And of course you almost never have enough money to do everything you want to do.

Probably the biggest new feature of the game is the addition of domestic policy sliders. Before, every country was hard-coded in many ways -- Russia always had cheap but plentiful troops, because presumably serfdom never went away there. Now serfdom and freedom can be set along a sliding scale, along with about ten other factors from free trade vs. protectionism to army-centered vs. naval power. What's best about these sliders is that you can only move one slider once every ten years, and doing so costs a stability point. That really makes you plan ahead, and it's more realistic. So yes, pretty much everyone in Russia is a serf, but if you want to change that it you can, gradually and realistically over time. That's cool."

Now, I don´t trust any review a lot, but, regarding only the purely factual part of it, this is about what CivIII, at least imo, should have been.

[yin26]

Well, I think that hits it well. Civ3 never even tries to be 'about' history in any way, unless you think lame 3D bobbing heads and paper-thin 'unique civs' is enough history for you. It's sort of a pinball game that just so happens to take place on a map of the world that wasn't even included out of the box. Of course, pinball requires some talent.

Civ3 is the Deer Hunter of historical strategy gaming: Pure redneck time killer.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by kailhun


Neither the IRA nor the PLO have been very succesful in throwing out the 'occupying forces' (as the British and Israeli's are perceived). Scotland has moved more towards independence than Northern Ireland or Palestina.

Robert

Really? I must have missed the latest installment of the Arab-Israeli war. When did that happen? When did the Egyptian and Syrian Armies defeat the IDF and impose Palestinian rule in the West Bank and Giza?

Come on, your talking about one of the most notable examples of immiscable cultures in recent history, but you still can't see it? Bah.

So just how many Palestinian Knights did it take to route the Israeli Modern Armour?

Next item...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by yin26

Civ3 is the Deer Hunter of historical strategy gaming: Pure redneck time killer.

And for some, Apolyton is the Deer Hunter of the imagination. Pure time killer for trolls. Right Yin?

[yin26]

For some? For you? Assuredly. For me? Lately, yes. But hey, blame Civ3, not me, for all this time on my hands (well, I'm at 'work' right now). Better yet, blame MOO3 for not being released yet.

[Kc7mxo]

-Leave just 1 unit in a conquered place, so you can´t lose more than one.
-If they defect, it´s usually easy to reconquer them.
-Raze centers of resistance (high pop/high culture).
-Conquer an entire civ in one sweep with fast units

been there done that.

step 1: build unimaginable massive army
step 2: declare war
step 3: defeat roaming enemy forces
step 4: bombard cities i desire to size 1
step 5: raze cities i do not desire
step 6: replace razed cities with my own to protect land from other civs

but is this FUN? this isn't conquest. its fricking genocide. and while it was fun for a while, it got sickening real fast. i don't want to annilate my neighbors, i want to conquer them.

unfortunately though, its certainly happened in history. look at rome's conquest of gaul. they slaughtered tens of thousands of people, and just built their own cities. its just not what i would want to do if >I< was an Emperor. I'm not that cold hearted. ussually.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by yin26
For some? For you? Assuredly. For me? Lately, yes. But hey, blame Civ3, not me, for all this time on my hands (well, I'm at 'work' right now). Better yet, blame MOO3 for not being released yet.

Well, at least you have now admitted it.

Know what Yin? You seem like you might be an intelligent enough fellow. A fellow who I may have liked to read more of. Only, I don't have the time to crawl through 2 or 3 years of your Apolyton posts to get to know what you stand for. Are you so conceited that you think I or anyone else would? I only see the negative of your imagination; that being how much you stand against Civ3.

Sorry buddy, but negatives do not usually win many converts. Standing for something and stating it sometimes attracts admiration. Simply calling down others and their ideas rarely has much influence. Sorry, that's life.

Salve