Here's why we complain of things in Civ III that were in Civ II

[yin26]

O.K. Simply replace the word Pong with Civ. Sorry that was so difficult for ya.

[Grrr]

Originally posted by Barnacle Bill
Pong & CTP don't count. SMAC maybe counts. Civ2 counts for sure. Maybe I should start a campaign:
"EU had over 100 civs. Civ3 is a crappy game because it doesn't have as many civs as EU. Any twit who ever played EU would realize the players of Civ3 would want over 100 civs. Civ2 was a 6 years ago and EU was only a year ago, so all games henceforth must have the feature set of EU. Civ3 should be boycotted because it doesn't have over 100 civs like EU. Firaxis are a bunch of criminals because they won't respond to my 1000 posts to the effect that the game is unplayable unless it has over 100 civs like EU with an immediate admission of guilt and ironclad promise to release a patch by 5 PM EST tomarrow putting over 100 civs into Civ3."

You are a WARLORD, if you had 1000 posts you'd be a Prince or Higher !
Anyway, I agree that more Civ's are required, but that would need a bigger map, and a faster computer.

So if Firaxis release a 100 civ patch by 5PM EST tommorow, then I'll be waiting until next year for the first turn to complete. Maybe when I have a Pentium IX 64Ghz, with 64 Terrabytes of RAM with a Voodoo 35 Graphics card.
The problem is, the enigne is to slow to handle all those Civ's. I mean a turn with 16 civ's on a huge map can take up to 15 minutes of AI time.

[GePap]

Standard Features

Back when Civ2 came out, no TBS had stacked movement and Civ2 did not really need it, since it was unlikely that you would have as many units as one has in Civ3. So, was it OK for Civ2 to lack stacked movement? Yes.
Today, various TBS games have come out with stacked movement, and when you have 400 units, it seems more than a courtesy. Is it OK that Civ3 does not have it? No.

Standars change. I loved the games for NES and SNES, but would a 16-bit system survive 5 seconds in a market with 64+ bit machines? If you think so I have a lovely bridge you might want to buy. Face it, standards change, and things should be judged by the standard of their day. For 1996, Civ2 was an incredible game. For 2001 Civ3, unfortunitelly, is NOT.

[cutlerd]

You don´t understand my point about MP, do you?

No...the fact is that I have ahard time discussing MP features of a game that does not yet support MP. Seems a bit pointless and cart before the horse does it not? When MP is officially supported for CIV3, feel free to whine about it and I will be happy to listen. But otherwise, debating MP in CIV3 is pointless and speculative.

Devin

[Steve Clark]

Good to see a bifurcation debate, esp. with posters I have not seen before.

You know what I think one of the fundamental mindsets about all of this is? It's the Degrees of Expectations. It goes beyond expecting a certain feature in a game but more towards the expectation of wanting something to be changed. I think there are several variations of this:
- expecting to accept any results without question (Passive Expectations)
- expecting to suggest changes to improve results (Positive Expectations)
- expecting to assume the worst results without question (Negative Expectations)
- expecting to see all results changed regardless of consequences (Power Expectations)

There are probably more of such babblings but to put it simply, there are those that must protest loudly in order to affect change, those that desire to protest softly in order to affect change, those that will resist change and the many of those that will go along with whatever comes. All are valid.

For me personally, I take the perspective that playing a game is truly a luxury thing. It didn't matter to me whether Civ3 was developed or not, or even whether it's good or bad. It is not worth my time and effort to try to get Firaxis to bend to my will (or something like that) because there are many other choices in life than holding a group of developers accountable to something we don't need or had to buy. But others feel differently for whatever reasons and that is necessary as well. The conflict, I believe, comes in the different expectation levels and how we continue to respond to our (and other's) expectations.

[yin26]

Thus, Yin's Expectation Scale (tm) theoretically should have brought about world peace!

[Doc Paradox]

For me personally, I take the perspective that playing a game is truly a luxury thing. It didn't matter to me whether Civ3 was developed or not, or even whether it's good or bad. It is not worth my time and effort to try to get Firaxis to bend to my will (or something like that) because there are many other choices in life than holding a group of developers accountable to something we don't need or had to buy. But others feel differently for whatever reasons and that is necessary as well. The conflict, I believe, comes in the different expectation levels and how we continue to respond to our (and other's) expectations.

Ah, the Voice of Reason finally speaks! Yay!

[Sikander]

I have enjoyed gaming since the early 1970s, with board wargames and RPGs right up to the present era where the computer has taken care of all the book keeping and allowed the player to concentrate on the fun stuff like making decisions. I loved Civ 1, and played it to the extent that I didn't buy Civ 2 until the MGE. I'm not going to list the faults of Civ 3 in detail, as there has been plenty of that, and it ends up being completely a question of taste in many instances.

That said, I grew bored with Civ 3 very quickly. After about a week or ten days I just didn't want to play it anymore. I wondered whether it was perhaps only my mood, that I was growing bored with gaming in general, so I tried to revisit a number of games which have brought me pleasure in the past. It wasn't a mood thing for me. I still enjoyed MOO2, SMAC/X, MOM, RR Tycoon, EU etc., even though I have played these games for countless hours already and they have become quite familiar and no longer retain the thrill of discovery. Even Civ 2 is more fun than Civ 3, and I wasn't the biggest fan of Civ 2 because it didn't offer much more than Civ 1 did, though it was a fine refinement of Civ 1.

Civ 3 bored me because I felt constrained by the game system to follow the obvious tracks, just as the AI follows the same constraints. This may make the game easier for the AI to remain competitive, but not to the extent that I wasn't beating the AI rather quickly. Unfortunately these constraints tend to preclude some of the techniques I used to keep some of the other games interesting, such as pursuing a quality vs AI quantity approach, which reduces tedious micromanagement and gives me a challenge when facing the AI horde that the AI's grasp of tactics could never provide given equal numbers.

A lot of the fun in playng these types of games for me involves finding new ways of doing things. SMAC, MOO 2 and MOM were the best games for this, because there were so many variables available right from the start, with different factions / races to play, and ship / unit designs to tinker with, or spell combinations to experiment with. Civ 3 has only the very slight variations between nations, which really offer very little for the player to do after the selection is made in the start menu. Civ 3 is the least fun game of all those that I have owned in the entire genre. For that reason I uninstalled it weeks ago, and again offer it for sale at half price to anyone who loves it and wants to introduce it to a friend. (Still no takers on this after many weeks).

[Libertarian]

You are a WARLORD, if you had 1000 posts you'd be a Prince or Higher

From the FAQ:

Settler 1-30
Chieftain 31-100
Warlord 101-300
Prince 301-1000
King 1001-3000
Emperor 3001-10000
Deity 10001+

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by yin26
O.K. Simply replace the word Pong with Civ. Sorry that was so difficult for ya.

No, because civ is in the civ series, which changes the equation. Features of previous games in the same series justify annger if they are not in the latest edition. Features of games outside the series do not. CTP, EU, Imperialism, Pong, C&C and Red Baron 3D are all outside the series. Civ1 and Civ2 are in the series. A case can be made that SMAC is in the series, but it could arguably be excluded as well.

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by Grrr

The problem is, the enigne is to slow to handle all those Civ's. I mean a turn with 16 civ's on a huge map can take up to 15 minutes of AI time.

Although I think generically that more civs is better, my post was not intended to be a serious suggestion. It was sarcasm to illustrate the point that inclusion of a feature in other unrelated games does not create an obligation on the part of a designer doing a sequel to include that feature.

[Barnacle Bill]

Re: Standard Features

Originally posted by GePap
Back when Civ2 came out, no TBS had stacked movement.

Not true - just no games in the Civ series or the Empire series from which it copied its unit movement & combat systems. Stack movement was indeed around in board games preceeding the existence of microcomputers. It also imposes its own set of game design issues, which is probably why Empire didn't use it.

Originally posted by GePap
and Civ2 did not really need it, since it was unlikely that you would have as many units as one has in Civ3. So, was it OK for Civ2 to lack stacked movement? Yes.
Today, various TBS games have come out with stacked movement, and when you have 400 units, it seems more than a courtesy. Is it OK that Civ3 does not have it? No..

It is by no means necessary that Civ3 have so many units. It could be reduced to Civ2 levels or below with much less coding than adding stacked movement, simply by making maintenance costs proportional to unit construction costs.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Sikander
A lot of the fun in playng these types of games for me involves finding new ways of doing things. SMAC, MOO 2 and MOM were the best games for this, because there were so many variables available right from the start, with different factions / races to play, and ship / unit designs to tinker with, or spell combinations to experiment with. Civ 3 has only the very slight variations between nations, which really offer very little for the player to do after the selection is made in the start menu. Civ 3 is the least fun game of all those that I have owned in the entire genre.

Sums it up.

[Ironikinit]

Quoting Lib:

Building railroads through a virgin mountain range requires nine... (etc.)

End quote.

Ah, OK, another use for stacked groups, and it sounds pretty cool, really. Still, you'll have to excuse me if I don't get all bummed that stacked units aren't in the game, because it's still not that big of a deal. Now, if I was used to having stacks and they were taken away, I might be upset. Anyway, stacking and unstacking units could be more trouble than it is worth.

Quoting Lib:

But the very least that you could do is acknowledge that, for other people, group movement would be a great convenience and contribution to gameplay and immersion. No?

End quote.

Acknowledged, although it still seems nitpicky to me. Anyway, the faction in favor of stacked units has surely made its point by now, or if it hasn't, it never will. In any event, you come across as more approachable and reasonable here, Lib, so if that was your aim, congrats.

Quoting Comrade Tribune:

You don´t understand my point about MP, do you?

If at MP I do what you say, I´m dead. Because the other guy will rush me.

End quote.

Perhaps you and your opponent could agree not to use the tactic.

While I haven't played much MP of any of my favorite comp games, I do know that strategies that work great against the AI fail miserably against humans. Things might work out as you say, but they may not. Your concern is justified, of course, but maybe a wait and see approach would be better.

Quoting GePap:

Back when Civ2 came out, no TBS had stacked movement and Civ2 did not really need it, since it was unlikely that you would have as many units as one has in Civ3.

End quote.

I dunno about that. As it works out I play on smaller maps than I did in Civ 2. I also don't produce units just to have something to produce once my military and workforce is big enough for my purposes. I don't care to dig up an old huge map of Civ 2 where I controlled 90% of the land area and count the units, though, so I'm not going to argue it too much.

Quoting Sikander:

Civ 3 has only the very slight variations between nations, which really offer very little for the player to do after the selection is made in the start menu.

End quote.

While I liked most of your post, I had trouble with this bit. Civ 2 had no practical differences between cultures. While the difference between the civs may be of subtle and basic strategy may be much the same for some players, I play the Japanese differently than I do the Babylonians. BTW, I hope you find a taker for your offer to sell the game. At least you have a practical reason for sticking around the forum, unlike most of those who have uninstalled. What loons.

As an aside, I thought this was the thread where someone mentioned that the rules for air units was the same in Civ 1 and 2 as it was in Empire. I looked for it, but didn't find it while skimming the posts. In any event, that observation struck me as excellent.

[GePap]

Bored also

I must agree completely with sikander. Civ3, most specifically in the later eras has very little charm and not much to do. In civ2, if I had time and extra enginners, I could terraform squares to try to push city pop. numbers up- I can't in this game. When I decided to wage wars in the late game, I always used paras- they made the game fluid and there is nothig so tense as waiting to see if that one small force you dropped deep in their land will survive long enough for reinforcements to arrive. Civ3 does not give me that enjoyment either due to miserable ranges.
I have been writing since I got to these forums, its all a matter of creating a world in which the player is fully immersed- any game looses it charm when this fades, even for a moment. In Civ3, that moment comes all to soon.