Civ3 is great!

[David Murray]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Dunno, I'm doin pretty good with Communism.

Oh my gosh, did he say THAT word?!!!! Where's McCarthy when you need him?!

Salve

I like Communism too, but come on. Civilization isn't Civilization without FUNDAMENTALISM.

What *were* they thinking about.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by Smash
Marquis de Sodaq-I want to post back in...oh..2-4 weeks of playing and tell us your thoughts at that time.

I think it will be most interesting.

Maybe I'll get bored, maybe not. My life away from the pc only allows me an hour or so in a day, if that. 50 hours of fun would last me months... As I said, I'm not convinced it's a classic, that maybe in a half year I'll find it tiresome. I expect a working scenario editor will make it impressive for most anyone. Really, strategic resources, diplomacy (even tho I miss the spy and caravan units... ), and culture are cool additions to the civ genre.

I like the CivII combat system better, but have not minded the unbelievable result that crops up once in a million battles. CivII had that, too.

I don't miss fundamentalism at all. That gov't made the game far too easy in CivII. It allowed the player to sidestep any concern for happiness or science. That's half the game! I say good riddance to it as a gov't.

What many have complained about can just as fairly be seen as changes that add to the challenge. You wanted to win at deity by your third game? Too bad, they made a game that will take longer to master.

[Libertarian]

Huh? The only difficult way to win in Civ3 is world conquest at higher levels. But even then, the only opponent that will defeat you is the interface. So you lose. Interest, that is.

[frankdog]

IMHO Civ 3 is a better game than my beloved CIV 2...

1) Strategic resources - this is what real world wars are fought about

2) Corruption - it's too expensive to conquer the planet - again, like the real world

3) Better battles - retreating units and stacked units each getting a chance to defend themselves

The Civ series is supposed to be a recreation of real world history, these new ideas get it closer.

[simwiz2]

"Better battles - retreating units and stacked units each getting a chance to defend themselves"


Yes, having immortal horsemen/knights/cavalry does vastly improve the battles

[Ironikinit]

Well, it's my experience that units capable of disengaging are pretty far from immortal, for the following reasons:

1. They don't retreat against other fast units.

2. They don't retreat when the defender is down to a single hit point.

3. After retreating they are easy prey.

If you feel that horsemen/knights/cavalry/tanks/whatever are too powerful, as I understand it they are easy to weaken with the editor.

Pardon me, simwiz, but why do you hold up a single one of frankdog's points while ignoring the rest? Invalidating a single point (which failed for the reasons I listed above IMO) doesn't invalidate the entire argument, no matter how many smilies you use.

Edit: simwiz, your signature is bull and you know it if you've actually played the game. Knights have always lost to tanks in my games no matter how good their terrain is. This whole "spearmen defeating tanks" line is a molehill posing as a mountain.

Lib, while you may find the game to be unchallenging (as unchallenging as you no doubt found Civ 2), a quick look through the strategy section shows that not many find it to be so easy. Personally, I find monarch level to be a pleasant challenge, and I can make it more difficult by handicapping myself (taking a civ I don't like, intentionally being a slowpoke, upping barbarian activity, etc., etc.)

[notyoueither]

re

I think they think it lends some sort of authority. The more the better. Or something.

Maybe it's the badge that some trollers are always on about. Who knows?

I don't know. Have you ever found the AI's fast units to be immortal? I haven't. Neither are mine, except the casualty rate is much lower. MUCH. Soren?

Salve

[Smash]

ok...an hour or 2 per day should be about right for 3 weeks.

It is good,but no where near great.And rather monotonous at times.

The new 1 at a time stacks make combat much,much,much easier.In 2 I had to use terrain wisely.I had to split my armies,I couldn't just use a right of passage and put my armies next to cities.I had to plan it out or lose the whole shibang in 1 shot.Now I can completely ignore terrain and tactics,I just overwhelm cities one by one.Its very easy.

Now I have to worry about losing my troops after the battles have been fought.Big improvement

[Libertarian]

Ironik:

Yeah, I tried that sort of thing. Playing maps and civs I didn't like, and so forth. The effect was to end up with a game I didn't like.

Meanwhile...

Our Exile arrived. Sumptuous. Positively an object lesson in what interfaces are all about. Mystery and puzzle solving is fun, mentally challenging, and rewarding. And the interface is completely forgotten within moments, being, as it is, merely an extension of the gaming experience.

Playing Exile after fighting with Civ3 for months was like a cool balm on a searing wound. I like strategy games, but I think I'll wait for a good one. One that I can play the way I like and still enjoy the experience.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Libertarian

Playing Exile after fighting with Civ3 for months was like a cool balm on a searing wound.

I had a similar experience recently with Galactic Battlegrounds. I do not usually like RTS games, but this one is so good in every department -play balance, pacing, aesthetics, interface, you name it-, that I really feel I am getting my money´s worth here; very much unlike CivIII. It´s really preferable to play a great RTS instead of a crappy TBS.

[Ironikinit]

Have fun, guys. I'm not big on mystery or RTS myself. TBS still rocks for me.

[Comrade Tribune]

It would for me, too. There just haven´t been that many good TBS around, lately. I´m not giving up hope, though.

[Fidel]

the game is rather good. can use some improvements but is overall good bang for the buck. much better than civ2 in its time.

[The diplomat]

Civ3 is great!

I think the anti-civ3 feelings are a little overboard. Civ3 is an amazing game. I love it and can't stop playing it. The only reason why people are complaining is because many civers had unrealistic expectations. We expect the perfect game, which will never exist.

The perfect civ game does not exist! it is impossible to make a civ game that will have no flaws, no bugs, and meet every single civers expectations. Can't happen! We can try to imporve civ3, but let's stop bashing the game unfairly! The game is excellent!

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Thanks, diplomat. In almost every aspect of life, disappointment is due to expectations being too high, not because someone or something is at fault. The same holds true for a game.


(MdS watching for the tomatoes about to fly...)

Yes, Firaxis made promises that were not fulfilled, I'm aware of that. Even so, they are only a software programming group. If you expected them to deliver a lifelike sim that answered the requests of all, of course you are disappointed.

I'm not trolling with this thread, I just want people to sit back and appreciate the game. If you gave it a fair chance and still think it sucks, fine.