You just don't understand anything

[garciamedavar]

Civilization III is a great game, it's superior than Civilization II and has more new exciting features than its previous versions. What happens here is that you were expecting a full 3d version of the game with so much reality that it made you feel you were actually a king; but that's impossible. Anyway, Civilization II wasn't that great since it didn't give too many new features, it was like Civ1 with better graphics and some changes. Civilization III adds resources, better diplomacy, culture and many other features that make the game better.

[Alex]

To each his own, I guess...

[DrFell]

Check out this thread for my reasons why Civ3 isn't as good as Civ2:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40823

[Raion]

I never played Civ II the bloodlust way. It takes more effort to win the right way, and I play Civ III the/about the same way.
Although I am trying out an edited civ3mod.bic file, corruption for me has changed by changing things in the editor. With just a few more building, and only a few by the way, like temple, cathedral, and library, and recycling center taking away corruption, and trying some other things, in the editor to the civ3mod.bic file, I just do not see the problem.
It just takes more effort by micromangement to play the game.
It takes more effort in real life to be a leader.

I think that this game will be the same as Civ II. People will support it, and things will change with the game.
The first start is just changing the rules a little.
I added Fundamentilism Government, and can also add it to the text file, I guess, to add it to the Civilopedia even, and multiplied the attack/defense of units, by 1, 1, 1.25, 1.5 for the different eras but still have not fully tested it, and other things like the map size a little, and the resources way much so everything will appear to all Civ's, and still, it is a game one can do that with.

I have no headache with the game, and when a faster computer is bought (only 500mH), and I am playing large maps, then the game will be far superior to Civ II.

I guess I always played the game the way it was kind of intended.
I increase bombard range to 2 in some cases, and I just do not see all the problems with anything in this game.
Corruption hardly exists, and if it does on a small island, then to me it just is not that much different than Civ II, only Civ II did not tell one about it, but the length of turns was the same. 80 turns is what it did take, maybe 40 then with 2 population, but I always bought the darn improvements in Civ II, so what the heck is the difference with Civ III.

I just do not think that some of these people ever really played the game.

It takes effort to play this game, that is why some people like it.
Not just moving a bunch of units around the board!

[Daveraver]

I say they're apples and oranges. Its impossible to accurately compare a game from five years ago to one today..

(although i would have expected more than the minute graphical facelift we got... )

[Encomium]

Re: You just don't understand anything

Originally posted by garciamedavar
Civilization III is a great game, it's superior than Civilization II and has more new exciting features than its previous versions. What happens here is that you were expecting a full 3d version of the game with so much reality that it made you feel you were actually a king; but that's impossible. Anyway, Civilization II wasn't that great since it didn't give too many new features, it was like Civ1 with better graphics and some changes. Civilization III adds resources, better diplomacy, culture and many other features that make the game better.

Wrong. The game is a bust. It will not have the legs of Civ II. People on Ebay are already trying to sell it.

NO CHEAT MODE.

NO SCENARIO BUILDING.

PATHETIC USE OF NAVIES.

STUPID ILLOGICAL AI, especially Diplomatic.

Too much CORRUPTION.

To few strategic resources.

Ridiculously high costs for the very inefective Espionage.

Too much CULTURE FLIPPING. Cities flip and their big garrisons vanish. Borders flip over your improvements (even fortresses) and they blame you for the war. Borders must NOT be determined by "culture" - but by diplomacy and warfare.

AI cheating.

Enemy capitals reappearing elsewhere instantly after you conquer their capital.

Roads in enemy territory cannot be used for invasions.

A very limiting Tech Tree - you cannot beeline for an improvement anymore.

Land-grabbing AI settlers building towns all over including deserts and tundra.

And on and on. . .

Graphics? beter. So what? The game goes too slow between turns now.

[DarkCloud]

Civ III aint as good as civ II:

1.) Civ III looks like CTP
2.) Civ III's graphics SUXORS (I really like that word- It sounds vulgar, but it really isn't )
3.) Civ III's scenario editor is reputed to SUXOR.
4.) Civ III's map editor is reputed to SUXOR.
5.) Civ II offered more than Civ III in regards to mods.

and Civ II was better than Civ I in that you could have larger maps and more involved the games. The AI was much improved.

[Venge]

Re: Re: You just don't understand anything

Originally posted by Encomium


Wrong. The game is a bust. It will not have the legs of Civ II. People on Ebay are already trying to sell it.

NO CHEAT MODE.

NO SCENARIO BUILDING.

PATHETIC USE OF NAVIES.

STUPID ILLOGICAL AI, especially Diplomatic.

Too much CORRUPTION.

To few strategic resources.

Ridiculously high costs for the very inefective Espionage.

Too much CULTURE FLIPPING. Cities flip and their big garrisons vanish. Borders flip over your improvements (even fortresses) and they blame you for the war. Borders must NOT be determined by "culture" - but by diplomacy and warfare.

AI cheating.

Enemy capitals reappearing elsewhere instantly after you conquer their capital.

Roads in enemy territory cannot be used for invasions.

A very limiting Tech Tree - you cannot beeline for an improvement anymore.

Land-grabbing AI settlers building towns all over including deserts and tundra.

And on and on. . .

Graphics? beter. So what? The game goes too slow between turns now.

So what you are saying in part is Civ3 is too tough now, compared to other in the Civ series.
Yes, it would be easier if corruption was lower, then all you would have to do is spread your civ as fast as possible, and whoever started out with the most room on the map would win.
As far as strategic resources, it promotes trading to have a limit on how many are there. That, and it creates a reason to go to war for those so inclined.
High cost espionage is not a bad thing, because once again it makes it tougher. If you could just accomplish the spy acts easily and cheaply, it would make it too easy, IMO.
Culture flipping adds a complexity to it that I like. Instead of just being the toughest civ to win, now you have to consider another aspect.
AI cheating has been addressed many times, but I think it is a necessary evil in order to make the game test your skills. There is no way they will be able to make (within a reasonable cost anyway) an AI that could outmatch a player, so it has to have advantages in order to make the game playable.
Roads not being usable for invasions is yet another way to make the game tougher from the point of winning through conquest.
Limiting tech tree, I am not sure I understand your point. I still beeline to techs. I have a Republic before I can ever ride horses ...
LOL
Land grabbing settlers are easy to deal with. Either let them have the crap territory that you did not want but they did, or wipe them out

Thing is, a fair bit that you mentioned here is very easily altered in the Editor. Just change what you do not like.
I have no problem with people not liking Civ3. Not every game will attract every person.
Just so happens I like it

[OneInTen]

(although i would have expected more than the minute graphical facelift we got... )

And here in lies the problem ... while some people complain about how civ 3 has changed too much from civ 2, others complain it hasn't changed enough.

How can you possibly make a game that makes everyone happy in the face of that?

[OneInTen]

Wrong. The game is a bust. It will not have the legs of Civ II. People on Ebay are already trying to sell it.

And I lent my copy of civ 2 to a friend ages ago before I moved cities and never bothered to ask for it back before I left.

So what's your point?

FWIW, civ 3 here in Australia is still selling at its release retail price, and was number 2 on the top sellers list when I looked in Harvey Norman (big chain retail store) the other day. So it seems to still be doing well for a "bust".

[Ironikinit]

Aussies and kiwis are sensible people. I reckon they're raised not to whinge.

Still, I wish you'd not quote at length people worthy only of an ignore feature test, but eh.

Maybe some whiner buster polls are in order, like what's going on some other sites.

[DrFell]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
Maybe some whiner buster polls are in order, like what's going on some other sites.

What an idiot. Your lack of logic and continual misinterpretation of my posts is remarkable. Do you really think a poll here is going to represent the views of the general population, or even the general civ2 playing population? By the way, you may not have noticed, but your 'whiner buster' poll was posted in a civ3 forum. It may shock you, but the vast majority of people in here actually play the game, and there are a lot of new players in here and civfan who have never played civ2 before - yet what are they going to do? Go and vote for civ3, because it is the game they have played. Believe me, a lot of people have abandoned the game now, which also means abandoning the forums. Most of the people I used to know playing the game who played civ2 before have just given up. Anyway, go ahead and post a poll in civ2 general or civ2 multiplay, asking if civ2 or civ3 is the best. The result it pretty much guaranteed.

The fact is, civ3 is no longer a game, it's like a poorly designed civ2 scenario. Little flexibility, illogical limitations on research paths (what does currency, construction, and horseback riding have to do with gunpowder and navigation, for example), a poorer combat system than civ2, poor corruption model (monarchy and despotism have less corruption than communism! Monarchy is a rather useless government on the whole, democracy is the same as republic, leaving a grand total of 2 governments to choose from), and more imbalanced units and useless wonders.

[Ironikinit]

Aw, don't be a grumpy bear just cos your game lost.

Yeah, it was posted in a Civ 3 forum, just like this one.

It was made by a Civ 2 fan and a Civ 3 hater, who should've known better.

Should've known better than to hang around a forum for a game he hates.

Hey, you were the one who said the graphics were better in Civ 2, right? I understood that much of your posts, right?

Why are Civ 2 fans such big flamers?

[Kramsib]

Civ III is incomplete.

Please, give me back Panama and Suez channels.

Civ III editor is "castrated". And I want more information about my civ and the rest that I had in Civ II without calling my neighbours.

That's all, very simple, isn't it?.

[DrFell]

'It was made by a Civ 2 fan and a Civ 3 hater, who should've known better.'

It was made by someone who hates civ3 because it doesn't have wonder movies - need I say more? I'm more worried about fundamental flaws in the game mechanics.

'Hey, you were the one who said the graphics were better in Civ 2, right? I understood that much of your posts, right?'

I never said they were better. I said that TBS games only need functional and clear graphics. I'd play civ2 as much if the graphics were the same as civ1. Civ3 on my pc insists on using too high a resolution for my monitor. I'm not sure if that's the reason all the units are blurry and the sea/terrain is an awfully ugly colour, maybe it is. Civ2's graphics were crystal clear, thus they function better.