Firexis Plz Read This!!!

[Comrade Tribune]

Most of the good features in CivII were designed by Brian Reynolds, I think, but I believe he doesn´t have a copyright on them. That they actually went backwards in Civolution from CivII is mostly explained by utter stupidity, imo...

EXAMPLE: Railroads

I really believe this one example sums up what´s wrong with Firaxis:

1- The original CivI did already have this Railroad overkill. Nobody liked Railroads everywhere, they were as ugly then as they are now.

2- Brian Reynolds listened to the fans and reduced the incentive to build Railroads; CivII was perfect in that respect.

3- The ignoramusses who designed CivIII probably didn´t even know about 1- and 2- above, so they simply repeated the original mistake.

4- This is what you get if you let ignorants do a job that should be done by people who know and care about what they are doing.

[Encomium]

Originally posted by Gutz
I think the ideas are fairly good ones but I really can't see the possibilty of them being implemented in a patch. Most of your changes (except the coat of arms) would require major rewrites of the code. Never hurts to throw out the suggestions though.... maybe in civ4. I hope my post was almost as good as hurricanes....

Too bad that two months after most of us got Civ III. . . we all can't wait for Civ 4!!

Tells you how bad Civ III really is.

[notyoueither]

Martin Gühmann:

Correct me if I am wrong on any of these points.

You do not play Civ3.

You never intend to play Civ3.

You're sole interest here is to stir up sh*t and to promote your favorite patches for CTP2.

In other words you are wasting everyone's time here.

OK. I am going to violate the cardinal rule I have posted by for the last several weeks.

You are a troll. No, you are worse than a troll. At least Yin is funny from time to time.

You are an a$$.

Bring it on.

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You are an a$$.

No offences, please.

Originally posted by notyoueither
You never intend to play Civ3.

Say never never. At least I asked for a demo. But be honest the main flaw of Civ3 for me is the unit based tile improving system.

But you can also learn here something I did not know this statement:

Originally posted by Kevin Ar18
In designing a game if it comes to a choice between realism and fun, chose fun.

But I can agree as I judged CTP2 as a empire simulation and Civ2 as a game.

-Martin

[Atahualpa]

In civ2 when u captured the capital of enemy the whole nation spread into two

1960: Washington is taken by the Russians and suddenly Americans split up in two groups. I can REALLY see this situation
I guess rather would every American grab his gun and try to take the capital back.
Such attacks just unite a nation more and more, if it wasnt falling apart before.

Show me ONE nation that split because their capital was taken.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Martin Gühmann:
...
You do not play Civ3.

You never intend to play Civ3.
...
You are a troll.

NotYou:

1- I do not vote for the Nazis.

2- I never intend to vote for the Nazis.

3- Therefore, I must not discuss the Nazis.

See the flaw in your logic?

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Martin Gühmann

But I can agree as I judged CTP2 as a empire simulation and Civ2 as a game.

-Martin

Absolutely. Congratulations for not buying CivIII. It may be playable as a sort of not too cool Risk variant, but I don´t think that´s what the fans wanted and expected.

[Comrade Tribune]

Btw, what happened to Vel´s new thread? It wasn´t closed, it wasn´t moved, simply vanished without a trace?

[Hurry]

I think Firaxis tried to learn something from Railroad Tycoon: RR1 was much more fun than RR2, because RR2 was packed with too much details. Yes, Civ3 has many flaws and problems, but seen as a whole, I think it is a quite enjoyable game.

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune:

1- I do not vote for the Nazis.

2- I never intend to vote for the Nazis.

3- Therefore, I must not discuss the Nazis.

See the flaw in your logic?

Lousy example. What makes a voter of one political party more informed about politics than a voter for another party? You folks seem to be annoyed that Civ3 is not just a better version of Civ2. It´s not, its another game. Live with it.

[The Andy-Man]

but thats what very one wanted, a better version of Civ2.

Civ2 was great, i just got the the late industrial era for the first time on Civ3 (using the long winded changes mod, didnt even attempt the normal game with that sorta navy) and i am bored sensless. the Romans declared war on me and every one seemed to be annoyed with me at the same time (i have never started a war and only bin in 2 before), and all of a sudden the french join in with the romans, i get war wariness and stuff. this is all ok, but in Civ2 you had the opertunity to ask for peace a bit quicker

I digrerssed a bit, with Civ3 it feels you are just waiting for your culture to expand, or just waiting for sumthin fun to happen. civ2 was action all the way.

Civ2 was playable for hours, civ3 is missing that special sumthin.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Hurry
Lousy example. What makes a voter of one political party more informed about politics than a voter for another party?

My point was that discussing a game you do not intend to buy doesn´t make you a Troll.

Btw, I never bought Ctp2. Martin has now convinced me that, after extensive modification, it´s now worth a try.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
Show me ONE nation that split because their capital was taken.

On a truly broad brush look at history (the only kind Civ could even come close to claiming) you could nominate the Romans.

Most of the ideas that Civ III or IV would ever need are contained in its competing products or in the pages of Apolyton somewhere (not least The List). Unfortunately there was an admission from the developers that they didn't really look at any other games to see what they did well and while Apolyton has all the good ideas for implementation it has hundreds of bad, undeveloped or un-fun ones too.

Firaxis have already hurt their reputation with the dedicated Civ fans, largely I believe because of pressure applied from Infogrammes to cut features and release to the original deadline. To regain a measure of that respect they need to release an absolutely cracking patch / expansion that solves the current game faults and reduces late game tedium by either expanding the options in the modern age or vastly reducing micromanagement. For the multiplayer enthusiasts there would have to be a series of viable multiplayer options included as well. For the modmakers a truly useful editor is another must (and is the only thing that could ensure a long term future for the game.) We are only going to get this sort of comprehensive package if Infogrammes decides it will sell well enough to make a significant amount of money. Sad but true.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Btw, I never bought Ctp2. Martin has now convinced me that, after extensive modification, it´s now worth a try.

CTP and especially CTP2 are very good games indeed, and definitely worth to be played. While I don't think, that Civ3 is a total disaster, just another game greatly rushed and with many flaws that need to be fixed, I alter playing Civ3/CTP2/Civ2 though.