I've realized over the past few days that the state of relations between Civs has been made significantly worse than that of Civ2. Why do I say that? Well, because in Civ3 there are only two state of relations between a Civ - peace and war. Now peace does have variants along with it, that alters the relation of just peace, such as how you can be at peace with a Civ and they can be either annoyed, cautious, happy, etc... I didn't mention alliance as a state of relation because in Civ3 it is used as a variant with peace. In war, there are not any variants. Whereas with Civ2 you could be at peace with a Civ and they could feel x with you, you could be at war with a Civ and they could feel x with you, you could be in an alliance with a Civ and they could feel x with you, you could simply not be at terms with a Civ and they could feel x with you, etc... Now I ask this, why would you go with the current system of Civ3? The only reason that comes to mind is that Firaxis wanted to make Civ3 less complicated but still just as strategic and fun. That is fine, but I don't think you can sacfrice complexity and retain all of the strategy. In not retaining all of the strategy you ultimately take away fun as well. It's probably too late for Firaxis to go back on this decision, in fact I know it is (possibly in an expansion, though), but I'm really dissapoint as to how Firaxis handled the state of relations with Civs. Not to mention, Firaxis took away the factor of reputation from the game. I can understand this in MP terms, but I don't see any MP games being played, at least not by Civ3 customers. So again, I ask why?
BtW, I'm not saying Diplomacy, for Civ3, in it's entirity is worse than Civ2, yet, that just the state of relations between Civs in Civ2 is far superior than that of Civ3.
BtW, I'm not saying Diplomacy, for Civ3, in it's entirity is worse than Civ2, yet, that just the state of relations between Civs in Civ2 is far superior than that of Civ3.
Comment