What game should Civ3 have been?

[Ironikinit]

Actually, I enjoyed SMAC enough that I probably would've been OK if Civ 3 had used SMAC as a starting point. I'd have to play the actual game before I could say if it would've been better than Civ 3, tho. With the right streamlining and Civ 3's good looks, it could be pretty good.

[The Andy-Man]

if SMAC had been based on earh with Civ2 units, and a slightly different SE (one that fit earth more then a futuristic planet world), and maybe if it had resources - but implimented a little more like maybe Imperialsm 2, or in some way that 1 source of iroon dosnt feed a whole empire, and that your horses dont deplete even though you never used them.

so, if SMAC had bin the above, even if smac had just had civ2 units, it would have bin a brilliant Civ3, cos i luved the game, but the sci fi aspect put me off a lil.

also add massive maps and more then 7 civs to SMAC.

[volcanohead]

Agree 100% with both previous posters. A seriously branched tech tree, some limited unit design, SE and resources, together with combat that took account of terrain bonuses, and you have a cracking game.

V

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by Martinus Magnificus
For instance, what's this stupid bombardment feature? I like the idea, but the way it is implemented now, it's useless. Why build costly catapults or bombers when all they do is level a few buildings or killing some citizens of a city you want to capture a turn later??? In real ife, (level) bombers are very usefull for destroying the factories and plants of a city (thus paralizing its war industries), where you are not in the position of capturing the city with ground troops (UK-Germany, 1944)

You do realize that German war production peaked in July 1944, right? Despite four years of Alllied air bombings, mounting losses on the Eastern front, the collapse of the Luftwaffe, and the (re)opening of the Western front?

It really hasn't been until the 1990s that bombers have been able to execute true, precision strikes on enemy targets (maybe to an extent in the 1980s as well). Even then the issue of "What's a target?" still rears its head (c.ref. reports that Americans flattened a hospital/village in Afghanistan/Kosovo/Iraq). So I actually think that bombardment is one of the things that Civ3 models fairly well.

[DrFell]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
DrFell, you make it sound so easy. I'd really like to see your deity save game, could you post it as promised? You said you'd have it up Friday.

It's not easy, just simplistic. I actually sometimes enjoy the early conquest (the early era is my favorite, rapid, decisive wars are fought here). Often things don't work out properly. Once you've made a couple civs your *****es, your all set. Before then, suprise cultural reversions can hurt you badly (which is why I raze civ no2, and incorporate civ no1s empire into my own), and sometimes you end up resourceless (relying on archers for conquest is a killer, you lose so many). The very early game is where most screw ups occur. I'm glad they hurt despot rush anyway, now things are a little more difficult. I have to work out what size cities need to be to produce most units quickly, and keep a size 1 slave pop rush city around. I recommend you try it though, pick the Egyptians, they're chariots are great as cheap and quick to get horsemen. If you have no horses buy iron working, if you have no iron rely on archers. Build about 3 cities, barracks in each, and pump out the units.

No saves posted yet, I want to try out the new patch with no despot rush properly first

[Ironikinit]

I guess I'm being too subtle.

What I'm saying is that I think you're a liar, DrFell.

[FNBrown]

I kinda like the game as it is... I would definately enjoy a few additional fixes (better editor - real scenarios), and maybe a nice expansion pack (more civs, techs, units, etc)... If Firaxis is willing to keep the game lively with occassional updates like this, then it'll be enjoyable for a long time.

[Raion]

Yes, and in Civ IV there should be polls.
And the Gods buried their heads.

[candidgamera]

Civ3 + Rail Tycoon 2 + EU

[DrFell]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
I guess I'm being too subtle.

What I'm saying is that I think you're a liar, DrFell.

Because you do poorly on the highest level it means everyone else has to? That doesn't make much sense. I don't need to prove myself to anyone. I guess when mp comes out we'll see. But for now go try out what I said in my post, and see where it gets you. Make sure to demand as much as possible off the AIs you conquer when you make peace. You can't go out insulting me when you've never actually tried my strategy before (it's not even all my strat, check the strategy forums, this is just my implementation). Then you go ahead and post your own saves.

P.S, if you think I'm lying about being in university, go right onto the zone and ask around. Now, over here I can use the university PCs but I don't have one of my own, thus no civ3. I go home most weekends, then I have access to my own PC+internet.

[ACooper]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
I guess I'm being too subtle.

What I'm saying is that I think you're a liar, DrFell.

Don't waste your breath(typing fingers?). He'll never back his words. He just likes to talk.

[DrFell]

Funny, considering I just wrote a post on how I play. Do you want me to elaborate? Read my posts, and try out my strategies before you comment on them.

I have heard this **** all before though.

[Martinus Magnificus]

Originally posted by optimus2861

It really hasn't been until the 1990s that bombers have been able to execute true, precision strikes on enemy targets (maybe to an extent in the 1980s as well). Even then the issue of "What's a target?" still rears its head (c.ref. reports that Americans flattened a hospital/village in Afghanistan/Kosovo/Iraq). So I actually think that bombardment is one of the things that Civ3 models fairly well.

Okay. you might have a point there. But that leaves an interesting question: Why build bombers anyway (both in real life and in Civ 3)? IMO they are much to costly compared to their use. I mean, if what you say is true, what can you effectively DO with (WW2 type) bombers??? The same goes for catapults.
In Civ 2 you had a very good reason for building catapults, bombers and fighters, in Civ 3 I can't imagine a single reason to build them. Destroying buildings is of no use at all if you plan to capture a city soon, especially cultural buildings, which are destroyed anyway when you capture the city.
Weakening defences is a valid reason, but since a bomber does that only about 20 percent of the time, it's not effective to use bombers for that purpose. That leaves only population decimating as a valid reason, IMO a rather unrealistic one (you don't honestly believe that the allies bombed the helll out of german cities during WW2 just to decimate the german population, do you?).

[loinburger]

Martinus: Dresden might be an example of population decimation...

[Jac de Molay]

All I was basically looking for was a civ 2 with slightly more units and techs, and a much improved. I have never been for eye candy, just a quality game