CivULATION or SiDAPPOINTMENT?

[Bolleck]

Oops.

Oops. Higher is better?

Ok. Three stars then...

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
Oh, and excactly which concepts from SMAC do you see in this game...

the jackal.txt

also bombard units. civ2-cannons el all could attack and capture. smax the similar units could just destroy improvements and knock down hp, but not kill. (i'm right on this, aren't I?)

[dawidge]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
also bombard units. civ2-cannons el all could attack and capture. smax the similar units could just destroy improvements and knock down hp, but not kill. (i'm right on this, aren't I?)

You are essentially correct (although I could wish for counterbattery fire and artillery duels). In CIV2, I would wait for howitzers, then send in an army of engineers and howitzers to buld RRs and sweep through the enemy. The 1 turn overrun is born. Artillery in CIV2 was too dominant.

[ChaotikVisions]

Hmm, just off the top of my head bombarding units and civ(faction in SMAC/SMACX) special traits. Admittedly in SMAC they were different, but its mostly along the same principle. Like Prokhovs science trait, Santiago's military trait, etc.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


the jackal.txt

also bombard units. civ2-cannons el all could attack and capture. smax the similar units could just destroy improvements and knock down hp, but not kill. (i'm right on this, aren't I?)

Yes, you´re right. I forgot about those...

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Kamrat X


Yes, you´re right. I forgot about those...

I agree with your main point though, that there were a lot of interesting ideas in SMAX that could have been included in Civ3 but weren't.

[Zoid]

Yeah, what I really would have liked would´ve been a sequel to SMAC.

Picture this: some refugees from Chiron crash on a uninhabited but hospitable planet and stripped of most of their equipment they´re forced to rebuild civilization from scratch.

Not only can you then get a new spin on the whole Civ-thing, you also get the logical follow up to Civ2 and SMAC/X. In essence a continuing saga of human perserverance and stamina.

If they´ve kept Brian onboard and developed the SMAC-concept further and merged with the good ideas from Civ3 THAT would have been the greatest game ever made IMHO.

[Denday]

3.5

Originally posted by Sava
Overall, Civ 3 is a huge disappointment.

Even i dont think that its to flash but with the mod its
pretty good come on just because u have to change some stuff doesn't make it bad
and i enjoy a game which you can change to your own prefrences.

crazy a list btween 1 and 4

[simwiz2]

2.5

Pre-1.21 I would have given a 1.5, but things like lethal bombardment in the editor, better AI (builds riflemen over longbowmen now), and all the other little things that I can't remember right now but make it a lot more fun to play can somewhat redeem it.

[SpencerH]

I've just finished my first 1.21 game (monarch, continents, default rules). I still won but it was much tougher. Trading was a pain so I was lucky to not require any resources from the AI. I consistently had to trade 2 luxurys plus cash for 1 from the AI (that seems way out of balance). The AI still cant use arty but the naval battles were better.

If this game had been sold instead of the beta version I would have given it a 3 or maybe a 3.5 instead of the 2 I originally gave it.

[DeanToth]

Originally posted by centrifuge
I honestly think that these posts have been far to plentiful, what it boils down to is if you like it great, keep on playing...discuss strategy etc. If you don't like it, then move on, try something new, but don't continue writing about how the game could have been better. If you want to be proactive in making a game better, switch to CTP2 or go back to Civ2. When or if Firaxis gives Civ3 more modding ability, then you can come back and try it again. I for one think that Civ3 is an excellent game, it is more challenging than Civ2 and has some very good new ideas.

I don't see what is so innapropriate about posting on a thread thats very topic is "how do you rate this game" by answering honestly, whether positive or negative.

That said, None of us "CTP2" fans are disputing that CivIII is improved over CivII. It does indeed have good ideas and I would play CivIII over II anyday.

Still, certain additions to the game would've made it even better (i.e. army stacking, etc). Nuff said.

Now go play

[Kc7mxo]

I gave civ a 2.5

its fun, but has proiblems, (a notable one is that a 3HP tank attacked and lost against a 2 HP swordsman in the last game i played, and the fact that i lost a dozen or so infantry, to OTHER infantry in signle combat)

i like the AI, and i enjoy the diplomacy. i don't like the way research plays out (have to trade to stay up) and i think that they made the lower levels too difficult as well. (non-hardcore civers seem to have problems).

[hexagonian]

Re: you people

Originally posted by ChaotikVisions
And all those who keep going "CtP2 is better", why are you frequenting a civ3 forum? Go sing praises on the CtP2 one.

Boy, the civ3 fans must feel threatened by people who want to compare civ-style games.

... they must be afraid that some civ3 loyalists might actually decide to give Modded CTP2 a try and decide it is actually better.

Personally, I think the freedom to make comparisons on threads like these are a good way for the informed player to make a choice, one way or another.

We all like to be informed, don't we...weighing the pros and cons of each game in reasoned debate. And with a constant influx of newbies, all of which have differing viewpoints about civ3 both pro and con, there is always the need to keep the debate fresh and vital.

After all, its just a game.

Long live free and open discourse!!!!

[da_jaymz]

well, Civ3 is not really mod-friendly as "the other game" but its not THAT bad either. If there is a way to implement a better combat system it would be improved by a mile. In "the other game" you could just click on a "bombard" button in a stack and all units with "bombard" ability would attack automaticly....
Combat its where it hurts the game most...all the other things I can live without but don't take away combat from me...

[Jon Shafer]

Personally, I think Civ 3 is okay. Compared to other games, it's not very deep at all, and tries to make up for that by including as many aspects of a strategy-civ-building game as possible, and comes up short in nearly every one of them. I rarely find the motivation to continue a game much after 500AD for some reason... I just don't feel like playing it anymore. However, it breaks new ground in a variety of areas, and who knows, Civ IV might just be "the one" ... I give it a 2.5.