Zylka’s 95 theses on why Civilization 3 is an utter disappointment.

[awesomedude]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

I'm not a history expert, but I don't think bombers are historically responsible for too many ship kills, especially against larger ships like battleships and carriers

Good Lord. I'd go so far as to say the 90% of the capital ships sunk in WWII were lost as a result of bombing or torpedoing from the air.

EDIT: After reading my little reply here, it's basically just a repeat of the above... I'll spare myself that not-so-brilliant comment .

Originally posted by Kenjura

I applaud the higher number of units.

I do not applaud the uselessness of most of them.

Maybe I shouldn't talk too much since I haven't been counting the present number of units or anything , but to me it seems like the number of, and/or at least the diversity of units has sadly decreased from Civ2. Where are the Dragoons? The Ski-troops (damn, can't remember the actual name of them)? The missing naval units (Crusiers)? There's just too much use of a single unit during a certain age...first of it's swordsmen (leaving out civ specific units), then the knights, the cavalry, the tanks etc.

[awesomedude]

Originally posted by Coracle


Firaxis knows NOTHING about Military History.

I can think of only ONE battle where a battleship (not a battlecruiser, which were more lightly armored) was sunk by surface gunfire - Surigao Straight during the Leyte Gulf campaign in 1944. An old Japanese battleship was sunk by American BB's.

Warships get sunk by AIRPOWER; battleships almost exclusively by airpower.

BTW, the Bismarck was scuttled after being shelled. It was not sunk by gunfire.

What about Hood? Wouldn't you consider that a battleship?

[nationalist]

Re: Re: Zylka’s 95 theses on why Civilization 3 is an utter disappointment.

Originally posted by Kenjura
My only pure military victory took me some six hours, and I had modern armor. In 3000 BC

How did you possibly get Modern Armor in 3000 B.C.? That's like 5 turns.

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Coracle


Firaxis knows NOTHING about Military History.

I dunno, Coracle didn't answer to the excelent point made about the Hood yet... but from his post, i'm gathering that the above quote is missing a word. "Firaxis knows NOTHING about Pacific Military History."

Dude! the Hood! The pride of the British Navy... downed by the Bismark. Bismark wasn't an Me-111 last i checked (sorry, i had to throw that in ).

Oh, and as far for how military history applies to Naval warfare, well....

Battleships can very well destroy each other. Just cuz the naval war in the pacific was pretty much in the air, and the naval war in the atlantic was U-boat centric (other than Bismark vs. Hood), doesnt mean Firaxis screwed up here. Like, should Firaxis have coded fighters to have the ability to go kamikaze, solely because the Japanese used it to bring some of the heaviest naval loses on the US fleet? And, in any case, they are fixing the ability to choose wether you want to make bombing lethal.

But in any case, the Bismark was damaged by bombing, but not sunk. It took a purely naval battle before the captain of the Bismark threw away the pride of the German Navy.

Anyways, i'll give Firaxis an once of credit on Nukes. Hiroshima IS still a city after all. But... i would have made the nuke slightly more powerful, and much more of a tool to bring the enemy to the diplomatic table. The Japs didn't refuse to talk to the Americans for 20 turns worth of years after the Americans gave them enough of a microwaving.

[dikwhit]

you say above that the domination victory is impossible. No not really. Tedious yup.... time consuming sure..... mindless and just pumping score absolutely. Huge/continents/maximum land about 100 cities roughly 55-60% of land is mine and monarch difficulty. however the game has been over for 500 years its 1970ish.domination is fairly easy but my god the game duration..... pushing 40 hours. Gives quite the empire feel to the game but ya know domination is way too many headaches for too little reward. A complete civ2 techhead forced to warmonger to score points in civ3. which just a rambling way to ask the question burning in all our minds WHEN WILL THIS BETA TEST BE OVER AND THE FINISHED PRODUCT COME OUT??

[BucksRock]

While I don't agree with all of Zylka's points I agree it was a major disappointment, and I don't even play multiplayer games.

One thing I take exception with is flaming the programmers. It is not their fault the game was rushed. Firaxis bought major shelf space for Christmas and beyond. How much? Check out your local software store. Is Civ III stlll in the front with the "hot" titles? Sure is. Is it because it's such a great game? Uh, no. It's because that space is bought and paid for.

Now, you think Firaxis was going to eat at least five months of nationwide shelf space because their sweatshop minions were whining because the game wasn't finished? NOT. That's why they released it even though it was still in beta, because not releasing it would have cost them more. If you want to blame someone, blame Soren for the poor game design and not being able to meet deadline (if in fact it was a reasonable deadline, which we'll probably never know).

[notyoueither]

Oh man. BucksRock, do some reading willya.

1. Infogrames is the publisher, not Firaxis. [My opinion now] The only option Firaxis would have had was whether to blow the dead line (and be in default of a contract with the publisher) or to brush it up enough before release and stick with it later (which they are doing). [/My opinion]

2. The guts of the development team were ripped out a while after the project was begun when Brian Reynolds and a bunch of *his guys* walked. That left Firaxis with the deal, but no team. [My opinion now] I think it's a small wonder (pun intended) that the final team created as decent a game as they did. And, again to their credit, they are not abandoning it. [/My opinion]

*One thing I take exception with is flaming the programmers.* This I agree with, only as I pointed out, Firaxis is in the camp of the programmers. Actually, it is the camp of the programmers, or whatever. As for the evils of publishers, ever heard of BattleCruiser3000?

The thread is very entertaining, although I disagree with many of Zylka's theses. Just call me catholic.

[Ethelred]

Now since this thread turned into a ridiculous flame war the first time round, I’d like to try again in hopes of rational debate. This thread is geared towards influencing change for multiplayer. If you have problems with criticism and complaint, I’d advise you to avoid posting below.

You mean you are back from a well earned trip to Mingapulco from the last time you posted this and were unable to deal with criticism and flames. Since your post IS a flame you really shouldn't be suprised that it might generate more flames.

If you had really wanted rational debate you would have changed the parts of your rant that were blatently wrong this time around. Some of your complaints are reasonable and valid but others weren't and were clearly shown to be wrong the first time. Yet they are still there. Many of the others are a matter of taste.

If YOU have problems with complaints and criticism about your rant then you shouldn't have posted this again. Clearly you are demanding that you be allowed to rant unapposed this time. Too bad.

I had two instances of IE open for this. That way I could look at the original and comment at the same time. It may be good to read it this way as well if anyone actually wants to read the whole monstrosity. Its more than huge enough without quotes.

Yes I do actually comment in some way on EVERY point. No one else has so I did.

1 - Yes. Infogrammes is responsible for that garbage. However it has nothing to do with you claim the GAME is an utter disapointment.

2 - There weren't many bugs. Most people could play the game as is. A few couldn't. Gamebreaking bugs only effected a few hardware configurations. Some were do the drivers being changed AFTER the game was finished.

3 - That one is your problem. Others have it as well but the fact is Civ was always a single player game first. I personally have no interest in multi-player. So that was not a disapointment to me or a very percentage of the buyers.

4 - I never played a single scenario in Civ II. However they really did a poor job on this one. It doesn't affect all players and even most of those effected got their moneys worth without any scenarios. A disapointment yes but hardly a fatal one for most of the buyers.

5- Yes. AND no. It takes more than 20 minutes to make a good map. First time anyway. You had no need for hyperbole on such and obvious issue. The problem is real yet you felt the need to overstate it. At least the random maps are decent.

6 - Redundant. You covered that with Scenarios allready. Padding?

7 - You need to learn Windows. You have a lot of gall calling people newbies if you are this unskilled with windows. More evidence that you don't want criticism as you should have removed this after you lack of knowledge was pointed out the first time.

8 - More of a sign of impatience on your part than a sign that Firaxis isn't doing anything. The first came out in a timely manner. The second did take rather a long time but considering how much complaining accompanied the release it is apparent that if needed more testing and tweaking. A case of damned if they and damned if they don't.

9 - Quit playing on HUGE maps. Its very simple to speed up the game that way. Flogging 400 to 1000 units around is a self inflicted torture I do not engage in. Doubling the linear dimensions quadruples the the area and therefor the number of actions the game engine must perform on top of which many functions are not linear in nature. Doubleing the area as opposed to the length can also result quadrupled time for many subroutines.

10 - The water is a touch green. Not Jade. The mountains are a reddish brown. More hyperbole. Water is often greenish and if you think mountains are never red you haven't got around very much. They are also usually red on elevation maps so its not at all unreasonable. This is a matter of taste and anyone that becomes dispointed in the game over this would also note that your avatar is skinny. Maybe not even then as I am the one noticing she is need of some more flesh and I don't mind the colors.

11 - Again you think your taste is universal.

The common idiot and even the very inteleligent around here have no problem. Perhaps you are an Uncommon idiot. Dont' go flaming and expect none back.

12 - Taste. I like it. Others do as well. Close your eyes.

13 - Maybe not exactly lame. Certainly a waste of effort and it makes modification harder. Again this isn't a game killer even it was a less than good idea.

14 - Taste and you have made it very clear that is something you don't have much of. See things too. There is no cleavage. This was pointed out last time. Yet you left this falsehood in. How can you expect others to learn if you refuse to do so yourself.

15 - Taste. They mostly look fine to me. I think the aluminum trash cans are funny. True they supposed to be soft drink cans but the don't that way. In your unreason you missed the ONE resource that trully has a bad icon. COAL. That is the one that needs changing. Lots of people don't see it.

16 - Taste. Go play Command and Conquer if you need that sort of stuff to like a game.

Still on this I agree a bit. It could use improvement but again it doesn't break the game for most.

17 - Taste. It does look a bit like a place holder though. You have a lot of nerve to call anything tacky though with what you have next to your avatar. Hypocrite.

18 - I take it you needed to pad a lot.

19 - Didn't you just complain about the Nukes. Make up your mind.

20 - Taste. Silly too. 16 civs that need to be readily differentiable by color mean the colors must be strong and different. At least they are better than the 16 that IBM chose for the EGA pallate.

I would like to CHOOSE my color though. I want RED. If I can't have red I want green. With yellow highlights. And nice path running down the middle.

21 Taste. Not a bad idea but it would difficult to implement. I don't see your idea as adding anything to gameplay though. I wouldn't mind if it was done that way.

22 - Realistic or not it was devised to deal with the ICS nonsense. It does the job. I would really like for there to be a few more building that counteract corruption. Telephony for instance. Newspapers would be good. I can deal with it as it is though.

23 - I like it. I am not the only that likes it. Its there for the builders not for the warmongers. Adds to the depth of the game. Good idea that might be improved. Your solution is unwieldy and a pain. Funny how you flame all over this post yet expect none in return. Sad the way the some people think they are immune from criticism.

Culture is not about emigration. It could be handled with emigration but it would be difficult time consuming and you are allready complaing the game is slow.

24 - False. You were called on this before as well. The AI gets a bonus. However it other wise plays by the same rules as the human. A pleasant change from Civ and Civ II where the AI was obviously producing thing out of thin air.

25 - Are you expecting the AI to be Hannibal. Come to think of it Hannibal did what you are complaining about.

26 - I can see you have strange ideas about how long it takes to come up with FUNCTIONING ideas. Your spittwadding on imigration is what comes from that sort of lunchtime planning.

Smart people want less micromanagment. Smart people want more micromanagement. Depends on which smart people are talking. You are hardly the perfect example of what smart people want. Not sure you are smart in the first place. You repeated a lot the same mistakes this time. Didn't change anything at all. Not smart.

27 - The Domestic Moron could be vastly improved by vanishing without a trace. Hey one I agree completly on. The Domestic Irritant is only good for derision. I suppose some find it usefull. Those that find the Domestic Idiot the most irritating however are the ones that insist on playing on huge maps. More contact with her Idiotness means more irritation.

28 - You do like hyperbole don't you? It usually takes at least FOUR turns and then only if you start a war shortly after another war. I have gone at least twenty turns sometimes before the first sign of war wearness.

If Firaxis wanted to make warefare useless they sure did a bad job of it. Warmongers can win the game before the year 1 AD. Perhaps you just aren't any good at it.

29 - I don't see why. Irrigation and removal of jungle and swamp is about all people do in the real world. Terraforming is for science fiction games.

30 - Bogus. ICS is not REX. Do try to learn the difference. Someone has covered that well allready. Both were standard for players in Civ II. Why should Firaxis cripple the AI? Just to make it easy for players to REX their way to an easy deity win?

31 - Yes. Then again you also said bombers were worthless. Do try for some consistency. Self contradiction is a sure sign of poorly thought out ranting.

32 - I like them. Many others do as well. I suppose it would be nice if the lazy and strategicaly inept had the option to turn off resources. Sorry I was following your lead on that one. You seem to think only those that agree with you are inteligent.

33 - Some people have no tolerance at all for things not being exactly the way THEY want. The obsolete units don't bug me at all. Just ignore them and they won't hurt you. I promise they don't bite if you don't build them.

34 - The problem on this one is two fold. One is that fixing it would break the game. The other is that this traditional in the Civ games. Greater range would be good but then it would hard to interdict the other players ships as can be done in the real world. This problem is at least partly inherent in a turn based game. Without an opportunity fire option I don't see where a major increase in range would be a good idea.

Invasions would be intantaneous in your scenario. No chance to bombard or position troops. Bad idea.

35 - I am afraid this one is a legacy of the rushed nature of the game. That was caused by Brian Reynolds and Infogrammes. Fortunatly the game is still fun for of the buyers.

36 - Not true. I use them. You just don't know how. Try learning instead of spending your time ranting. Even the AI can use them succsesfully. Surely you can match the AI can't you?

37 - Carravans were a pain and the AI couldn't be expected to use them well. Of course they don't seem to use the GL for this either. In any case I disagee. They aren't random in my games.

38 - Bogus. Very usefull. Could be more usefull if they sunk ships. This will be an option with the next patch. You really should have updated your rant.

39 - As they could and did in WWII. Your imaginations seems a bit limited. 50 meters?! No plane has ever had that much wingpan. More egregious hyperbole. You must have known your position was too weak to stand on reality.

40 - This is a turn based PC game for a wide audience . Not a board game for grognards. Opportunity fire is an advanced board game idea for serrious grognards.

Nuclear realism requires the end of civilization and possibly life on earth itself. Even Ronald Reagan finally understood this. We stopped hearing that stupid claim from his administration that such a war could be won with a shovel and two feet of earth.

41 - Well some of the spying options sure are expensive anyway. I am not sure they are overpriced though.

Exposing a mole is handled wrong though. Spying could use some work.

I don't think its irreparibly screwed up though. In fact by this point I have come to the conclusion that if you say something is irreparable that means its close to perfect.

Well I felt I should use some hyperbole myself.

42 - The tech tree could use some work. So could your constant use of derogatory terms for those that don't agree with you.

The modern era in particular need a few more techs and it definitly needs to be rearanged.

43 - Some of the UU units don't work. There is no need to disable them though.

44 - Wrong as you were on subs. I use them. So do others. Your lack on talent is not indicative of broken units.

They WERE pretty useless originally though. Now they aren't. When did you last play the game?

45 - Well then return the game if its unacceptable and then quit complaining about a game you don't own.

I do think if there had been more time there might have been more governments. They can be added yet. Personally I am never going to use those other governments you want. I don't even like religous buildings myself but they are part of the game.

A reasonable complaint but again you felt the need to engage in hyperbole. Is your postition that weak even in your own mind?

46 - Depends on the level. They aren't supposed to be a real problem on low levels. On deity the player recieves no bonus at all. Even on Regent a rampageing horde of 24 horsemen can be hard on the nerves. More hyperbole.

47 - I liked it. You need an elbow transplant. Your lack of humerus is a tragic shortcoming.

48 - Apparently those that are much better than you at warmongering and are in their right minds use leaders for wonders AND armies. Don't do it myself but others do. Their success makes it clear that you have yet again insulted people for disagreeing with you.

49 - Hey a legitamate complaint that nearly everyone can agree with you on. Then you had to engage in hyperbole again anyway. So sad that you don't know when to stop.

50 - The AI disagrees with you. I find them nearly useless but not completely so. There are two good threads on the issue at the moment. I think what they need is a name change.

51 - Whoever decided to make it two tiles was useing their head. Its a good idea. If you can't use armour you sure don't have any business ranting about any one being an idiot.

52 - I take it you have never actually built the IronWorks as it is VERY worthwhile. Sure would be nice to get more often. I think the game might be better off without it as it is awfully random.

53 - I disable the UN. Its seems broken to me. I like the diplomatic victory in MOO II but the option for war is not available and that makes it a poor implementation.

Bad players also want more options. Since you can't use armour or subs or privateers I think its clear which camp of player wanting more options you are in.

54 - Some people disagree. I don't. I built one helicopter. I don't think I will build another.

On this I could have understood the hypebole you used in so many other points. See how you don't use it when you have something to your postion. Makes it clear you knew those others were weak at best.

55 - Firepower is an unneeded concept. Changing the A/D gets the same effect. Firaxis chose not to do that so that a civ that was short an important resource might have a chance. Maybe they shouldn't have done that.

Still I have NEVER lost a tank to a spearman. Came close once and that was a hoplite in a city. That was this weakend and I have been playing since the day after Civ III came out.

56 - Another semi reasonable complaint followed by uneeded garbage. I kind of like the idea. At least for Railroads. Troops do move slower on enemy roads though and how can an invading force make use of rails unless they can bring their engines and cars accross the juncture. The enemy is not going to leave theirs lying around.

57 - I think this one is clearly a compromise between reality and playability. I would be just as happy if there ware no nukes at all in the game. Again you have reasonable point. And again you didn't use the hyperbole that is rampant in most of your points.

58 - I agree. Soon to be an obsolete complaint. You really should have updated this post. See above for hyperbole.

59 - Its not ridiculous. It has happened all the time in history. Samarkand and Damascus were both razed by the Mongol hordes. Both were large cities before the atrocity.

60 - And your point? Why should they? If you had said Stealth Bombers you might have had a point. That one would require some sort of spying and targeting method greatly complicating things for little improvement in gameplay.

61 - It would be nice to have more civs. More time might have made it possible I suppose. I believe Firaxis has stated that they had thought about 32 civs and decided the time would be better spent on other things.

"Redundant streamling" is an oxymoron.

62 - False. The random number generator is definitly random. This has been shown many times. No one doing the complaining has ever shown any evidence to support their claims.

63 - OK. The AI is never going to be good at trade.

Although a lot that complaint is based on the AI insisting on a fair value trade. People often have funny ideas about what a good trade is. If you think the offer is bad then don't take the trade.

What I am saying on this one is that people often claim the AI wants too much for a trade. Then they often PAY the AI what it wants. Showing that the AI was right in its valuation.

64 - Stupid point. Your choice. Blame yourself. I want the two hours I just spent on your poorly constructed package of hyperbole mixed with a minority of accurate claims back. But I chose to do it myself. Actually its fun. Well spent time. If nothing else I need the typing practice.

65 - Remarkably stupid that one was. You aren't very good at padding things out.

I applaud the improvements made to the AI.

Good you do have some clue then.

I applaud the higher number of units.

See complaint number nine. That is a major cause of the slowdown on larger maps.

I applaud the higher number of units.

I could swear you were razzing them for that in 23. Borders and culture are related in Civ III.

I applaud the recent changes to cultural reversion upon popular demand.

You have been conned. Really. The change was miniscule. Perhaps you have simply learned how to deal with cultrural reversion. Carefull reading of what Firaxis has said on this shows the change mostly effected cases where reversion was unlikely in the first place. Note that the Example given by Firaxis was for a city with full cultural controll of all twenty-one tiles. Cities like that rarely flipped before 1.17f.

I think what they did was increase the effect of units without changeing the effect of uncontrolled tiles. Getting controll of another cities 21 tile is the key to achieving a cultural flip.

Listen up, Firaxis. You had better get multi-player right.

Or what? You will post another bloated toad like this one?

I understand that a lot of people really want multiplayer. I don't care one bit myself. If all that ranting was because you want multiplayer you sure could have said more succinctly. And not earned a vactation the first time.


Sorry if there are a bunch of typos. I am not going to edit this thing. Took long enough allready.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ACooper
You promised 95 theses and you only delivered 65!!!!!
I think I found out your secret identity!!!!

Come on out Sid, show yourself!

What I want to know is why your name Sh@ggy was censored and he is getting away with all the penis and vagina stuff.

I am interested to see how much of that gets past the censor bot.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Tuberski



Isn't that splitting hairs? If you scuttle a ship chances are it cannot be repaired.

That's like someone being shot, and the reports says they died from loss of blood.

Ships like the Bismark and Graf Spee were scuttled in order to prevent their capture by the brits. Its cheaper to rebuild such a ship than to build it from scratch.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Ships like the Bismark and Graf Spee were scuttled in order to prevent their capture by the brits. Its cheaper to rebuild such a ship than to build it from scratch.

That's what the German naval leaders get for not following Hitler's orders NOT to deploy. At least, that's why the Bismark left shore and sank.

[ACooper]

Originally posted by Ethelred


What I want to know is why your name Sh@ggy was censored and he is getting away with all the penis and vagina stuff.

I am interested to see how much of that gets past the censor bot.

I've wondered that alot myself. I wonder if there is selective censorship? Nah! It must be something else.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ninot

Battleships can very well destroy each other.

But in any case, the Bismark was damaged by bombing, but not sunk. It took a purely naval battle before the captain of the Bismark threw away the pride of the German Navy.

I have to agree with coracle, there are very few examples of battleships being sunk by gunfire. The loss of the Hood was an aberation.

The Bismark was not damaged by bombing, but by aircraft (swordfish) launched torpedos that jammed her rudders and made manoever difficult to impossible. At the end, after being shelled at virtually point blank range it still required torpedos to sink her (after the demolition charges).

Captain Lindemann did not "throw away" the pride of the German Navy. Radar and naval-airpower made it impossible for the Bismark to escape from the superior numbers of ships that the british navy could bring to bear.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Thrawn05

That's what the German naval leaders get for not following Hitler's orders NOT to deploy. At least, that's why the Bismark left shore and sank.

What??????

[Thrawn05]

The bismark sank 'cause the commander of the ship left shore without hitler's permission. She were chased around by the brits in the north atlantic and basicly died out there.