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

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Thrawn05
This is why Tanks/Panzers/Mech Infantry/Modern Armor/Radar Artillary and all the horses (I think that's all of them ) have extra movment points. The supposed appeal of these units is that they can run around in enemy territory quicker then most other land units.

Yes that's right. The German tanks were way ahead of their infantry support -- not to mention the French army.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by dikwhit
spencer.... agree 95% the teenage rants about breastesses is idiotic but the debate on ships being sunk by planes is kinda moot.
1) it will be a toggleable option in 1.18 or whatever # the patch is
2) specific cases aside, with the "high-quality civ3 animations" does it really matter if the planes are shooting/bombing/ torpedoing(sp?)/ or kamikaziing/ ships? you gotta use your imagination in any case and regardless of cause ships w/ that much damage should be on the ocean floor IMHO.

BTW yes i know kamikazi is a bit extreme and not an option but regardless in historical arguments it has always been an option although a bit of a piss-poor 1

The original point of the discussion (that turned into the Bismark saga) was to refute a comment posted by Kenjura who did not believe that bombers (airpower) could sink ships. The discussion of various serious combat inaccuracies in CIV3 is not moot. Part of the reason we're getting bombardment killing units in the next update is because of the discussions in this and other forums.

In order to have rational discussions instead just rants we have to first get our facts straight. Then we can discuss whether such changes can or should be implemented. An important difference between SMAC and CIV is the historical perspective. In order to enhance the immersiveness of the game, some attention has to be paid to some (relative) facts. Personally, I dont want CIV3 to be a total fantasy!

[dikwhit]

specer - unfortunatly the biggest thing in civ is a complete fantasy... the idea that we are playing anywhere near a finished product

[SpencerH]

You've got it there.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Obviously, its much more interesting to discuss teenage rants about cartoon characters and their cleavage than to try to establish a historical background for why (or why not) airpower should sink ships in CIV3.

Looks like the other 64 points flew right over your head? Pathetic example, really.

[ACooper]

Originally posted by Zylka


Looks like the other 64 points flew right over your head? Pathetic example, really.

Alot of those other 64 were stupid also.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Zylka
Looks like the other 64 points flew right over your head? Pathetic example, really.

Actually, none of my comments were aimed at your puerile rantings. I dont read Dr Seuss either.

[dikwhit]

Boobygirl seems to be getting upset at other opinions well i got another 1 for ya
Originally 95 points shortened to 65. Couldnt this have been 35? Half of em were fairly redudndent, repetitive and regurgitated. DAMN now you got me doin it

[Zylka]

The 95 was in parody of Luther. I even added the "CalYinism" bit in referance to Calvin (you all know Yin), but literary genius is not often noticed. I forgive you for not knowing anything about the reformation, or western history in general.

[Zylka]

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

[Zylka]

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

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Kenjura
Outstanding! I'll make a few notes where I disagree. If I don't quote it, I agree completely.


Actually, this depends greatly on your OS, video card, and various other things. I use the windows key when there is nothing to alt-tab to. I agree that the non-windows compliance is annoying, but most modern games are full-screen hogs as well.

[QUOTE]
Heh, I'll take civ2 graphics if they'd fix all the other problems. I think the terrain problems could have been easily fixed by using 3d. I mean, the level of complexity of the 2d terrain models is so ridiculous that 3d might even have been easier. Not to mention most modern 3d cards have poor 2d support, meaning 3d would scroll much easier and look better. It could also animate and do nifty things like zoom.

[QUOTE]
The city view should be removed. It's not only pointless, but poorly executed. Any time that goes into fixing it would be better spent elsewhere.

[QUOTE]
The only terraforming I've had to do is make roads over mountains for wheeled units. But turning flat land into other flat land and such ideas might be good.

[QUOTE]
Resources need to be overhauled severely. If they don't want to deal with resources that reproduce themselves (i.e. horses) they shouldn't bother. Where is lumber? I mean, half the units in the game use it! Every civ should have access to some resources, but the quality would vary. Perhaps highly available, good-quality resources would allow superior units. For instance, good, strong, tall trees allow bigger wooden ships. If they don't want to implement such a complicated resource system, they shouldn't have made one at all.

[QUOTE]
I agree with the problem but not the solution. Units move too slowly. I toyed with the idea of war-time (slower increment) and normal time, but that would preclude production. It does NOT take 2000 years to build a harbor. However, the changes required to make the time realistic and keep the game playable would make it a new game. Still, ships should all move faster, especially in the industrial age.

[QUOTE]
In my few massive industrial- and modern-age wars, I've had some use for bombers. I complement teams of 8 offensive units with about four bombers. The four bombers make short work of enemies outside cities, and occasionally help against city defenders. Given the amount of bombers we had to use against germany and japan to get any real results, I somewhat agree with the mechanic.

[QUOTE]
Ah, but what about Pearl Harbor? Piece of crap movie, sell-out director.

They could've been done well...if there were at least one per age per civ.

The hell? Where does that appear?

Build a military academy, that will free up your leaders for wonders. But still, armies are useless. The fact that the only way to upgrade them is by exploiting a bug is inexcusably horrible and proof of Firaxis' satanic ties.

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. For one, WWII-era bombers (civ3's first bomber unit) are not very accurate, and would waste many bombs hitting a ship. Two, that's what submarines and other ships are for. Three, the ships would normally have AA capability, and the fighters based on carriers would be able to actually fend off the bombers. However, we all know how they botched all of the above.


There should be requirements. In the first two eras, enemy conquerers often razed cities. In the industrial age, city size and building materials (brick, iron, etc) would make burning cities far more difficult. In the modern age, only nukes or prolonged, gratitutious bombing should be able to devastate a city.


I do not applaud all the new problems these improvements opened up.


I do not applaud the uselessness of most of them.


The developers should go to hell for allowing the AI to seek out tiny pockets of your territory to settle.


I have a few additions.

The AI.

66 - AI Values.
The AI value system is poorly balanced, even in its own domain. For instance, the AI seems to think that my three luxuries aren't enough to buy one of his. EXCESS luxuries are useless, and the value should be calculated as such: useful only if their target trader finds it useful.

67 - Opponent values.
The AI does not even venture a guess at the values of other players. Half of trading is knowing what the other guy will pay for your stuff. The AI shouldn't be under the illusion that I'm willing to pay three techs for it's world map. The AI should know that I will ask one of it's luxuries for one of my own.

68 - Trading advice.
The AI does not communicate with other AI. France does not tell Germany that, despite asking me 6000 times, I don't want to buy The Republic for nine thousand gold. Thus, Germany comes and asks me as well. They try to include me in their horrific game of tech trading.

69 - AI secrets.
The AI does not guard its secrets. Selling world maps is the easiest way to get enemy settlers in your territory. They do this to each other, and the result is like some sort of Picasso painting: cities of multiple civs, all splattered randomly, with no regard to corruption, constantly changing hands due to culture. Also, the AI will happily sell the secret of cavalry or tank building to someone, then get in a war and wonder why they lost their technological advantage. Tech trading does not happen much in real life. Look at our government and their secrets.

Warfare.

70 - Gaining Military Alliances.
It's relatively easy to gain a military alliance. Consequently, civs produce a tangled web of alliances randomly. Odds are good that if Germany is allied with France and Persia, France and Persia aren't actually allied with each other, and may even go to war with one another. Military alliances with an AI as a player are useless because of their tactics.

71 - Using Military Alliances.
If you get an alliance with an AI against another AI, it will be a painfully long time before they send a single warrior to help you. Instead you should be able to do the following:
Borrow or purchase military units from the AI, gaining them instantly.
Gain assistance supporting your troops. Effectively, the AI would give you some of their military budget for troop support. It would value this differently than just handing out money in trade.
Have your ally pressure your enemy. Your enemy should reevaluate its standing in the war, perhaps offering peace in favor of being crushed by multiple enemies.

72 - AI declaring war.
The AI rarely declares war for any good reason. Even if they want a particular resource that you won't give up, they never seem to actually attack that resource. Instead, they send whatever troops are available in a stream toward your weakest target. They are easily distracted from even the most valuable targets (like your capital) by an undefended worker or weak unit. They are very easy to defend against if you are careful. They should determine what goals they have, then gather an army, then, when the army is near its goal, finally declare war, perhaps in a surprise attack. This is what humans do.

73 - AI defending.
It seems when you attack an AI, it's every city or unit for itself. Defensive units cluster in cities, indifferent to your pillaging and cutting off supply routes. Offensive units in the area attack the first of your units that they see, providing no more threat than well-armed barbarians. Cities easily fall to the blitzkrieg strategy, because the AI never launches a well-prepared counterattack. It isn't hard to take any given AI city.

74 - Technological balance.
Firaxis maintains that firepower is unnecessary, that it has been integrated into the numbers. Well, then, change the numbers. In the thousands of gameplay tests that players have done, the balance has been PROVEN wrong. The differences in technology do not stand out as well. If you have to, double all the numbers. Or add +10 per era to everything. Whatever needs to be done, do it.

75 - Movement speed.
The biggest annoyance in preparing for war is how long it will take. Not only will it take 40 turns to achieve your target technologies, upgrade old units, build new ones, and mass your units in ships or rallying points prior to attack, and this whole process may take hours depending on your era...but then you have to spend 12 turns getting there! Can you imagine if it took twelve years to sail the ocean? There's nothing more annoying than pushing your troops square by square, spending half your turn managing your domestic stuff back in your home country. And of course, if you do mount offensives, this is the only way.

76 - The role of warfare.
It seems the developers have determined that warfare is a poor means of acquiring things. But time and time again, I've found no better solution. Good offensive strategies coupled with a sound defense secures your position forever. I'd far rather mount an offensive on a neighbouring country to get it's coal than have to give it the technology it needs to know what coal is, then wait for them to get two coal deposits, then pay horrific prices for their coal. I don't have that kind of time to wait for my railroads. In every difficulty from chieftain to monarch (I don't bother higher than that , and I'll tell you why later), warfare has been the best way to get anything. It gives you more cities (higher score, more science, more money, more production, etc), more resources (no dependence on trading), and, of course, it's fun.

77 - Victory conditions.
They're all stupid. My first regent-level game was a long struggle that lasted well into the modern age. I finally won by space race, which was disappointing. Had I the stomach to wait for many hours, I would have definately won with culture. I could have handed out gifts aplenty for a long time, and may have eventually won the UN election. Domination is impossible, even if you cheat in chieftain and are very patient. My only pure military victory took me some six hours, and I had modern armor. In 3000 BC. I can't imagine trying to get a military victory in 1500 AD in a normal game. I generally play until it's very clear that I am the winner, then I start a new game. The score victory is perhaps the most realistic, but you have to wait until 2050. When you have the spaceship complete in 1800, that's a long time to wait for your enemy to catch up to you.

78 - Scoring.
The score system is crap. It's based almost entirely on your territory and population. The number one way to get territory and population is warfare. Forget this culture crap. You eventually run out of new culture to build, while your enemy catches up to you. Time and time again, I dominate the scoreboards with my aggressive warmongering. So much for peaceful solutions to winning.



That's as many as I've thought of. Perhaps I'll find the inclination to improve civ3 with the meager tools I have (like an editor where you can't ADD or DELETE UNITS!!!!). I'll probably just buy Master of Orion III.

[Ming]

And it started off so much better than the last time this list was published... but history is starting to repeat itself...

So one more time people... NO PERSONAL INSULTS... KEEP TO THE SUBJECT... AND JUST CHILL OUT!

But back on subject... HINT HINT HINT

I think he raises many valid points... and I also disagree with many of them... I do think that there is excellent MP potential for Civ III if they do it right

So let's get back to the "DISCUSSION" HINT HINT HINT

[Spook42]

Originally posted by Zachriel

We'll just answer one of the many inaccurate statements in the original post.The most famous tank blitz in history is the overrun of French troops by the Germans in 1940. The key to the campaign was a armored drive to the sea behind the French lines. This "race" to the sea was virtually unopposed. This advance covered a couple of hundred kilometers and took several days. So the most famous tank blitz in history averaged about 2 kilometers per hour, about the same as a slow walk.

An interesting counterpoint, Zachriel, but one that can be easily misinterpreted.

For example, when you assess "2 kilometers per hour average," based on "two hundred kilometers total covered in several days," this reads a bit fuzzy to me. How many days specifically was the distance of 200 km covered? And when coming to your average, are you doing so taking all hours of a day, including night hours?

Tanks and trucks need to be refueled. The soldiers need to sleep. Ammo, food, spare parts, and other sundries have to keep pace too. And who in 1940 was highly skilled in night-fighting, in regards to mechanized warfare and technology? As they said back then, "Logistics is the ball & chain to armoured war."

Let's assume using this 2 km/hour average for only daylight hours, further assumed to be twelve hours for that time of year. 24 km, or about 15 miles, per day then. Nope, that wouldn't be very impressive at all. But then it comes back --- is the cited average really valid?

Whatever the specific "road speed" of the Panzer columns, the historical fact remains the same: the Germans in 1940 moved faster in France than the allies could adapt to. And that France & Belgium had a "developed" road net, for the Germans to use, HAD to have helped for these armor columns to maintain their pace.

Even so, the "point" troops advanced always with the prospect of facing some indeterminate resistance ahead, when pushing out of friendly territory into enemy territory. Not to mention that preliminary recon and scouting of unfamiliar terrain would take time too.

So, in sum, yes, "roads" should make a difference, even those in enemy territory. But the initial advance into enemy territory, even on roads, usually faces indeterminate resistance, as well as waiting for supplies to come forward for "modern" (mechanized) war. Therefore, the means of having both effects apply, in some way, would be appropriate.

(But as I haven't yet checked this specifically in Civ3, might this already be the case?)

[Zylka]

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

Originally posted by Kenjura
Outstanding! I'll make a few notes where I disagree. If I don't quote it, I agree completely.


Actually, this depends greatly on your OS, video card, and various other things. I use the windows key when there is nothing to alt-tab to. I agree that the non-windows compliance is annoying, but most modern games are full-screen hogs as well.

I have a pretty fancy computer, and wonder what specific system it actually does work on (without problems)

Heh, I'll take civ2 graphics if they'd fix all the other problems. I think the terrain problems could have been easily fixed by using 3d. I mean, the level of complexity of the 2d terrain models is so ridiculous that 3d might even have been easier. Not to mention most modern 3d cards have poor 2d support, meaning 3d would scroll much easier and look better. It could also animate and do nifty things like zoom.

I'm at a loss.. swap 2d and 3d in most of that paragraph?

The city view should be removed. It's not only pointless, but poorly executed. Any time that goes into fixing it would be better spent elsewhere.

Yes, the city view itself is an additional problem. I was pointing more to the city graphics on the map though. Sn00py is currently fixing that right up, he should have been the terrain graphic artist for this botched production

The only terraforming I've had to do is make roads over mountains for wheeled units. But turning flat land into other flat land and such ideas might be good.

Of course, as is realistic

Resources need to be overhauled severely. If they don't want to deal with resources that reproduce themselves (i.e. horses) they shouldn't bother. Where is lumber? I mean, half the units in the game use it! Every civ should have access to some resources, but the quality would vary. Perhaps highly available, good-quality resources would allow superior units. For instance, good, strong, tall trees allow bigger wooden ships. If they don't want to implement such a complicated resource system, they shouldn't have made one at all.

Mmmm I'm not to sure of lumber as a specific resource, it seem a given when you control vast tracts of forest. Yet what the hell were they thinking of adding horses? For multiplayer, strategic resources must be an option.

I agree with the problem but not the solution. Units move too slowly. I toyed with the idea of war-time (slower increment) and normal time, but that would preclude production. It does NOT take 2000 years to build a harbor. However, the changes required to make the time realistic and keep the game playable would make it a new game. Still, ships should all move faster, especially in the industrial age.

What amount of movement would you suggest... I'd think 5 times the current (plus one or two attacking moves) would be a good start, no?

Ah, but what about Pearl Harbor? Piece of crap movie, sell-out director.

Haha... see a trend here? *Cough*SidHadADumptruckFullOfMoneyDictateTheGame*C ough*

They could've been done well...if there were at least one per age per civ.

Yes, but there's one per civ. A take on Red Alert to make the game sell, but done even worse than red alert!

The hell? Where does that appear?

Oh you'll see it. I just hope for the sake of your monitor that there are not heavy objects around to vent your anger with

Build a military academy, that will free up your leaders for wonders. But still, armies are useless. The fact that the only way to upgrade them is by exploiting a bug is inexcusably horrible and proof of Firaxis' satanic ties.

But the Academy comes WAY to late, and having leaders building wonders is still to much of a stupid luck factor which hands them out

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. For one, WWII-era bombers (civ3's first bomber unit) are not very accurate, and would waste many bombs hitting a ship. Two, that's what submarines and other ships are for. Three, the ships would normally have AA capability, and the fighters based on carriers would be able to actually fend off the bombers. However, we all know how they botched all of the above.

Well... the naval strategists can continue with this one...

There should be requirements. In the first two eras, enemy conquerers often razed cities. In the industrial age, city size and building materials (brick, iron, etc) would make burning cities far more difficult. In the modern age, only nukes or prolonged, gratitutious bombing should be able to devastate a city.

Exactly

I do not applaud all the new problems these improvements opened up.

I do not applaud the uselessness of most of them.

Hehe.. I added most of the pros to soften my cynicsim.. whatever

The developers should go to hell for allowing the AI to seek out tiny pockets of your territory to settle.

Bwhahahahaha! Soren: "Where am I going, and why am I in this handbasket?

I have a few additions [...]

That's as many as I've thought of. Perhaps I'll find the inclination to improve civ3 with the meager tools I have (like an editor where you can't ADD or DELETE UNITS!!!!). I'll probably just buy Master of Orion III.

Excellent additions, which brings the list to a whopping 78 shortcomings. And might I add, excellent historical debate on even one single thesis by the naval experts. Multiply that by most of the theses, and you have one disappointing game.

[PatLasch]

I've got to say this in response to the game not running. I have a p-266 with 64 megs of memory. Well below the sytem specs and it still runs fine on my computer. A little slow if I go for the huge maps, which I learned not to do. I'm wondering how real performance issues are. I'm not saying that everyone has the same system, but if it all runs on things not sold anymore, what do you have in your computer that makes it not run?