To all the Civ3 sucks people (serious thread, not a Civ3 rulz thread)

[Coracle]

Let us for the moment ignore all the problems that are NOT related to what's in the mod.

The game mod alone proves what a crappy slapped together game it is. Resource availability is absurd; Espionage costs preposterous; and military units far too few and with stupid values.

Elephants can airlift?? Tanks, too?? Idiotic.

Spearmen have a defense factor the same as a musketman's offensive factor??

Cavalry with rifles have the same defense factor as knights who never heard of gunpowder??

What idiot would build a privateer with an attack value of '2'? (The game originally came with an attack of '1'!!).

Leaders CAN'T airlift??

Submarines were another waste.

There are far too few units and techs.

I could go on, but just look at all the fine mods amateur Civ fans have put together that makes the Civ III game mod look like crap.

Civ III - a beta product - was rushed to market for the Christmas buying season at least five months before it should have been. Now we playtest it at $50 a game.

[Ethelred]

Coracle don't you own ANY other games for you to play. A basketball. A television. Perhaps a book.

You seem to exist for the sole purpose of finding places to rant about Civ III.

Elephants can airlift?? Tanks, too?? Idiotic.

Not at all. The US even airlifts the 70 ton Abrahms. I doubt that anyone with elephants is airlifting them but they do weigh a lot less than a tank.

Leaders not airlifting. Now thats idiotic.

If you really must do nothing except rant then do try to make your rants accurate.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Not at all. The US even airlifts the 70 ton Abrahms. I doubt that anyone with elephants is airlifting them but they do weigh a lot less than a tank.

They can airlift them one at a time in a C-5. However, they usually do NOT airlift them. Usual procedure involved either heavy rail or industrial sealift.

Venger

[Ethelred]

Shhh. You weren't supposed to mention that.

I was trying to give Coracle a hard time.


Oh I got tired of seeing the same ship being used by so many. So I switched to one smaller but more fitting.

Yeah airlifting the Abrahms isn't exactly what I would call practical.

You airlift missile parts too. Its only done because the roads won't take them.

[number6]

Originally posted by Tarquelne

Hmm... a point? Throw out your preconceptions and explore Civ3 as Civ3, not "The sequal to Civ2" before you toss it. Approach Civ3 as the game it is, not the game you think it should have been. It still has problems, but not nearly so many, and they aren't nearly as acute.

Maybe if they called it "Civilization Lite" or "Civilization : A New Direction" that would make people be less critical of the game. This game had a lot to live up to and to date it has been very dissapointing. I think it is perfectly acceptable and natural to compare Civ III with Civ II. My point? When the title of the game clearly states that it is an continuation in a series, people expect more. This game is clearly less in many catagories and like you said you have to try and like this game to play it. I still attempt a game of Civ III now and then, but it takes effort. While Firaxis continues to patch the game I will continue trying to enjoy it.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by number6
Maybe if they called it "Civilization Lite" or "Civilization : A New Direction"

I like "A New Direction". Where Civ2 added more than it changed or refined, I think Civ3 changed or refined far more than it added. The improvements are generally pretty subtle, if not obscure. The absences (compared to Civ2/SMAC) are glaringly obvious.

[Trevman]

Re: To all the Civ3 sucks people (serious thread, not a Civ3 rulz thread)

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
Civ2 was a greater game? Does anybody remember how goddamn annoying it was in civ3, when you couldn't trade maps unless the AI deemed it an even trade? You couldn't offer 40 gold to go with it! The best you could do was give a gift of 50, and hope they'd trade then. Or do you remember how much it drove you nuts when you set a city on settler before you realized how long it would take, and you had to start all over again because you didn't have the population? Or even little things. Like getting the road to command. It isn't even possible to say that civ2 was better.

Finally, someone who doesn't refer to Civ2 as the golden years. I am sick of everyone saying that Civ2 was absolutely flawless. A great game yes, but it seems that everyone has forgotten its flaws. Civ3 is a great game, but also with flaws. If Civ4 ever comes out, I bet people will have the same tone for Civ3.