Civ III is too simple

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Path to victory: a one way direction

Haupt. Dietrich, Ogie Oglethorpe and Saurus reflect my thoughts.

The focus on warring makes the game (sometimes) so boring predictable ... They've even managed to spoil the science concept
(I'm sure though they'll fix this ) : don't bother researching yourself anymore (emperor/deity).

Maybe that's the reason why so many players don't finish their games. I've only finished TWO of them. And I must have played around 40/50 games I suppose ...

Sad. I've also experienced that I frequently don't care about reloading a game I've spent many hours on in a row. It's all about settling, building up military, conquering your first adversary, building up empire and military whilst buying techs, and WHOOPS, there we are, modern age again ...

Every game ends quite similar to my experiences. Playing emperor standard continents, I'm always the top civ (ok, if starting position ok and playing religious) toward the end of industrial age. The AI's military, at this point in the game, isn't a threat at all anymore ...



Time to start a new game !

AJ

[Locus]

AJ,

You and the other forum members you mentioned are right on. I still search the message boards trying to find a fix that will make Civ 3 fun even though I hardly play anymore. I have started probably 40 games myself and finished 2 (built spaceship just to end the damned game already!). Maybe Firaxis did make the smartest AI ever, but they left the fun out of the game. I know others find the game a lot of fun but I have to admit I don't understand how.

[Dom Pedro II]

It seems to me like the people complaining the most about Civ3's war focus are the people who probably never played Civ2. Civ2 was far more war-oriented than this game. There was no culture, and there was no cultural or diplomatic victory. If nothing else, the culture in Civ3 is a rough draft... it could be better, but in Civ2 it was non-existent.

Perhaps you should reevaluate how you play your game to really see if it is as much of a war game as you think... For example, when I play, I always go for space/cultural/diplomatic victory before anything else. I get into wars when I need to. I play my game based on gaining economic control and maintaining strong bonds with my neighbors. I craft alliances to protect myself, and in the event of war, I keep many friends so they can help me against an isolated enemy.

What civilization essentially comes down to is production shields and technology... you build an army to gain more cities to produce more stuff. You build improvements to keep the people happy to the population will grow and the amount of production shields/turn increases. The number of science output/turn increases as well, and you want that to gain new techs to acquire more cities through conquest and build more improvements to increase shield production... sort of aimless unless you know what kind of victory you want to win.

...

Now, I do agree that the focus should be shifted a bit in some ways. In terms of history, 99% of the time, the driving force has been money. Wars are fought to gain rich cities/provinces OR to acquire resources that are not available in the invader's country. In Civilization, money is only there to hurry production, pay off the AI, and conduct espionage. For this reason, I think there should be a greater emphasis on resources in later editions... I think that they should be necessary for maintaining certain units and improvements like factories, and one source should not be enough for an entire civilization. Each source should have a different value, and some can be rich in a particular commodity and others poor in it, and so a civilization can satisfy the needs for a certain portion of the empire but require more sources to fully satisfy it. Energy should become a major focal point in Civ4.

The other point I would make to improving the game would be some sort of definitions for the game. What is the player in the scheme of things? Is he the LEADER of the country? If so, then he shouldn't be able to build temples, cathedrals, banks, marketplaces, factories, and universities which are usually or entirely privately own except under Communism... if the player represents the civilization as a whole (i.e. the lower class, upper class, senate, king, etc.) then its fine the way it is. What IS one unit? 1 man? 100 men? 10,000 men? So on and so forth...

Well, thats my $0.02.

[Cookie Monster]

Sound advice Dom Pedro II.

I am a veteran civ2 player and found that game far easier to play even with the constant wars and on Prince difficultly level. It seemed to me anyway, that it was easier to have a leisurely game in civ2 than it is in civ3.

However your advice is fresh in that I haven't heard of that approach before. I'll give it a go.

[Spec]

Civ III is too simple

I agree.

[Deornwulf]

Dom Pedro - I have played many a game of Civ2 and find Civ3 to be more of a wargame than Civ2. How is a great leader gained in the game? By conducting war. What is left to build during the industrial period besides war units? Points are earned for having the most military power. What are Builders like myself to do to compete with the AI other than go to war with it?

I really like many of the new concepts of Civ3 but the game designers seemed to have fallen short of making it something other than an advanced form of Empire. That is the reason for my basic premise that Civ3 is too simple. The great ideas are not carried out far enough.

[Pius Popprasch]

Is Go too simple?

Is Go too simple? Is Chess too simple?
They both are certainly simpler than Civ3.
e.g. Resources:
More resources(How many would you like?) wouldn't make the game any better.
Restrictions make a good game.

[Grumbold]

Its a tough one to call. Had the game kept the complexity and diversity of Civ II then layered the new Civ III concepts on top I would have a lot more options in creating my own empire. If it had all the WesW Mediaevil Pack extras (from CtP1/2) that would be even better. Unfortunately that then puts the AI under immense strain. If it could not cope with the burden then I'd have just as little incentive to complete a game as currently because Civ III would still have a boring as heck endgame. It would still be preferable to a certain extent because I would have more than one way of enjoying getting there. Current Civ III tactics are almost one dimensional, despite the fact that each country ought to have different strategies to play to their strengths, so I feel no incentive to start a new game to try to do anything differently.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
Heh... well, of all the complaints I've seen, I've never seen anybody saying it was too SIMPLE

Man, I've seen it like too many times! Civ 3 is to easy, Civ3 is not deep enough, Civ3 needs to be more complicated....and so on.... I agree with these people but I also think that Civ3 is a great game even with it's couple of flaws.

Spec.

[Grumbold]

Re: Is Go too simple?

Originally posted by Pius Popprasch
Is Go too simple? Is Chess too simple?
They both are certainly simpler than Civ3.

No, but in both cases if you discovered that there was only one winning opening and once used this would give you just a few variations before you had a clear victory path by about move 20, would you play the remaining no-brainer moves? A friend of mine used to play 'Fritz' chess on my PC incessantly when I let him, but he only ever played to the point of clear victory or defeat. His only variation was in dialling the AI up or down a notch depending on how tough a challenge he wanted. Unfortunately in Civ III we have yet to get the AI to progress above vaguely capable and substituting cheats like extra resources is not the same.

[axis]

Originally posted by Deornwulf
I have played many a game of Civ2 and find Civ3 to be more of a wargame than Civ2. How is a great leader gained in the game? By conducting war. What is left to build during the industrial period besides war units? Points are earned for having the most military power. What are Builders like myself to do to compete with the AI other than go to war with it?

well you could always play on chieftan level. then you wont have to worry about war, because the AI wont declare war on you, and all his threats are just bluffs. at least thats my experience, as ive never been in a war on chieftan level, unless i started it.

ahh thank god firaxis didnt change chieftan level too much. at least we still have THAT.

[Deornwulf]

Immersion Factor

I think my simplicity complaint is directly related to the immersive factor of the strategy required to win the game. The more variables in the game, the more likely I am to play it again since each game is different. Civ3 is better than Civ2 in some ways but the restrictions in the game allows for fewer strategies to win.

Sample Strategies for each victory condition

Space Ship - Build lots of cities, research, steal or trade for techs to build space ship, increase production high enough to build space ship.

Cultural - Build lots of cities, research, steal or trade for techs to build wonders, increase production high enough to build wonders.

Domination - Build lots of cities, research, steal or trade for techs to build cool military units, increase production high enough to build cool military units.

Diplomatic - Build lots of cities, research, steal or trade for techs to build United Nations.

And so on..........

[kroym]

Originally posted by Spectator


Man, I've seen it like too many times! Civ 3 is to easy, Civ3 is not deep enough, Civ3 needs to be more complicated....and so on.... I agree with these people but I also think that Civ3 is a great game even with it's couple of flaws.

Spec.

Hear, Hear, Spec.!

Yeah, the game's got it's flaws, but how many of the complainers are going back to play another game of CivIII?

I'm enjoying the crap out of the game. I personally couldn't make a better game - that's why I buy it from someone who can. If I could I would. But what I can do is submit suggestions to Firaxis and look forward to the next Civ XP or even CivIV.

Take those complaints and turn them into suggestions to another great game!

[bobbyd1947]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
It seems to me like the people complaining the most about Civ3's war focus are the people who probably never played Civ2.

Assuming this is true, and in my case it is not, don't you think that a good game should stand on its own? Shouldn't a player who has NEVER played a game of Civilization before be able to enjoy it enough to want to get better and eventually play at the higher levels? The fact is, this is not a game that is going to attract new players. The ones who are defending it the most are veteran "Warmongers" who played at the Deity level in Civ 2 and won by destroying all other civilizations.

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
Civ2 was far more war-oriented than this game. There was no culture, and there was no cultural or diplomatic victory. If nothing else, the culture in Civ3 is a rough draft... it could be better, but in Civ2 it was non-existent.

There's really no cultural or diplomatic victories in Civ3 either, because to survive long enough to achieve them you have to destroy other civilizations on your continent or wage endless war.

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
Perhaps you should reevaluate how you play your game to really see if it is as much of a war game as you think... For example, when I play, I always go for space/cultural/diplomatic victory before anything else. I get into wars when I need to. I play my game based on gaining economic control and maintaining strong bonds with my neighbors. I craft alliances to protect myself, and in the event of war, I keep many friends so they can help me against an isolated enemy.


There's still the problem you didn't mention....if you leave any civilization on your continent, they WILL eventually attack you, unprovoked. And the minute the A1 sees that you are on a winning course, forget about having allies unless they come begging to you after they've been attacked.


[QUOTE] Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
What civilization essentially comes down to is production shields and technology... you build an army to gain more cities to produce more stuff. You build improvements to keep the people happy to the population will grow and the amount of production shields/turn increases. The number of science output/turn increases as well, and you want that to gain new techs to acquire more cities through conquest and build more improvements to increase shield production... sort of aimless unless you know what kind of victory you want to win.

Again, this is a conquest victory you speak of, not a cultural or diplomatic victory.

[Dom Pedro II]

Deornwulf - Let me just start by saying that you make some very good points, which I agree with. I do have to say though that alot of the complaints regarding the over-emphasized military are rather superficial problems, in other words they can be edited by the player.

First, war is only the most visible way you are competing with your AI rivals. But you're also competing for resources as you try to expand as fast as you can. You are competing to build wonders and gain technologies. You are competing diplomatically to keep a strong camp of allies to protect against more aggressive civilizations, or maybe your trying to maintain a general state of peace everywhere.

Second, if there only seem to be military units in the later portion of the game, then make changes... create new worker units, or make new improvements, and wonders. I don't really find that all thats left to build are war implements in the later part, but if you do, it can be altered.

To All - Regarding resources, I find that the people who complain most about them are they people who are the biggest warmongers. That's not to say its a bad thing, but it's not the way everyone plays. I myself am a Builder by nature, and I rarely go to war except when I am provoked or am in desperate need of something another civilization has. So would I like to add more resources? For myself, yes, I would. I think what would be more fun then just chucking units at enemy cities would be to have to through treaties, expansion, and acquisition, build a stable, self-sufficient, vibrant economy. But I don't need to make demands to Firaxis to impose this on everyone else though, I can add my own resources for my own personal game with the editor... I'd like the editor to be a bit more user-friendly, and somewhat more sophisticated, but that will come in time.

As for what you, Deornwulf, said about the strategies being simple, they are. This is what I basically said before: the game basically comes down to technology and production. To be the best in both, you need to have a lot of cities. Maybe this isn't the best system since there have been tiny countries that have controlled most of the planet (britain), but I can't think of exactly how this would be implemented in the game.

So all in all, I still find it fun to play.