I agree with much of what has been stated here previously. Essentially many of the whiners have placed Firaxis into a catch-22 situation. Too many folks who are complaining that CIV3 is too much unlike CIV2 or SMAC would, I think, have turned around and complained that CIV3 was not a new enough game or was CIV2.5 had Firaxis made it too much like its predecessors.
I can say as a long time civ player, way back when CIV 1 was a new game, that CIV 3 has held my interest and challenged me far longer than CIV1, CIV2 or SMAC.
I found CIV2 to be horribly bound as a single player game into certain set strategies. With little or no difference between CIVs, the only basic difference between game #1 of CIV2 and game #2000 of CIV 2 was your starting location...and that was basically: am I on an island or a continent?
After that, it was race to Armour, go Fanaticism, and Spy the crap out of every non-Democratic civ in the game. Once done with that, you then turn on the Democracies by landing mlllions of Robotic Arty on their rail lines and take them down in 1 turn.
It got really boring!
SMAC was an improvement. The different strengths and weaknesses of the civs was pretty cool, so that playing Diedre was a different experience from playing Morgan, but the game bogged down in massive combats after a while and the story line, while excellent the first time I played it, became annoying when playing for the 100th time. Fungus shmungus.
CIV3, however, is almost never the same game twice. Each Civ plays so differently from the others, and the introduction of resources means each civ itself plays differently depending on what combination you have.
Playing India? Who cares about resources? Don't need horses. Don't need iron. You can kick arse anyways!
Playing Persia or Rome? You are a god with iron and a wimp without it. No iron in your neighbourhood? Better find it quick even if it means distant colonies.
Playing Iroquois? Again....who needs iron? Get a horse and go to town.
I enjoyed playing the Germans my last game. Everyone beating up on me and me saying to the computer screen "enjoy this now laughing boys....one day I'm gonna have panzers...and I'm keeping a list of everyone who has wronged me...and there will be a reckoning!" And there was.
In CIV2, playing the Americans starting next to the Romans was no different than playing the Indians starting next to the English. In CIV3...it's a HUGE difference...and vive la difference!
In addition, I enjoy bombardment in CIV3. It allows for economic warfare, for strategic warfare, and for combined arms. Need to invade a strongly defended continent in CIV3 in modern times? You have to work at it. You have to bombard the flanks of your invasion path to cut the enemy's roads so as to blunt his counter attacks. Very realistic...very historical. Very DDay.
I also think Culture is a great addition. In CIV2 your side felt like a collection of loosely tied city states rather than a nation. In CIV3 you get borders. Also, Culture opens up the game by allowing you a new way to get territory.
I find the AI in CIV3 to be much improved. I have had times when in thinking about the game when not playing, I have tried to imagine what I would do in the AI's position. Lo and behold...when I fire up the game and resume, the AI does just that. They work together against a common foe, and each has its own temperament. The AI also actually challenges me....and while yes, it does trade more easily with the other AI civs than with me...nonetheless I do a fine amount of trading.
And speaking of trading...thank God they got rid of those damned camels from CIV2! Talk about boring....moving your trading caravans up and down the map. Ech! Same with spies. WAY too overpowered in CIV2. I happen to think they are too expensive in CIV3....but I'd much rather err on that side than the CIV2 ubber super spy mode.
With the latest patch 1.21 my complaints with CIV3 are few and far between:
1. More late age wonders
2. The space race needs to be delayed...it happens before some interesting techs are discovered
3. Spies need to be a little more effective
4. Nukes should be more devstating but the penalties for using them should be more severe
Devin
I can say as a long time civ player, way back when CIV 1 was a new game, that CIV 3 has held my interest and challenged me far longer than CIV1, CIV2 or SMAC.
I found CIV2 to be horribly bound as a single player game into certain set strategies. With little or no difference between CIVs, the only basic difference between game #1 of CIV2 and game #2000 of CIV 2 was your starting location...and that was basically: am I on an island or a continent?
After that, it was race to Armour, go Fanaticism, and Spy the crap out of every non-Democratic civ in the game. Once done with that, you then turn on the Democracies by landing mlllions of Robotic Arty on their rail lines and take them down in 1 turn.
It got really boring!
SMAC was an improvement. The different strengths and weaknesses of the civs was pretty cool, so that playing Diedre was a different experience from playing Morgan, but the game bogged down in massive combats after a while and the story line, while excellent the first time I played it, became annoying when playing for the 100th time. Fungus shmungus.
CIV3, however, is almost never the same game twice. Each Civ plays so differently from the others, and the introduction of resources means each civ itself plays differently depending on what combination you have.
Playing India? Who cares about resources? Don't need horses. Don't need iron. You can kick arse anyways!
Playing Persia or Rome? You are a god with iron and a wimp without it. No iron in your neighbourhood? Better find it quick even if it means distant colonies.
Playing Iroquois? Again....who needs iron? Get a horse and go to town.
I enjoyed playing the Germans my last game. Everyone beating up on me and me saying to the computer screen "enjoy this now laughing boys....one day I'm gonna have panzers...and I'm keeping a list of everyone who has wronged me...and there will be a reckoning!" And there was.
In CIV2, playing the Americans starting next to the Romans was no different than playing the Indians starting next to the English. In CIV3...it's a HUGE difference...and vive la difference!
In addition, I enjoy bombardment in CIV3. It allows for economic warfare, for strategic warfare, and for combined arms. Need to invade a strongly defended continent in CIV3 in modern times? You have to work at it. You have to bombard the flanks of your invasion path to cut the enemy's roads so as to blunt his counter attacks. Very realistic...very historical. Very DDay.
I also think Culture is a great addition. In CIV2 your side felt like a collection of loosely tied city states rather than a nation. In CIV3 you get borders. Also, Culture opens up the game by allowing you a new way to get territory.
I find the AI in CIV3 to be much improved. I have had times when in thinking about the game when not playing, I have tried to imagine what I would do in the AI's position. Lo and behold...when I fire up the game and resume, the AI does just that. They work together against a common foe, and each has its own temperament. The AI also actually challenges me....and while yes, it does trade more easily with the other AI civs than with me...nonetheless I do a fine amount of trading.
And speaking of trading...thank God they got rid of those damned camels from CIV2! Talk about boring....moving your trading caravans up and down the map. Ech! Same with spies. WAY too overpowered in CIV2. I happen to think they are too expensive in CIV3....but I'd much rather err on that side than the CIV2 ubber super spy mode.
With the latest patch 1.21 my complaints with CIV3 are few and far between:
1. More late age wonders
2. The space race needs to be delayed...it happens before some interesting techs are discovered
3. Spies need to be a little more effective
4. Nukes should be more devstating but the penalties for using them should be more severe
Devin
Comment