Where Did Civ3 Go Wrong?

[Dominae]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
I will say it again, the game is what you make of it. If you don't want Civ3 to have depth, it won't have it.

IMO, this is false. A game either a high degree of depth (what I've previously referred to as "complexity"), or not. Although you may not have liked SMAC, the fact that it is an incredibly complex game to learn, explore and play can hardly be disputed. Civ3, on the other hand, has limited potential for novelty. I believe all of Velociryx's points are valid, to some extent.

What I think you meant to say (not that I'm trying to put words into your mouth!) is this: one's enjoyment of the game is what one makes of it. With this, I completely agree. It is possible to play Civ3 time and time again, enjoying each session. This is what makes it a good game in the first place. But whether or not a game has depth is not up to the player, but to the game (or rather, the designers). People who have spent countless hours on Civ2 and SMAC can hardly be blamed for their lack of creativity if they get bored with Civ3; there must be something wrong with the game itself, not the players.


Dominae

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Dominae
IMO, this is false. A game either a high degree of depth (what I've previously referred to as "complexity"), or not. Although you may not have liked SMAC, the fact that it is an incredibly complex game to learn, explore and play can hardly be disputed.

I wasn't disputing that SMAC is a complex game to play, because I agree that it is. I was just saying that if you don't look for complexity, you won't find it. If I just used crawlers to help with wonders, would I have known that you could plant them on resources? Would I have tried OCC? etc, etc. I would have basically used the strategy the Velociryx outlined for Civ3 and done fairly well, if I do say so myself .

Originally posted by Dominae
Civ3, on the other hand, has limited potential for novelty.

What's the difference here between Civ1,2 and 3? They are all basically the same game, but at least Civ3 added culture and resources. And hopefully we will soon have scenarios to help with this. Civ3 is the heir to Civ, not SMAC. If the design teams were the same, then perhaps there would be more continuity in the games and you could see the evolution, but, as it is, about the only things in common, development-wise, are the names on the box. If BR did Civ3, I would have expected some things to be more SMAC like, but here we are dealing with different teams and different design philosophies, and thus very different games.

Originally posted by Dominae
What I think you meant to say (not that I'm trying to put words into your mouth!) is this: one's enjoyment of the game is what one makes of it. With this, I completely agree. It is possible to play Civ3 time and time again, enjoying each session. This is what makes it a good game in the first place. But whether or not a game has depth is not up to the player,

That is what I meant, to an extent, regarding enjoyment of the game. As to the rest, perhaps I should have said that it is up to the player to exploit the depth. Could i play Smac without the depth others do? Of course. You can blow through most games without ever tapping the full potential of them. Can you do the same for Civ3? Of course, many do, I do sometimes. That doesn't mean thats all there is to the game.

Originally posted by Dominae
but to the game(or rather, the designers). People who have spent countless hours on Civ2 and SMAC can hardly be blamed for their lack of creativity if they get bored with Civ3; there must be something wrong with the game itself, not the players.

If you play the game one way when there are other ways to play it (as you yourself has said, Dominae ), and you get bored, is that the programmers fault? I don't mean to sound sarcastic, but when I get bored with games, is it the programmer's fault, or is it just time for me to rotate games and maybe come back to it in a few weeks? (granted, there are times that I think that it is the programmer's fault, like when there are lots of bugs, not mentioning any names )

Anyway, that is just my opinion. Whether or not anyone likes the game, I really don't care. What I do care about are gross generalizations that say the game is composed of three steps with a thousand clicks interspersed. Besides, when it comes down to it, aren't most strategy games, and all civ games reduceable to this?

Thanks

[Dominae]

asleepathewheel, I think we're agreeing more than we're disagreeing. Here are just some points I want to clarify.

From memory, Civ2 is more complext than Civ3. By "complex" I mean has more units, more governments, more stuff. I never got the feeling that I had played Civ2 enough, while I'm writing now because I do have that feeling with Civ3. I am a more "mature gamer" now; I "grew up" on Civ2, so maybe I expect something "mature" from Civ3. In all honesty, this may very well be the problem. But then this basically means that most people who have experience with the other games will feel that Civ3 is too simple (you are probably an exception).

What veteran players liked out of SMAC (on a strategic level) is that it took their abilities seriously. For once in a TBS game there was some very complex choices to be made. Personally, having played SMAC and coming back to Civ3, it feels like I don't have much to think about. Even if I change my play style, the game "flows" too well; there are obvious choices to be made at every stage of the game. Obvious choices (for me) do not create a game with a high replayability value.

If I get bored with the game, it is not the programmers' fault. If I get bored with the game because I am not the target audience for that game, it is still not the programmers' fault. If, as an avid fan of the Civ series, I'm told and (rightfully) expect to be the target audience for the game, then it is surely somebody's fault (other than my own) that I'm slowly giving up on Civ3. It is, of course, never the programmer's fault; as a programmer, I simply know that things are never the programmer's fault...

Finally, it is possible to play Civ3 without using any 3-step program. However, if you're a competitive gamer, you learn that, in Civ3, the 3-step program (as described by Vel) is probably the best way to win the game (at least on the higher difficulty levels). Maybe someone will come along and figure out a 5-step program (or whatever) that wins the game with culture alone. Somehow I doubt it. What Vel is getting to is that, in his mind, Civ3 is "solved"; there is a best way to play it, and it would be silly to play in any other way (if playing competitively). I completely agree with him on this point. What was brilliant about SMAC was that, once you figured out how to win the game with one faction (say, you got really good with the Gaians), you could switch over to another (say, the Hive) and almost feel like you were playing a completely different game (from tech choices, to unit upgrades, to social engineering combinations, etc.). Winning with Deidre was completely different from winning with Yang. In Civ3, winning is the same with every civ.

I just feel the need to say this one more time: all my complaints in these posts are only in defense of my statement that Civ3 (for me) has a lower replayability value than the other Civ-type games. SMAC is included in that category, so comparisons are inevitable. I'm not trying to convince anyone that Civ3 is a bad game, I'm just voicing my opinion that (for me), it has low replayability. I'm a pretty creative person, and (trust me) I've explored Civ3 quite thoroughly. The fact that I can even say this shows that Civ3 is lacking something. I sincerely hope that the expansion brings back the magic, because I love Civ, and Civ3 is its most current incarnation.


Dominae

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Dominae
I never got the feeling that I had played Civ2 enough, while I'm writing now because I do have that feeling with Civ3. I am a more "mature gamer" now; I "grew up" on Civ2, so maybe I expect something "mature" from Civ3. In all honesty, this may very well be the problem. But then this basically means that most people who have experience with the other games will feel that Civ3 is too simple (you are probably an exception).

Bingo! How many times have you played Civ2 lately? If it can never be played enough, while Civ3 is disappointing, why have you played Civ3?

The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind. It is that halcyon yesteryear of perfection. That time when your tastes were simpler and the whole world seemed bigger. You're older now, those days won't come back. Get used to it.

What Vel is getting to is that, in his mind, Civ3 is "solved"; there is a best way to play it, and it would be silly to play in any other way (if playing competitively). I completely agree with him on this point. What was brilliant about SMAC was that, once you figured out how to win the game with one faction (say, you got really good with the Gaians), you could switch over to another (say, the Hive) and almost feel like you were playing a completely different game (from tech choices, to unit upgrades, to social engineering combinations, etc.). Winning with Deidre was completely different from winning with Yang. In Civ3, winning is the same with every civ.

Well... Vel is wrong. Sorry.

I don't think Vel ever solved how to beat the game when you start in a crap location. He never came close to playing it enough. I'm not there, but I'm creeping up on it. Let me tell you, 3 Step don't work all the time. Let me know when you win every game, 10 in a row on random maps without restarting.

On the other hand, I understand that many SMAC players feel that Civ3 is 'less' than their love. Of course it is! Can you imagine the response if the Chinese in Civ3 were 'ethnically predisposed' to love Mao and totalitarianism? How about if only the English could get the most out of capitalism? The fact is that these stereotypes are still present, in a watered down form. If they were given any more prominence in a game of human history the game would rapidly become pointless. The 3 step would involve choosing Rome, then surviving the Germans, then conquering the world. Ha ha!

Any game that involves the future will be fertile ground for the imagination, if it is done well. After all, the future is wide open, you don't have to face the fact that triremes were never sheathed in steel, and they never sported torpedoe tubes. God save Civ from the unit work-shop! Please.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Dominae
asleepathewheel, I think we're agreeing more than we're disagreeing.

i agree

Originally posted by Dominae
From memory, Civ2 is more complext than Civ3. By "complex" I mean has more units, more governments, more stuff. I never got the feeling that I had played Civ2 enough, while I'm writing now because I do have that feeling with Civ3. I am a more "mature gamer" now; I "grew up" on Civ2, so maybe I expect something "mature" from Civ3. In all honesty, this may very well be the problem. But then this basically means that most people who have experience with the other games will feel that Civ3 is too simple (you are probably an exception).

Please, I don't want to be labled a simpleton I want more options and stuff (as long as it works properly ) too.
I just happen to like how they streamlined trade and changed espionage (though IMO, made it too weak to be that useful). Sure they took out fundy, but I thought it was ridiculously powerful as it was. Instead of partisans, now your city can revert if you're not careful. Sure, a few subtractions but I found those parts (caravans and spies) to be both too tedious and too powerful. Perhaps I have a short attention span, but I just don't have any desire to establish 3 trade routes per city in a 50 city empire. So for me, the differences between civ3 and civ2 really equal addition by subtraction.

I also grew up on Civ1 and Civ2, however while I know exactly in my mind what I want in a civ game, I'm sure it will never come to pass (until i make that 10 million dollars ) But I'm pretty satisfied with the state of the game as it is, IMO, a step in the right direction. (assuming the xp adds scenarios). Hopefully the team with Soren will stay in place for Civ4.

I understand why people would want the complexity of SMAC, some parts of I would too. I would like to see (as would probably 99% of the people) a better UN (trade pact etc), Unit abilities like AA, the elevation and rainfall system, some limited special landforms, a green civ, blind research option, more variety in the civs, some others too, can't remember now

What I did not like were: fungus/live planet, probe teams (too powerful and cheap for my tastes), terraforming (some limited would be ok, but I don't want to be able to level mountains to the sea), social engineering (to me, that just isn't civ. civ is despotism, monarchy, etc. Maybe limit it to economic engineering, but I would rather have something with a name i'm familiar with, you know?), unit workshop (again, I want units that I'm familiar with, and in SMAC, it seemed like by the time I produced the prototype of something, it was already obsolete), Reveal map with satelites (why they took this out, who knows?)
probably some others I can't think of.

What I like in Civ3 thats not in SMAC: resources-strat and luxury, trade system, not being able to rush wonders except with GL's, Espionage (though I wish it was more useful, they seem to have swung too far to lessen its power), Culture/better border system, UUs/golden age, Air power (way overpowered in SMAC, IMO, like how it just bombards and can't kill now) and probably some others (*disregarding the graphics/time setting for comparison purposes)

If I had a game combining the things I listed about SMAC and Civ3, (and toss in the multi-level maps from ToT) I would be quite satisfied, I think. (and you and others would definately disagree with me on some of those choices ) Unfortunately, that's not the case right now (hoping about XP will at least improve the UN into something worth building) So I have to choose between the two, I choose Civ3. Others have chosen SMAC, which is great that they have a game that satisfies them. I probably came across before as not liking SMAC. I did like it, and it does entertain me every now and again, but I get burned out on it quite quickly.

Originally posted by Dominae
If, as an avid fan of the Civ series, I'm told and (rightfully) expect to be the target audience for the game, then it is surely somebody's fault (other than my own) that I'm slowly giving up on Civ3.

That is really too bad that Civ3 isn't giving you what you want (I really mean that, I'm not being sarcastic) It's too bad that Civ games were the mainstream games and SMAC the niche game (and the sales would back this up, I believe) I guess you and other people (and me to a certain extent) were looking for a synthesis of the games, which didn't happen. If I thought (and wanted) that, I probably would have been pretty disappointed as well.

Originally posted by Dominae
Finally, it is possible to play Civ3 without using any 3-step program. However, if you're a competitive gamer, you learn that, in Civ3, the 3-step program (as described by Vel) is probably the best way to win the game (at least on the higher difficulty levels).

I'm not sure what you mean by competitive gamer. Competitive against the AI, against your own scores, against other scores? Proabably all of the above. I'm not disputing that that may be the best way to win, my point is that there are other ways to play. And, I imagine that more ways to play will be discovered when MP arrives.

And really, didn't this problem arise in the other games, leading to OCC and ICS tricks to extend the challenge?

Originally posted by Dominae
What Vel is getting to is that, in his mind, Civ3 is "solved"; there is a best way to play it, and it would be silly to play in any other way (if playing competitively).

Well, maybe the theory for the game has been solved in his and others' minds, but I still have not won on deity, and until I do, and win consistently, I will consider the game a challenge and not solved (by me at least).

Originally posted by Dominae
What was brilliant about SMAC was that, once you figured out how to win the game with one faction (you could switch over to another Winning with Deidre was completely different from winning with Yang. In Civ3, winning is the same with every civ.

I agree that this was pretty cool. And I agree and wish that there was more diversity to the civs. But in the real world, people aren't all that different, at least motivation wise. In smac, some, erm, weren't even totally human. What I mean is that, while some civ leaders may be more bloodthirsty than another, they are all still people, you know? So I don't know how you can make an French Civ to be that different from a German Civ, after all, they are (hope I'm not stepping on any toes here) both fairly similar peoples. I don't know how you could make them incredibly varied without destroying the ghost of realism thats in the game.

Originally posted by Dominae
I sincerely hope that the expansion brings back the magic, because I love Civ, and Civ3 is its most current incarnation.

Me too.

[asleepathewheel]

*asleepathewheel wishing that he was both as concise and as eloquent as notyoueither, especially at 4:30 in the morning

[GeneralZosh]

Civ3 saved my life!!

Civ3 was such a huge dissapointment that I don't play computer games anymore. Instead, I have begun a relationship with a non-inflatable woman who is very nice. I piously think back to all the hours I wasted, living in an ether layer where I was quioxtically vanquishing wrong, only to return to reality with an empty feeling of loss and inadequacy.

In the final analysis a pedantic virtual war on a computer screen pales in comparison to the wonderous relationships that exist in the real world. While it is true that dating a live woman costs money, let me assure you that I have saved a lot of money on rubber patch kits and buying additional hardware to run these poorly programmed games.

[redstar1]

But they are not mutually exclusive of each other. I too have relationships with non inflatable women, sometimes while playing Civ, if you know what I mean. Nothing beats a high table.....

Also, some people, like ourselves, know when to visit the real world, and when to play games. Some people play far too much, as my mates mum was saying shortly after I had pounded her into the mattress.

[Velociryx]

I'm not disagreeing with you on many of your points. When the game came out, I was an avid and vocal supporter (even when the folk of Firaxis were stonily silent). The defensive arguments you're doling out to me are pretty much the same ones I myself have used in defense of the game.

For me, the game is simply not what I was looking for, nor what I thought it would be.

I tried...I tried very hard to make the "one-more-turn" magic be there...I did everything I could think of to get creative and MAKE the game more enjoyable.

And in the end, for me, it just wasn't.

I feel like I got my money's worth. I played avidly for something like three months and change....skipping work (apologies to the boss in advance if he's reading) , losing sleep, exploring and pushing the boundaries of the game. What I discovered was, there really wasn't much "play" or "give" in those boundaries.

In my mind, complexity is derived not from grunt work (clean up pollution, move a gazillion workers around manually), but from the notion that one problem has a multitude of potential solutions (with each of those potential solutions having benefits and disadvantages). The trick then, would be to make decisions to further my position in the game, and "cover" my disadvantages sufficiently such that an opponent cannot take advantage of that weakness.

You don't get that in Civ3. Of course, the argument could be made (I know, cos I've made it myself on Civ3's behalf) that you didn't get that in Civ1 or Civ2, so what's the difference? IMO, that is like saying "hey! The Model-T had an engine, so what's the big deal?"

My answer would be, nothing. Not a thing in the world wrong with them. People still drive Model-T's and enjoy them. Doesn't change the fact that it's an outdated design tho.

The complexity I was looking for when I opened the "collector's tin" of my Civ3 - Limited Edition was as follows:

* Terrain Enhancement that made me really think HARD about my choices...not so much in the ancient/middle ages eras, but most assuredly as the game moved to modern times.

Absent. Terrain improvement is a no brainer. I'd automate it, but, no brainer or not, the AI controlled workers still can't seem to get it right, which means I gotta do it manually.

* A vibrant tech tree with mulitple viable research beelines.

Absent. The "tech tree" isn't really a tech tree at all, but four distinct "tech shrubs." There still COULD BE a sufficient number of techs to make a long-run tech beeline pay off, but the pre-requisite that one age's techs be all but fully researched before moving on to the next age prevents that (and, the only non-requirements for advancment out of the ancient era are the government techs that everybody is scampering to get anyway!). The end result of this is that there are no valid tech beelines in the game....thus, my position earlier that it doesn't really matter what you research or in what order. The AI will out research you on the upper levels, and you can make tech acquisitions faster than your native research rates by simply beating them out of the AI...with warriors if needs be, archers or swordsmen or horsemen if you've got them to start with, but that doesn't really matter either (see below).

I used to hang out a lot in the strategy section of civ3, and you know what I NEVER saw? I never once saw multiple strategies that revolved around various tech beelines. That's cos there are only two choices to make. You can either make for the Great Library/Republic, or you can go-a-conquering, in which case, get the most expedient of the two between horses and iron....or, just use warriors to bludgeon your opponents to death and save yourself the trouble of looking for the resources.

That's it.

I daresay there's not much depth or subtle strategy there.

* A combat system that moved beyond the old style civ/smac model and really introduced a higher level of realism and detail.

Absent. Read Machivelli's thread re: the Warrior Blitz. Combat is even more simplified now than it was in Civ2 or SMAC. To the point that in the industrial age, it's possible to overrun the opposition with stone age warriors.

Since those three big-ticket items that are important to me were absent from the game, I say again....For me, the game is simply not what I was looking for, nor what I thought it would be.

That's not to say you're an idiot for liking the game, or that you have to agree with my way of thinking....just saying that we have different desires, and that's cool. But the title of the thread was "Where did Civ3 go wrong?" and in my mind....this is it.

For the record, I started playing Civ3 with a "restart till I get a good position" mentality, and eventually realized that I was spending more of my time looking for good starts than I was actually playing the game, so shifted into a "play what I got" mentality (the only time I would break this was if I was in the midst of a vast jungle expanse).

Beat the game consistently on Emperor using the "Oscillating War" strategy I came up with over in the Civ3 Strategy section every time I played.

Beat Deity the same way if I had anything resembling a half decent start (tundra starts generally took longer or ended in an eventual defeat cos I couldn't produce quite quickly enough...but I think I found the solution there too, tho I uninstalled the game before I could fully test that).

In my mind, one of the measures of a game's complexity is in how long after the game comes out there are still new strategies being developed for it.

In the case of SMAC, fully two years after the game's release, people were making wholly new, totally unique strategies for the game.

Most of the new strategies being proposed in the Civ3 strat forum are revisions and incremental tweaks of already existing strategies. Not that that's a bad thing either, mind you, but it is qualitatively different from developing a wholly new strategy.

-=Vel=-

[Fitz]

Originally posted by Velociryx
In my mind, complexity is derived [...] but from the notion that one problem has a multitude of potential solutions (with each of those potential solutions having benefits and disadvantages).

That pretty much sums it up for me too, and I haven't even reached the "beat it consistantly on emporer" stage yet. I can feel the lack of variety in solving problems.

Interestingly enough, I think the three reasons you posted were the three main complaints about the lack of complexity in Civ3. I basically find that the lack of options in terrain improvements, the lack of options in tech research, and the lack of a variety of units (as opposed to one in each catagory) is starting to kill the game for me. Toss in a few other simplified (and in come cases very Civ) things compared to SMAC such as gov'ts and it really starts to become too much.

I think my major problem is that I never played CivII. If I had, I might have known ahead of time the relatively simplification of the Civ game in comparison to SMAC. While I greatly appreciate some of the things that are an improvement (AI, culture, diplomacy and possibly even resources), I feel that the steps back in complexity and diversity heavily outwheigh the steps foward in terms of replayability.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Bingo! How many times have you played Civ2 lately? If it can never be played enough, while Civ3 is disappointing, why have you played Civ3?

As I said many posts up, I don't actually believe that any game is "infinitely replayable". I simply realised one day that Civ2 granted me replayability on the scale of years, while Civ3 it is measured in months. All other things being equal (uh-huh), this is a very good indicator of what is wrong with Civ3.

Originally posted by notyoueither
3 Step don't work all the time. Let me know when you win every game, 10 in a row on random maps without restarting.

The "3-step program" does not provide a set of rules to win each and every game. What it does provide is a "best strategy" to defeat the AI on any difficulty level.

1. Expansion
2. War
3. Construction
4. War
5. Win

I guess that's 5-step. Consider the following program:

1. Expansion
2. Construction
3. Diplomacy
4. Expansion
5. Win

Here I'm describing a game which is won by political intrigue and culture. The force of your economy is your ticket to victory, not the strength of your military. I'm currently trying this strategy with the French. It's hard but it works. However, I know that I could win almost any game I've tried with this second program by reverting back to the first one (i.e. building enough Cavalry to obliterate a bunch of enemy civs, hitting Industrialization and coasting until the end).

The fact that all innovative strategies are sub-optimal in comparison to the the 3-step program is frustrating. Again, I must compare to SMAC. As Morgan, you would be silly to attack any of your neighbors early; the cards were stacked against you from the beginning. But you could build up an empire of such economic strength that you could ride your Energy advantage to victory. I wish I could have faith in this strategy in Civ3. Or any other new strategy for that matter.

But I'm determined to try. Give me a couple of weeks and I'll post a thread on how I'm faring with the French. I have to admit it's fun to try and determine if Civ3 is actually better than I think it is...




Dominae

[Dominae]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Please, I don't want to be labled a simpleton

Heh, I knew when I wrote that that it could be taken offensively. What I meant to say is that you probably don't think that Civ3 is too simple, since you're defending it so strongly. Personally, I thought the simplicity was an asset to the game; recently, I've changed my mind.

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
But I'm pretty satisfied with the state of the game as it is, IMO, a step in the right direction.

Civ3 is a "a step in the right direction", I'm not contesting that. I'm arguing that it does have some flaws (well, one, actually) that make it a "good" game, not a "great" one. If Civ4 comes out and simply blows me away, I'll happily concede that Civ3 was a good "learning experience". Right now, with the product that I'm expected to play, I don't like looking at it as a "learning experience". I want to have fun now.

Civ3 doesn't have to include elements of SMAC to be a complex game. I agree that Social Engineering doesn't "feel" like Civ. But the level of complexity of SMAC is easily reproducible in new game mechanics for Civ. What they appear as superficially is unimportant (from a gameplay perspective). The fact one or two units is dominant in each age in Civ3 is a clear indication that Civ3 lacks complexity (at the very least, with respect to warfare). You don't necessarily need a Unit Workshop to remedy this; just introduce new units with exciting special abilities. Like I've said, Marines and Paratroopers are strategically interesting, but who uses them?

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
I'm not sure what you mean by competitive gamer. Competitive against the AI, against your own scores, against other scores?

By "competitive gamer" I mean anyone who feels dissatisfied with the game if they don't end up winning once in a while (in other words, they "play to win"). Most competitive players understand that the 3-step program is optimal in Civ3, and find it boring to employ it in every game.

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
And really, didn't this problem arise in the other games, leading to OCC and ICS tricks to extend the challenge?

OCC is highly dependent on starting location. No one (that I know of) can win an OCC game from an arbitrary start. And, of course, the very problem with ICS is that it's so good a strategy. When MP comes around, if everyone is using ICS, I will criticize Civ3 just as I am doing now. If ICS is better than the 3-step program, then it clearly presents another optimal way to win, which is a weakness in Civ3.



Dominae

[Capt Dizle]

I hate to post this but its possible that Civ3 MP could be a pretty darn good wargame if they implement outposts well.

I can't believe I said that.

[Velociryx]

I'm in that same boat, Fitz....and yes, I LOVE the concept of culture and the new resource model was long overdue and a welcome addition to the game (and I've said on numerous occassions that Soren's AI is heads and shoulders above anything else out there).

Again, it is in the implementation where the game falls well short.

Culture was basically bolted onto the existing game framework, and that's a pity, cos the designers just tossed away a PERFECT opportunity to strut their stuff. They could have made some new buildings (a thing badly needed, since what we have now are the same buildings we had in Civ1) that provided cultural (and possibly economic - tourism) bonuses....instead...we get culture tacked onto existing improvements like an afterthought.

The resource model - Awesome idea, poor implementation. I've said it before, they're not really strategic resources at all...Tactical Resources, at best.

Even if they'd have done nothing more than the Starcraft system of putting a numeric counter on a given resource deposit and subtracted one (or more) from that number each time you built a unit that required said resource, that'd be a HUGE (and vastly more strategic) implementation of the concept than what we've got right now.

Resources vanish and appear without rhyme or reason, making relying on their presence as the basis of a "strategy" of any kind an absolute insanity.

Correction, "strategic" resources come and go on a whim....Luxury items, OTOH, last forever, and are generally found nicely clumped together.

Nowhere in this equation is any sense of strategic resource reserves (EASY to implement), nor any indication of how much of a given resource you've got to work with (also easy to implement...the program most likely uses a numeric counter to determine when it vanishes...easy enough to display that information to the player). No notion of semi-renewable resources (horses, Ivory...herds of both could be fully used up, or, the more future-oriented player would carefully husband those herds for use in later years).

A pair of huge missed opportunities to shine, IMO.

With regards to the three step program to victory....it's not necessarily that it's the "best" way to play Civ (or any 4x game), it's just that Civ3, to a MUCH greater extent than many other 4x games I have played pushes you into playing it that way.

The AI expands relentlessly, aggressively, and in your face. If you want your fair share of the pie, you WILL get back in their face. No question, no doubt...it's something you will do.

If you don't do it, you'll wind up significantly smaller, and the AI empires, viewing your smaller size as weakness, WILL attack you.

If somebody's had a different experience than this, by all means raise a hand and let me know, cos I'll admit, I might be wrong. But that has been my experience, and I've tried playing it a whole lotta different ways.

So...the game almost forces you into a period of early warfare, and since you're going to fight, you might as well fight on the other guy's turf...which of course will lead to capturing enemy cities till he sues for peace, netting you techs and other spoils of war.

Essentially, the game's natural ebb and flow is in this direction...the "three step approach" works so well, cos it works WITH the design of the game, not against it.

Now, sure...you can intentionally work against the inherent design of the game, but when doing so, know in advance that because you ARE working against the design of the game, it'll be a tougher row to hoe.

-=Vel=-

[DonJoel]

The game was just bad.

It hasnt got anything to do with, ai, features or simplicity. Pong is simple and very addictive and so is tetris. civ2 had a bad ai its fun.

Were civ3 fails is in the heart of the game were it is decided if a game has "it" or not. Civ3 hasnt got "it".

No patches or expansionpacks can change that. The game will still be the same and people will not like it because it hasnt got that "one more turn" feeling of the older civ games.

Civ3 hasnt got that feeling.