Where Did Civ3 Go Wrong?

[Stuie]

I enjoyed SMAC when it came out. However, it never grabbed me the way any of the Civ games did, and I'm not sure what the fuss is about all the extra "stuff". The Social Engineering seemed like window dressing; in the end, every faction had a combination that would work for it every time. The unit workshop was fun to play around with, but again, once you figured out the best combinations, it was just a matter of designing the same units every game. Oh, and you could build at sea. That's one thing I never want to see in a Civ game, unless it's in the form of offshore oil platforms or some such. Cities in the ocean? No way, not in a Civ game please.

Things SMAC did have that Civ3 lacks (and added something to gameplay):

- The Planetary Council. Civ3 totally missed the boat when it comes to the UN. Yawn.
- On map spying/diplomacy. I don't mind the abstracted diplomacy model, don't miss diplomats at all, but the abstracted espionage in Civ3 seems kind of stale. I only use it to force other Civs to declare war on me, thus maintaining my reputation.
- Real alliances. This I miss; I want to be able to prop up my sagging ally by throwing some units his or her way. I want to be able to reinforce his/her cities, and pass through the foreign allied units using my roads.

I'm sure there's some more, but I don't feel like it's some overwhelming amount of "stuff" that's missing. And I think Civ3 does a better job on some common elements, such as the implementation of borders (and the associated addition of culture) and the way artillery works. The artillery duels of SMAC always seemed kind kind of silly.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Hey Stuie,

Thanks for sharing your views on SMAC. Interesting some peoples loves, some peoples hates, and some people ambivalences.

On the issue of SE vs. CIV3 governments. I gotta say my experience with SE was a much more rewarding one than your experiences. I never felt it necessary to lock into one set of SE choices for a given faction (Yang aside as a Police/Planned/Wealth follower). Truth of the matter, I gotta say not every faction had a single best choice of each and every SE choice. The manipulations you needed or could do in order to meet the current game situation was a great step up and an evolution in the game system for me. And to my mind not out of character with a historical based game. I guess I fould it extremely useful more so than the existing limtted gov types, not window dressing by any stretch.

As for sea bases. You are absolutely correct for CIV games. Historically based games sholdn't include it. It however prolly was the correct decision for a SciFI based game (altho one could argue sea bases should be allowed much later in the game).

Diplomacy model we both agree on.

Unit workshop regardless of real use was fun (IMO). Why eliminate it?

So to summarize SE we agree to disagree as I feel it an important part of the gmae and not clutter.
Sea Bases correctly are not in CIV3.
Diplomacy CIV3 kinna missed the boat.

[nato]

Dominae you are really nailing it. Good work. Interesting decisions are what make strategy. I enjoy UUs, but like you say, they don't add strategy because it is generally obvious to build them. And early warfare is entirely a choice of swords or horses ... and the early period is the best in the game! Things are too simple.

Sorry for the "me too" post, but I think Dominae really sums it up.

I can respect people prefering a simpler game; apparently most people do. But I cast my vote for one filled with interesting decisions, not obvious best moves. Not that Civ3 is devoid of interesting decisions, of course ... but it has significantly less than optimal, in my opinion.

[ACooper]

Originally posted by nato


Oh please. You might not agree with my position, but nothing I said was stupid or unreasonable. "I don't know what to say. Good luck to you." I'm so sure.

I'll save you the trouble. Until you can stop being condescending, don't worry about what to say ... don't say anything.

First, I have never tried to silence you

Nor did I say you or your suggestion was stupid or unreasonable. All I was trying to say was that more units, improvements, etc. do not make a better game. Civ I was(is) the best game ever made. Infinately replayable. Civ III is more like Civ I than Civ II. That was a good decision.

Granted, in just my opinion, but (in all humbleness to you "godness") it is a very valid opinion. The whole notion of this thread is ludicris and sad. A place for whiners to congregate and complain about a game they (say) they don't play.


Oh, btw, if you want to see condesending, look in the mirror.

[nato]

Sorry ACooper, I'm not interested enough to get in some fight with you. Your first post carried an insult by implying I was so out of it, you could only shake your head at me. I responded. Thats it for me.

Besides, I'm middle of the road in the whiner vs. choir war. I like Civ3, I just think it could be much better with more strategy options. Go pick a fight with jt or Coracle or someone. Extremists on either end have more in common with eachother than people in the middle.

You have a very good point that more things does not necesarily make a better game. I don't want "clutter" either ... I want interesting decisions.

I think that in going for a simpler game, they removed some stuff that wasn't clutter, and didn't add enough new non-clutter stuff. Thus the game has less strategy decisions in it, and feels too simple.

Add a little complexity, and its right up there as an undisputed great game for me.

Perhaps we only differ in our preference for complexity, and decisions with trade offs instead of decisionswith clear correct answers. Like I said, I can respect that, and you even have the wider market on your side.

[ACooper]

Originally posted by nato
...
Perhaps we only differ in our preference for complexity, and decisions with trade offs instead of decisionswith clear correct answers.
...

Very true.
_______________________________________________
ACooper offers Nato Gives

Peace Treaty Peace Treaty
Spices

>Yes. We accept.
>No Way!
>Care to hear a counter-proposal?
__________________________________________________

[nato]

Ok I'll even throw in the coveted World Map!

[Dominae]

Originally posted by ACooper
The whole notion of this thread is ludicris and sad.

This all depends if whiners make a point to post here. I don't consider myself a whiner, but I do feel Civ3 could be better.

Like I said many posts up, I've played this game for around 6 months now, and I'm getting tired of it. I think it's a fun game, but it doesn't have what the other games had: "infinite replayability".

So, I think it's worth saying as much in a thread entitled: "Where did Civ3 go wrong?". A game can be a great success and be fun for a lot of people and still have "wrong" things in it. SMAC was perhaps too complex; JarJar shouldn't have been in The Phantom Menace (I hope I'm not opening old wounds here!).

You could easily argue that perhaps Civ3 is not the best game for me to be playing (and people have said as much about themselves in other posts). Then, of course, Civ3 has nothing wrong with it, and I'm the one that is asking too much. But somehow I get the feeling that, as an avid fan of the series, my opinion does matter. But, if Civ3 really is marketed and designed for young teenagers who have never played a Civ game before, then I'm probably not playing the right game, and my opinion matters less...

And my opinion (I'll say it again!) is that Civ3 isn't replayble enough.

nato, Alexnm et al, thanks for you support of my posts. It's great to see people agreeing here for once!


Dominae

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Dominae

Like I said many posts up, I've played this game for around 6 months now, and I'm getting tired of it.

Six months for $50. Not a bad investment. When the XP comes out, you'll probably get another six months. Plus if you quit for a few weeks, you'll probably enjoy it more. Take a break. Relax. Save the juice. Then come home again.

[zulu9812]

We expect Civ games to have a replay value of years, not months. Every game of civ3 is the same - establish dominance on your own continent and then conquer everyone else when you get magnetism

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by zulu9812
We expect Civ games to have a replay value of years, not months.

You may be somewhat unclear on the concept of "we." "We" generally includes me, and since this particular statement does not, "we" is probably not appropriate without some kind of other qualifyer.

Every game of civ3 is the same - establish dominance on your own continent and then conquer everyone else when you get magnetism

Ehhh... first of all, that was equally true of Civ2... if I wanted to play that way. Of course, I also had the option to build a spaceship. That was it. Whereas, in Civ3, more possiblities for victory exist... so how can you say games of Civ3 are more similar than, say, games of Civ2?

[zulu9812]

whilst the victory conditions have been improved - i always find my games unfolding the same way - become the only empire on my continent and then settle others & make war when i discover magnetism

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by zulu9812
whilst the victory conditions have been improved - i always find my games unfolding the same way - become the only empire on my continent and then settle others & make war when i discover magnetism

And, I reiterate: That was my exact same war strategy with Civ2. So, why does Civ3 take the flak?

[zulu9812]

well i only ever played civ2 twice - i preferred SMAC and CTP2

[Cyclotron]

Then we have a bit of a problem... I have played Civ1, Civ2, CTP, and Civ3... but not CTP2 or SMAC, the only games you are really familiar with.

Well, in that case, why don't you tell me how your strategy was different in CTP or SMAC?