My beef with CivIII

[grapedog]

Re: Re: My beef with CivIII

Originally posted by hexagonian


Hmmmm, lets see...

1 and 2 - New civs evolving...
3,4, and 5 - Evolving Barbarians and Barbarians contolled cities/civs...

Sounds like Modded CTP2 to me!!

It sounds like Civ II aswell, and not Civ III which is the problem. The evolving barb's made sense as did the taking over of the cities. Sometimes the barb's killing your production can sting, but after the first 10-15 turns you're probably churning out military units to defend cities and more than likely unless you get an uprising(at least they kept that) a crappy 1.1 warrior could stop most if all barb activity directed at a city.

I did like the restarting of new Civ's in CivII....in CivIII do the Civ's you wipe out, when they pop back up, do they still hate you or is it with a clean slate?

[zulu9812]

Re: Re: Re: My beef with CivIII

Originally posted by grapedog
I did like the restarting of new Civ's in CivII....in CivIII do the Civ's you wipe out, when they pop back up, do they still hate you or is it with a clean slate?

No, they still hate you. They remember everything, so if you were at war with them you'll still be at war with them.

[grapedog]

Re: Re: Re: Re: My beef with CivIII

Originally posted by zulu9812


No, they still hate you. They remember everything, so if you were at war with them you'll still be at war with them.

Then what the hell is the point? You kill the father but the son grows up hating you...thats no good. Definately need the different Civ's on a clean slate.

[Lucilla]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My beef with CivIII

Originally posted by grapedog


Then what the hell is the point? You kill the father but the son grows up hating you...thats no good. Definately need the different Civ's on a clean slate.

Well, it's realistic, isn't it?

[zulu9812]

I hate the respawning altogether - having new civs spring up to replace old ones is cool.But fighting a several-hundred year long war just to have to trapse half way across the continent to finish them off (again) isn't. What really pisses me off is that they estart with all the advantages they had at the start of the game; extras settler, loads of military units, more gold, etc.

[ChaotikVisions]

Ugh, we need a whining/complain forum for Civ3. So I never have to see another post labeled "What Civ3 lacks, could have had, did wrong, is doing wrong, etc.." C'mon mods, make a forum for it. *hopes*

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by zulu9812
I hate the respawning altogether

So turn it off. I like it that it can be turned off now. I leave it on myself but I am early builder not an early warmonger so I have only had to deal with this once or twice myself.

- having new civs spring up to replace old ones is cool.But fighting a several-hundred year long war just to have to trapse half way across the continent to finish them off (again) isn't. What really pisses me off is that they estart with all the advantages they had at the start of the game; extras settler, loads of military units, more gold, etc.

Consider it a inducement to not engage in rush tactics. I did prefer the way it worked in Civ II. I think the present method may very well be intended as a balance to the early rush but I still prefer the Civ II version. It simply gave more variation to each game.

[PhoenixPhlame73]

yeah, I agree with pretty much all of that....

Barbarians should definetly evolve based on what I think they represent. I think that they represent the people discontented with your government. Now, if I were to become a rebel rilght now, I think I would by a gun, not grab an axe and start scalping people (sounds fun though ).

Of course, there should be ways that new civilizations can form, it makes absolutely no sense for this not to be possible !!!

CTP2 had all this..............

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Is Alexander's Horse that fond of talking to himself or is he just a traditional target for such accusations?

I personally would like the splitting that occured in Civ II. I don't thinks its viable in Civ III however. It wasn't good for the civ in Civ II either but it did make the game a bit more variable. . .

That's true,

What I've noticed most about Civ 3 is that, unlike Civ 2, there are often tremendously long periods of tedium when nothing happens, and when it does it is usually something stupid and predictable by the dumb AI.

[Theseus]

Gimme a break.

This is a GAME. Poker and blackjack can be boring too... if you follow the optimum strategy for each, you generally do nothing until you have outstanding tactical advantage. Balancing "optimum" with fun is why casinos make a LOT of money, and why strategy AI's are imperfect.