Tweet
My beef with CivIII
What really annoys me the most about CivIII is how static the Civilisations are. Everyone starts off at 4000BC and basically its a matter of killing off who you see until the end.
In CivI (I never really played CivII much) new opponents would pop up throughout the game, especially after you have killed off someone else. I thought this was a fundamental feature in keeping the game somewhat realistic if not more interesting (not that it ever was overly realistic). Also, from time to time, one nation would split into two... perhaps as a result of the capital being destroyed, or even if approval was just down.
Who cares if the new opponent is weak, it just gives the militant gamer some new territory to annex.
I've been playing CivIII for a few weeks now and I've never seen any of these things happen
Barbarians arn't nearly potent enough. In the real world "barbarians" managed to destroy most ancient and classical societies (Babylon, Rome, China, Aztecs to name a few). In this game I manage to defend a city from a barbarian onslaught of 20 horsemen or so with three or four Pikemen. I think they can do a bit better than flint axe warriors and horsemen too. It's a bit of a joke when a barbarian with an axe attacks a town garrisoned with riflemen.
Also I think it would be a good feature to have barbarian encampments turn into new civilisations if not destroyed in 10 turns. Tell me that a camp of barbarians sitting around for 50 years isnt going to eventually settle down and start farming/building. And I liked it when barbarians would take control of your city if you left it undefended. Just wandering in and taking a few bob from the town treasury doesnt really bake the cake in my mind.
I have many more issues with this game, but they have already been bought up in this forum. Maybe these issues have been bought up too, I havnt seen them.
In CivI (I never really played CivII much) new opponents would pop up throughout the game, especially after you have killed off someone else. I thought this was a fundamental feature in keeping the game somewhat realistic if not more interesting (not that it ever was overly realistic). Also, from time to time, one nation would split into two... perhaps as a result of the capital being destroyed, or even if approval was just down.
Who cares if the new opponent is weak, it just gives the militant gamer some new territory to annex.
I've been playing CivIII for a few weeks now and I've never seen any of these things happen
Barbarians arn't nearly potent enough. In the real world "barbarians" managed to destroy most ancient and classical societies (Babylon, Rome, China, Aztecs to name a few). In this game I manage to defend a city from a barbarian onslaught of 20 horsemen or so with three or four Pikemen. I think they can do a bit better than flint axe warriors and horsemen too. It's a bit of a joke when a barbarian with an axe attacks a town garrisoned with riflemen.
Also I think it would be a good feature to have barbarian encampments turn into new civilisations if not destroyed in 10 turns. Tell me that a camp of barbarians sitting around for 50 years isnt going to eventually settle down and start farming/building. And I liked it when barbarians would take control of your city if you left it undefended. Just wandering in and taking a few bob from the town treasury doesnt really bake the cake in my mind.
I have many more issues with this game, but they have already been bought up in this forum. Maybe these issues have been bought up too, I havnt seen them.
Comment