c#205 CIV3`S NOT SO GREAT LEAP FORWARD

[MarkG]

CIV3`S NOT SO GREAT LEAP FORWARD
By Dr Nemo
May 29th, 2002

http://apolyton.net/misc/column/205_civ3leap.shtml

[keithsed]

I agree with you 100% I could never recover from the crowding and border assults that the AI came up with even before I had built a core area.

I've gone back to playing Civ 2 and enjoying it much more.

Keith

[Mark_Everson]

The article seems well-thought-out and fairly balanced overall.

But...

There are aspects at the end of turns that the next turn seems pre-ordained. If I go into a hut, it's the same old thing (in Civ 2 I would find a new city; in Civ 3 it would be deserted or three barbarians--and no matter how many times I reload). If I reload a .sav game at the same point, any battle seems to come to the same conclusion with the winning unit having the same amount of damage. 10 out of 10 times; in Civ 2 you might repeat, but it didn't duplicate.

Let me get this straight, you're complaining that it won't let you blatantly cheat !?! If you don't like the negative consequences, don't enter... It seems so simple I can't count the number of times a strategy post came up for Civ2 where part of the strategy we were being illuminated about was just plain reloading.

I guess as a marketing tool Firaxis could, in a patch, allow cheating thru reloads. The customer is always right and all that.

Anyway, best of luck in getting the game you want!

[Keeper of Hell]

Originally posted by Mark_Everson

I guess as a marketing tool Firaxis could, in a patch, allow cheating thru reloads. The customer is always right and all that.

They already have- the option to turn off the "Preserve Random Seed" rule in 1.21.

[GodKing]

For the most part, I do agree with all that was said. Good job.

[Dinner]

I believe he did a good job of summing up the majority opinion of Civ3.

[notyoueither]

"There are aspects at the end of turns that the next turn seems pre-ordained. ... If I reload a .sav game at the same point, any battle seems to come to the same conclusion with the winning unit having the same amount of damage. 10 out of 10 times; in Civ 2 you might repeat, but it didn't duplicate"

When was this written? New random seed on reload is an option in 1.21


"and for the workers, I would like to automate on one function--clean pollution... automation usually means 'build road, then mine', even on irrigated land"

You can have them clean just pollution. You can automate them to improve without changing previous improvements.

[Auslander]

Someone needs history 101

....in the previous Civs I never shifted
my Capital; other than Brazil and West Germany, has it happened in the
real world?)....

-----------------------------------------------------------------


Yes. The US had Philadelphia, New York and now Washington, DC.

[TCO]

Nice article.

It did seem to have a sense of "I don't like Civ3 cause it's too hard" though.

[DeepO]

I don't get it. Why do so many people think this is a great article? Is it because Dr Nemo tries to impress us with his three degrees, holding a job, while inventing his version of ICS? Hell, at this moment I'm going for my fourth degree, I am also working, and ICS is a natural choice once you see the amount of settlers the AIs are churning out. I don't gloat about it (or at least I don't want to).

I agree that Civ III might not be the great leap forward many would have hoped for, and certain aspects could be improved. What I don't agree with are the reasons Dr Nemo gives:

Spies were IMHO overpowered in CivII and SMAC. And historically speaking it wasn't very realistic either. Sure, with enough cash it would be cool to buy an extra settler or worker, but bribing a complete city isn't very realistic, is it? While now, on the trading table you can get a city, provided you have enough cash and/or other goodies to pay for it.

negotiations are somewhat of a poker game, and AIs indeed try to get insane deals. But, with the right tactics, you can do the same to them. The whole question is whether the AI thinks he is superior to you or not. If you are far more powerful than an AI, he will give flight for your territory map, and he'll be thankful. You don't see that very often, though, as normally if you are more powerful, you also are amongst the first to discover these key techs. True, the AIs seem to know when you discovered something new, and ask for it immediately, but in an intense game I know that too. Just do a trade every turn with everyone, checking if there is something new, offering 1 gold each time and you get this information without having to spend money on spies.

Catapults and cannons are not worthless, they are simply not that overpowered as they used to be. True, in many cases they will kill citizens in stead of damaging elite units, and while this is historically true, it is a great game mechanic as well. Military there's an advantage as smaller cities do not get defense bonuses, there's fewer resistance after the war, and if you don't win the fight you leave a crippled city behind. Plus, you should be punished to use these 'cheap' tactics, the real warrior spirit is to have either superior force (cavalry against spearman) or superior numbers in order to win. Or you can have both, using an army of cavalry against a single (elite) spearman.

Blitzkrieg tactics are still very possible. True, you cannot only take the capital for its wonders and leave all border villages as is, but I feel this is a very good thing. If you really want a blitzkrieg, make sure you have 100 modern armors when your enemy has just produced its first mechanized infantry, you'll take his territory in 2 or 3 turns. If that's not blitz enough for you, I don't know what is.

Further, I feel like you didn't read the manual properly. Nearly all of my pollution is being automatically cleaned, and this I feel is one of the great improvements of the AI (I know many will not agree with the worker AI being any good, but if you have enough of these automated workers running around it works like a charm). On a related note, not mining plains can hardly be described as a good tactic, once you get to population 22 shields are what nets you most, not food. I agree you still can do a better job than the worker AI, but only marginably so.

Corruption is tough, but with the latest patches it is doable. After all, there has to be a constraint on expansion, just to counter the tedious build-as-many-cities-as-you-can tactic of Civ II. If you need more forbidden palaces, there's a big chance you didn't plan the position of your first right.
Palaces identical: If you want to use the Culture bomb tactic, you can, if you want to keep it at its original place, you can too. The cost of one is depending on the size of your empire, and I don't get your complaint that it costs more then the average (ancient-industrial) wonder. This should be a good thing, as you can stockpile shields, and have some reserve if an AI builds a wonder 3 turns before you'd finish yours.

All in all, it seems as you haven't grown accustomed to the Civ III style yet, as it may not be a pure continuation of Civ II, but it definately is a fine game. Of course there are some aspects that could have been improved, and certain decisions are questionnable (I too loved the wonder movies), but you should congratulate Firaxis for making yet another memorable Civ, not write columns on why it is no good.

DeepO

PS: the one thing that made me appreciate Civ III the most is that it saved the random seed: no more unnecesary cheating! I'm sorry you feel this is a disadvantage, but it is in line with the rest of your column.

[Jaybe]

Great Leap Forwards seem to take a heavy toll, referencing PRC under Mao. Despite all the 'glass-is-half-empty' people, I think Firaxis is doing a great job 'evolving' Civilization III.

To sum up my opinion of Dr Nemo, I think he should go back to Civ2! He is used to it and gives him a nice, mindless experience where there is nothing new to learn or get used to. How is THAT for being 'glass is half empty!'

JB

[Allemand]

It's an excellent review, even if everyone doesn't agree with everything.

Civ II has better game management tools, while Civ III improved several aspects of the game. I'd like to see more things improved.

[Coracle]

"But thus far it has been a disappointment".

It has been a disappointment as a game; it has been a BIG disappointment compared to Civ 2. It is also less historic and realistic that Civ 2.

Civ 3 is NOT a succesor to Civ 2. This game is really "Soren Johnson's Culture". I await a real Civ 3.

Culture Flipping is garbage.

Settler Diarrhea is braindead - no sane ruler would ever waste his shields throwing out towns anywhere that can never be productive and can't be defended in war.

The AI cheats.

The unit and resource values that came with the game are braindead.

Trade and Espionage have become tediuos abstractions.

Bombardment units' strengths can be Edited up, but they are still an exercise in tedium, and the idea that a frigate firing solid cannonballs just 500 yards beyond the coast can destroy improvements is stupid even for Civ 3.

Lots more.

But what cannot be disputed is that Firaxis is expert at MARKETING. Just read their self-congratulatory posts. They are now less skilled at game development. Too bad.

[MarkG]

my god, dont you get tired of posting such unpleasant posts coracle?

[Coracle]

ROADS

I want to add that the article's author was dead on with his criticism of the non-historical baloney about an invading army NOT being able to use roads in enemy territory.

What happened to the roads? They disappear into thin air like those millions of people "razed" in that nearby metropolis?? Like that huge garrison that vanished in that Flipped city??

UNLESS PILLAGED, roads (not railroads) should definitely be usable to an invading army. To prevent that is to make the game even more unrealistic and non-historical.

This could be easily fixed by Firaxis. But they don't care.