c#205 CIV3`S NOT SO GREAT LEAP FORWARD

[lorddread]

Good Morning Your Honor, if it please the members of the court!

Originally posted by DeepO

The buttons in CivIII may look nice, but aren't really easy to hit. This indeed is one of the things that is worse from previous games. Luckily, the and keys work on most of them, but I would have choosen bigger targets if I had to design the interface.

I agree here the O X buttons are bogus. Also, there should a radio button or something to be clicked on in the diplomatic screens. I have fat fingered (using my mouse) numerous times, and blown deals that could have been huge.

in the beginning of the game I do all the worker actions myself, after a while I'll move workers from worker farms to a city that needs improvement. After it gets there, I'll set it to auto-improve virgin terrain. First, it will improve the used-but-not-improved squares of that city, and after that it will start on the tedious jobs, like making sure each square has a railroad, or cleaning pollution.

The problem here is that an automated worker doesn't always improve a city. Have you ever seen a city in famine (with little to no irrigation) while a half a dozen workers (automated) are building redundant roads or railroads? Another problem is the mining of plains when the city is backed by mountains or hills. Why do these get mined last? A menu for the workers would vastly improve Civ 3

Further, about the micromanagement of cities: worker allocation can be done by the governor in general, except in certain special cases (when building wonders, totally corrupt cities with only taxcollectors, problem cites on penisulas...).

I agree with some cavots. How many people here get tired of the city governor trying to build a privateer in 1900's when everyone is using destroyers or at the very least ironclads, especially when you have never built one on the first place? Or wanting to build pikemen or immortals? There should be a way to remove obsolete equipment from the build que. At the very least it is a pain to have to scroll past all this "crap"!

The only way to get around this is to use Civ 3's build que. That in itself can be tedious, but at least it is playable.

[DeepO]

Originally posted by lorddread
Have you ever seen a city in famine (with little to no irrigation) while a half a dozen workers (automated) are building redundant roads or railroads?

No, not really. But I can imagine this, after all, no AI is perfect. That's why you need a certain amount of manual workers running around, you don't use these to lay roads

Another problem is the mining of plains when the city is backed by mountains or hills. Why do these get mined last? A menu for the workers would vastly improve Civ 3

This is personal choice: if there is enough food, I mine plains as well. And do it before mining hills. The reason is simple: a mined, railed plain will give you 3 food, 2 shields, and is a lot faster done than a railed, mined hill of 1 food, 4 shields.
But, I agree completely that a priority menu for the workers would be a nice addition, it's not since I like the current priority of workers that it shouldn't be free for everyone to choose.

How many people here get tired of the city governor trying to build a privateer in 1900's when everyone is using destroyers or at the very least ironclads, especially when you have never built one on the first place?

Indeed, I already forgot about that one. I got so fed up with this, that my governor isn't allowed to build ships anymore. It may not be the best solution, but after all, the AI is not terribly good at deciding in which sea ships are needed, and in which it's just foolish to spend resources on.

About making units obsolete (cfr SMAC): yes and no. I too never build privateers, I never build nuclear weapons, and I don't want to build cavalry once I have tanks. Removing these from the queues would be nice, removing spearmen however might become difficult: you only get these when you have a not-connected city which is not able to produce pikemen. Otherwise, it will always show the best available defensive unit. It could be good to set a city to spearman, as you know it will be connected in a few turns, at which time it gets auto-upgraded to pikeman.

Besides, in certain cases I wished I was still able to build spearmen after I got infantry: if I garrison a city which is succeptable to culture flipping, I do that with lots of obsolete units, not my most modern units. If you loose these, it's not that bad. Loosing 10 of your best units can seriously ruin your mood...

DeepO

[LaoTze]

I agree with many others that Civ 3 is a good game. It has kept many of its trademarks that have made it a successful game in the past. However, there are two things that bother me about the game. Both of which tie into the new culture addition to the series.

First problem is with the governments. In this game Democracy is given incredible advatanges over its competitors. Beyond the science and trade benefits, the ability to be immune to bribery, and corruption benefits, a Democracy can support a military equivalent to a equal sized communist neighbor. If it wasn't for war weariness Democracy would be the one and only viable government. Furthermore, one has to realize that the model Democracies of the world, such as the US or most of Western Europe (just bear with me, and dont begin making flames in your head just yet) were not always the shining beckons they are today. A historical reference for everyone. Saigon would have been a French city in its imperialist stage. Does it make sense that it is still unbribable becuase it falls under a French democratic umbrella? Hardly, as the imperial powers traded these cities back and forth, despite a democratic government at home what benefits did their imperial subjects recieve. It would be a matter of opinion to say that open bribery could exist but I find it an extreme game advatange that is not warranted if civ 3 is trying to add in culture to the series. All to often the civ series has taken it for granted that democracies are an improved government in this field. In a country such as the US with over 200 years of democratic government behind it, it could be expected. But in its beginnings the US had all sorts of problems of abuse of powers and corruption. My point here is that there should be a long transition period before a democracies can get all of its many benefits in this game.

My second problem is with military support. Before the unit support was based on shield production. In both civ 2 and CTP the production hit was sufficient to limit a democractic military. CTP was a personal favorite of mine because it valued the importance and size of the unit. A carrier was not supported by one gold just like a hoplite?! I honestly feel that the ctp system better reflected the costs of a unit. Bombers would not need to be toned down if a civ could not cover the skies in them. Switching to gold IMHO only gives democracies yet another advantage over communist rivals. The US would not function as it did during the cold war if it supported a military anywhere near the size of the Soviets during the cold war. Reality is the use of Nuclear weapons as a deterent was discovered early by the Eisenhower administration. The advantage given to communist nations does not compare to the trade advantage given to democracies making a communist government only feasible in times of extended war and then one can switch back to democracy at the end with no real penalties.

Btw I'm not a communist in real life. However, I see a trend in this game that is playing up the greatness of democracy more and more as the series progresses. While civ 2 spies were probably overpowering, the old improved spy benefit given to communist governments is a near waste since spying actions cost so much that its a much more rare advantage being used in civ 3. Fundamentalism was taken out and prolly for the better. That makes communism the war time economy. In civ 2 a communist government could at least compete with a democracy. In civ 3 it would be a waste to try to compete in that fashion. You could not steal technologies to keep pace or support an immense military because support has been switched from shields (communists have alot of) to gold (communist has little of or at least alot less than a democracy).

[lorddread]

Governments

Originally posted by LaoTze
First problem is with the governments. In this game Democracy is given incredible advatanges over its competitors. Beyond the science and trade benefits, the ability to be immune to bribery, and corruption benefits, a Democracy can support a military equivalent to a equal sized communist neighbor. If it wasn't for war weariness Democracy would be the one and only viable government. Furthermore, one has to realize that the model Democracies of the world, such as the US or most of Western Europe (just bear with me, and dont begin making flames in your head just yet) were not always the shining beckons they are today. A historical reference for everyone. Saigon would have been a French city in its imperialist stage. Does it make sense that it is still unbribable becuase it falls under a French democratic umbrella?

The United States is not a Democracy. It never has been and never will be. We are a Constitutional Republic with (and here's where it gets confussing) a democratically elected government. But we are not a Democracy.

France is not a Democracy either. France (by US terms) is a democraticly elected Socialist Government. Nothing wrong with that.

Back to LaoTze's point though. I disagree with him about the democracy gov. I never play it because the Republic, while it has slightly higher corruption is a better government.

I would like to see the Corp Republic brought in from Call to Power.

My second problem is with military support. Before the unit support was based on shield production. In both civ 2 and CTP the production hit was sufficient to limit a democractic military. CTP was a personal favorite of mine because it valued the importance and size of the unit. A carrier was not supported by one gold just like a hoplite?! I honestly feel that the ctp system better reflected the costs of a unit. Bombers would not need to be toned down if a civ could not cover the skies in them. Switching to gold IMHO only gives democracies yet another advantage over communist rivals. The US would not function as it did during the cold war if it supported a military anywhere near the size of the Soviets during the cold war. Reality is the use of Nuclear weapons as a deterent was discovered early by the Eisenhower administration. The advantage given to communist nations does not compare to the trade advantage given to democracies making a communist government only feasible in times of extended war and then one can switch back to democracy at the end with no real penalties.

Btw I'm not a communist in real life. However, I see a trend in this game that is playing up the greatness of democracy more and more as the series progresses. While civ 2 spies were probably overpowering, the old improved spy benefit given to communist governments is a near waste since spying actions cost so much that its a much more rare advantage being used in civ 3. Fundamentalism was taken out and prolly for the better. That makes communism the war time economy. In civ 2 a communist government could at least compete with a democracy. In civ 3 it would be a waste to try to compete in that fashion. You could not steal technologies to keep pace or support an immense military because support has been switched from shields (communists have alot of) to gold (communist has little of or at least alot less than a democracy).

Amen

[Allemand]

The maintenance costs for units is oversimplified. Would be better if the maintenance cost was related to the build cost for the unit. Modern units would cost more to maintain, and the player would have to look at tradeoffs. This would also help the AI which doesn't upgrade as often as the human player.

[LaoTze]

Re: Governments

Originally posted by lorddread


The United States is not a Democracy. It never has been and never will be. We are a Constitutional Republic with (and here's where it gets confussing) a democratically elected government. But we are not a Democracy.

France is not a Democracy either. France (by US terms) is a democraticly elected Socialist Government. Nothing wrong with that.

And a janitor is a sanitation engineer. A housewife is a domestic engineer. The modern US government is covered in this game by democracy not republicanism. IMHO I don't care what the French call themselves but their government falls under the same category as much of western Europe and the US. Afterall Democracy comes after the printing press and banking not bronze working and literacy. Anyways the name doesnt matter. A city's willingness to rebelf for money should not fall under government style but rather under nationalism. Is that to much to ask? My point was Democracy in this game is given rather biased advantages that IMHO aren't warranted.

[lorddread]

Governments

I would like to see more governments. In CTP as you got to new ages, new governments appeared. The last is communism if I am not mistaken. Why not have something like the Corp Republic or Virtual Democracy or even something new?

[Coracle]

What is a "republic"?

Just for the record. . .

The "republic" in the game is more typical of that of Rome over two thousand years ago in which a group of oilgarchs sent representatives to form a government.

It is quite different from a "democratic republic" as here in the U.S., which, technically, is not the true "democracy" in the ancient Grecian model in which people ruled directly - thus giving too much power to demagogues.

So "democracy" applies to the U.S. today.

This all should have been taught to you in tenth grade Global Studies.

And there are about a hundred more serious concerns with this fatally flawed Civ 3 than arguing about what is a "republic".

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Allemand
The maintenance costs for units is oversimplified. Would be better if the maintenance cost was related to the build cost for the unit. Modern units would cost more to maintain, and the player would have to look at tradeoffs. This would also help the AI which doesn't upgrade as often as the human player.

I once checked a Modern AI civ's military: 18 mechanized infantry, 12 spearmen, 5 battleships, 6 galleys, etc. I ended up sinking that civ's galleys with my battleships as they tried to land tanks on my territory. (That civ was the same size as me). Tanks in galleys!

Thus we see how braindead the AI really is, and how sloppy and rushed was Soren's programming. :

[rhenric557]

First of all Socialism isn't a form of government it is an economic system along with communism. Socialism is where industry, mostly some industry, is government ran. IE airlines, postal service, railways, health services, etc. Such as in France, and Canada.
Second, good point that the US isn't a true Democracy, a true democracy hasn't existed since Early Rome, before the time of the Emperors, where all the Senators were directly elected by the citizens.
Third, Communism sucks, A good concept, but impossible to make it work in the long run. The soviet Union fell becuase of its military. It could not keep up in the cold war becuase the money was not there to support it. They couldn't feed their people becuase you can not get a man to work harder if all he gets from it is tired. Their farmers were only growing and raising enough to support them selves.
Besides all the arguements to be made about governments, etc. Can you name a government system that is less corrupt than that of a democratically elected one.
I do agree that unit support should be based on unit type, but not that it should be based on shields. The point is that the materials and man power is there, but can you pay for it after it is built.
Most of the compaints I've seen so far on this Thread is SMAC, this, SMAC that. I too enjoyed SMAC, but damb people this is CIV 3 not SMAC 2. I remember making the switch from CIV 2 to SMAC it took a while to learn and get used to, but I didn't complain becuase there was a few things I liked about the other more than this. This game Works as it was intended, No major programing errors that I've found yet, it doesn't crash everytime I turn around, the units now all work as they should, or should I say as the were programed to. There are alot of changes I would make if given the chance, but over all it isn't a waist of time and money like many games I've purchased in the past. And to those of you who just sit there and complain about the thread or the forum "Coracle", think of it as your girlfriend if you can't stand her leave the *****.

[rhenric557]

Originally posted by Coracle


I once checked a Modern AI civ's military: 18 mechanized infantry, 12 spearmen, 5 battleships, 6 galleys, etc. I ended up sinking that civ's galleys with my battleships as they tried to land tanks on my territory. (That civ was the same size as me). Tanks in galleys!

Thus we see how braindead the AI really is, and how sloppy and rushed was Soren's programming. :

Braindead? Rushed? The AI lost a galley rather than the Transport you payed to upgrade it too.

[lorddread]

Braindead AI?

Originally posted by rhenric557
Braindead? Rushed? The AI lost a galley rather than the Transport you payed to upgrade it too.

hahahahaha

[LaoTze]

Originally posted by rhenric557
Third, Communism sucks, A good concept, but impossible to make it work in the long run. The soviet Union fell becuase of its military. It could not keep up in the cold war becuase the money was not there to support it. They couldn't feed their people becuase you can not get a man to work harder if all he gets from it is tired. Their farmers were only growing and raising enough to support them selves.
Besides all the arguements to be made about governments, etc. Can you name a government system that is less corrupt than that of a democratically elected one.

While I tend to agree that communism has alot of flaws in the transision from paper to practice, I think Lenin's vision is not the only one available for us to critique. Even Maoism can be seen as a failure. However, what goes on in China today is a communist government with a more Western economy. It appears to be doing them well considering they have the fastest growing economy today. The CCP is still meshed with the state government with no toleration of other parties.

What you have to realize is that most of the mistakes and vast horrors of communism are committed by the leadership in a power struggle or poorly made decision. (cultural revolution, purges of 1930s, great leap forward, pol pot, etc.) I find it hard to believe that things could not have gone differently for marxists if events had taken a different route. Because of that I give Communism more credibility than you. However, bear in mind that the US had a much larger economy that the Soviet Union before the Cold War even began. And thats after Communist influenced industrialization during the stalinist 30s.

Furthermore, Democracy has failed in many cases. The Chinese tried a Republic in 1911 with Sun Yat Sen and Yuan Shi Kai. The French Revolution (first one:-P) gave way to a dictator in due time. The German Weimar Republic collapsed as well. There were significant forces affecting many of these events. Just as the Cold War brought down the Soviets or an American embargo of Cuba has only strengthened Castro's hold on the country. You do realized that for the fifty years after World War 2 the largest economy in the World was making it a point to destroy communism? Many of those Communist countries survived the American intrusion. It perhaps is just me, but I for one care to think that a reroll of the dice of history could bring us very different results. The what if's are beyond count and thats what this game is about I thought. Perhaps Mao was unable to remove the Liuists from power? Maybe Trotsky and not Stalin succeeded Lenin? What if Frederick II was right and the fledgling American government did not succeed over a large distance in a pre-industrialized society? Maybe Hamilton was unable to jumpstart New England factories? What then? My point was that Democracy feels over rated in its advantages. It would seem that many features such as immune to bribery should be preserved for a more nationalistic flavor than government style. Not to mention that the US supported a mere fraction of the Soviets forces. Had the two armies been equal in size would the costs would have been cheaper for a communist or democractic society? Shield production better reflected this. When one thinks that in the US we use contracts to build our toys, in a communist society its just built at a government factory. Some production having to go towards spare parts or ammunition to maintain an already built tank or aircraft makes sense. Only wages need to be paid in that instance. Which in a communist society are fairly low to begin with. By making it based on Gold they allow a Democracy to maintain a larger army than communism for a smaller portion of its total earnings.

BTW I've never played SMAC:-) And I guess we should still be teaching Americanism vs. Communism in our classrooms so that more of us Americans understood the evils of communism.

[rhenric557]

It isn't Democracy vs. Communism, the problem is that the programers need to sit down and seperate Government models and economic models, where you would or could choose a Democratic or Republican Government, and then choose whether you want a Free Market Economy, Socialist, etc. That is where the problem is. And then you could choose depending on which Economic system you choose whether support is paid by way of Gold or Shields. Then the government type would have effects on which ever economic model you've chosen, IE, a democratic or Republican Government would fair better with a free market than a "Communist" Gov, with a completely Socialist Economy. It would change the personality of the different Civs greatly based on bifferent configurations possible this way. You could give a Socialist Economy a boost in Production while a Freemarket gets a boost in income.
I put Communism in " " becuase it isn't an actual form of Government in a true Communist Society, There would be no need for a Government. Every man would Be the complete equal to the next as Karl Marx put it "A workers paradise". If you want to see the closest possible example of a working Communist Social System watch Star Trek.

[lorddread]

republics

Originally posted by LaoTze
Furthermore, Democracy has failed in many cases. The Chinese tried a Republic in 1911 with Sun Yat Sen and Yuan Shi Kai. The French Revolution (first one:-P) gave way to a dictator in due time. The German Weimar Republic collapsed as well.

Actually everyone who came to power during the French Revolution was a dictator. Most of the leaders of the revolution were executed either by their fellow leaders or by the people.

Point taken though.

Alright, fix communism in the game. Make it worth changing to and give us the new stats.