c#205 CIV3`S NOT SO GREAT LEAP FORWARD

[King of Rasslin]

Yeah, Alpha Centauri 2! Nothing needs to be changed, except the AI needs an update. That would make me happy for a long time.

[lorddread]

to all who dislike civ3

Originally posted by Jawn Henry
...is inspire much indifference, as evidenced by this thread.
I hope Civ 4 will be a mix of 2 and 3

JH

I highly recommend Sid Meyers Call to Power. It is not "quite" advanced as CIV3 but it has:

1. Easily manageable corruption
2. Most of the Units Civ3 has
3. Better (I think) Governments
4. Better Diplomacy
5. Better and more realistic Trade
6. A more realistic boarder system (Your farthest cities define your boarders) not some untangible concept like culture
7 Movies for the wonders

There is a Call To Power 2, but its kind of like civ3, they tried to make it better but the fudged it up.

If anyone is interested in finding CTP drop me a private note (that way we don't clog up the thread) and I'll tell you where you can get one.

[Chronus]

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!

I had to create galleons to transport my marines and cavalry because I didn't have any oil. Fortunately, I had uranium so I was able to defend my galleons with nuclear subs!

Incidently, my troops landed safely and took over the small, Greek island that contained a spigot of oil!

[bshirt]

It could be argued that the Russians won the cold war just as legitimately as we did -- because western governments shifted closer to communism during the cold war. More and more of the US “private sector” is so heavily regulated that I roll my eyes when people call it “capitalism”. Government and big business are so intertwined that they look like a single monster. Who has not heard of Microsoft’s partial success at destroying the free enterprise system?

Extremely well said.

With each passing day, the U.S. looks more and more like Stalin's Russia.....truly endless braindead "government" employees with more & more power to control you or anybody else hidden behind such innocent names such as..."child protection agency"...."alchohol/tobacco/firearm".....etc, etc

Think I'm kidding?

Right this moment, someone/anyone could call the child protection agency, make up any kind of outrageous lie...and they'll threaten to take your children unless "you" can prove you're innocent.

Furthermore they'll firmly refuse to even inform you of who's accusing you of these things.

What did Hitler or Stalin have over that?

[lorddread]

History 101

Originally posted by bshirt
It could be argued that the Russians won the cold war just as legitimately as we did -- because western governments shifted closer to communism during the cold war. More and more of the US “private sector” is so heavily regulated that I roll my eyes when people call it “capitalism”. Government and big business are so intertwined that they look like a single monster. Who has not heard of Microsoft’s partial success at destroying the free enterprise system?

Extremely well said.

With each passing day, the U.S. looks more and more like Stalin's Russia.....truly endless braindead "government" employees with more & more power to control you or anybody else hidden behind such innocent names such as..."child protection agency"...."alchohol/tobacco/firearm".....etc, etc

Think I'm kidding?

Right this moment, someone/anyone could call the child protection agency, make up any kind of outrageous lie...and they'll threaten to take your children unless "you" can prove you're innocent.

Furthermore they'll firmly refuse to even inform you of who's accusing you of these things.

What did Hitler or Stalin have over that?

Well let's see, Hitler killed approx 12 million civilians during WWII, Stalin killed 30+million AFTER the war. Chairman Mao, approx 50 million. All 3 had concentration camps, death squads and oh yeah, the last 2 tested nuclear weapons on their own civilians. (Both dropped at least 1 a-bomb on a real small town to test the effectiveness.)

Things are not terrific here anymore but they will never compare to the USSR or Hitler.

[Tamerlin]

I'am close to the end of a Civ3 game and I have some comments. First, this is only my second Civ3 game after the Tutorial I started to learn the new concepts. I have played Civ2 for a long time before and I thought it was the best way to get rid off the old habits.

At the end of my tutorial my opinion was that Civ3 was a good game with interesting new concepts but actually less fun than Civ2.

Now I've given this game a second chance, here is what I think about it :

The good points :
Culture
Frontiers (at last)
Abstract air missions
Tougher AI
Possibility to upgrade Units
The resources
War weariness

The bad points : (Need some explanation)
The overproducing AI civs
Bad pace
A potentially powerful Diplomacy model with AI Civs you can't really bargain with
Tedious workers' management
Limited choice of governments
The way the AI is cheating
The lack of real strategy available

1 - The overproducing AI civs : yes the AI produces tens of settler (a tactic I've never used before and I'am now forced to use at the beginning of the game) and hundreds of military units but manage to keep up with improvement (to the exception of cultural ones) and science.
2 - A potentially powerful Diplomacy model : I don't think there is any real progress here. Sure, the choices and proposals are more varied but they only follow the new concepts added to the game. But what is the point to have tens of choice when you cannot really bargain with your opponents. The AI civs are either asking for an overestimated price (often ridiculously high) and cling to it, or accept anything when really hardpressed.
3 - Bad pace : the flow of the game is not good (in my own opinion of course), there are times you have nothing else to produce except military units or wealth and for a long time, your cities are stalled to six or twelve citizens for an extended length of time.
4 - Tedious worker management : no need to add anything more as it has already been discussed extensively here and elsewhere.
5 - Limited choice of governments : I don't appreciate the disappearance of Fundamentalism as an available government though I understand the reasons behind this. Communism is not an interesting alternative choice as it was before, other governments would have greatly benefited to the game.
6 - The way the AI cheats. Though I almost never cheat when I play a computer game (only when the computer generates something absolutely ridiculous, and I don't like it) I accept the fact the AI of most games is cheating. But in Civ3, the AI is cheating in a very crude way. I agree when someone says it's rather difficult to build a strategy when you don't really know the rules your opponents are following. The AI will thus fiercely defend a small town because it will later have a useful resource it should not be aware of because the civ doesn't have the requested technology.
7 - True the AI is tougher, but the strategies you can use to win the game are very limited because of the way the AI civs are playing (I should rather say cheating).

All in all, Civ3 has a "real time strategy game" flavor in the sense you are always hardpressed at your frontiers, because you are constantly at war with a militaristic or expansionist AI opponent, because you are forced to build tens of military units and click everywhere to adjust your production, move your military units and workers. In a way, I have the strange feeling the designers have adapted the game to ensure the player will constantly be busy (as in a RTS game) and in a way which is detrimental to strategy (many RTS players don't like having to think too much in order to build a real strategy).

Many of the choices made by Firaxis seem to have been dictated by marketing imperatives, a company have to earn money and I won't criticize them on this point, some companies have produced wonderful strategy games and have disappeared shortly after.

I can only say that though Civ3 is a good game the choices made by the designers don't fit my taste.

Yes, all this is actually only a matter of taste...

As far as I'am concerned, I will get back to modded CtP2, try SMAC, play Space Empires 4 and perhaps play a Civ2 Test of Time game once a year just to remember how it was. I will try "Play the world" but I think the new features will not change the game enough for Civ3 to suit my tastes.

[Barchan]

Originally posted by rhenric557
And to those who think not being able to use enemy roads is a farse. It really isn't. It isn't a matter of culture but a matter of control and being behind enemy lines. If you try to use roads within enemy controlled territory, in reality, you'll just get the hell shot out of you. Believe me I have years military experience behind me.

Or you'll get your tracks blown off by mines. Or your wheels blown off by mines. Or your legs. Or other bits you'd probably rather have instead of your legs. And so on.

The point is that if you don't control the territory, you really can't go zipping through it at full speed. Frankly, roads are perhaps the most deadly place to be in enemy territory. Even if they're not booby-trapped, mined, or set up for an ambush, due do their visibility they're still extremely vulnerable to interdiction and counterattack.

Yes, I know, there weren't a lot of land mines around in the BC times. But there were saber-tooth tiger pits, big rocks to roll down hills and off cliffs, and trees to push over onto marching troops. Again, though, the point is still the same: speed at your own peril.

[Austin]

re: Enemy Roads.

This simulates well the fact that military campaigns often slow down dramatically after the first initial penetration of enemy territory, due to logistical constraints.

Taking an enemy town and having the borders convert is a good rough and ready way of simulating the gradual extension of your logistical network.

Austin

[Tamerlin]

Hi Barchan and Austin,

You are perfectly right about ennemy movement inside an ennemy territory. But the restriction should perhaps be limited to the first units penetrating into this territory and acting as scouting units. A unit penetrating into an already scouted territory should use the road normally or at a less reduced movement rate provided an ennemy unit has not projected a zone of control in the turn... Rather complicated to implement I suppose.

We should not forget the strategic scale of civilization, when you know one turn represents several years, what is the point to limit the movement of invading units. I'am a tabletop wargamer and I have never played a game with this kind of rule (it does not mean no game is using this rule). Roads are strategical because they can be used by either of the opponents and even by the ennemy once the area has been secured by the front units.

This rule is even generating weird events. I'am currently playing a game in which I was at war with the Zulus. Babylon declared war to the Zulus because we had a mutual protection pact and India also declared war to the zulus because of a mutual protection pact with Babylon. Though we are allied, they don't benefit from my road network . This means they need between 120 and 150 years (24 to 30 turns in modern era) or more to cross my territory in order to wage war against the Zulus. Needless to say I had conquered a great part of the Zulu nation before Babylon and India had even reached the territory of our common ennemy and that I have concluded an advantageous peace with the Zulu nation as my citizens were becoming almost impossible to control because of war weariness.

Result : the mutual protection pact has been useless as I have fighted the Zulu alone and the Babylonians are now furious against me because I have signed a peace with the Zulus.

My opinion is that Civilization is a grand strategy game and that it should not try to implement such things as road movement in ennemy territory.

[Austin]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
Hi Barchan and Austin,

You are perfectly right about ennemy movement inside an ennemy territory. But the restriction should perhaps be limited to the first units penetrating into this territory and acting as scouting units. A unit penetrating into an already scouted territory should use the road normally or at a less reduced movement rate provided an ennemy unit has not projected a zone of control in the turn... Rather complicated to implement I suppose.

We should not forget the strategic scale of civilization, when you know one turn represents several years, what is the point to limit the movement of invading units. I'am a tabletop wargamer and I have never played a game with this kind of rule (it does not mean no game is using this rule). Roads are strategical because they can be used by either of the opponents and even by the ennemy once the area has been secured by the front units.

It's not so much the tactical scouting aspect, but the strategic logistical one that is important. Look at say Germany's invasion of Russia during WWII. The initial advance quickly slowed down because the Germans had to set up supply depots and stuff like that.

What sort of tabletop wargames do you play?

This rule is even generating weird events. I'am currently playing a game in which I was at war with the Zulus. Babylon declared war to the Zulus because we had a mutual protection pact and India also declared war to the zulus because of a mutual protection pact with Babylon. Though we are allied, they don't benefit from my road network . This means they need between 120 and 150 years (24 to 30 turns in modern era) or more to cross my territory in order to wage war against the Zulus. Needless to say I had conquered a great part of the Zulu nation before Babylon and India had even reached the territory of our common ennemy and that I have concluded an advantageous peace with the Zulu nation as my citizens were becoming almost impossible to control because of war weariness.

The timescale is pretty messed up, but this has more to do with just the way roads are handled.

Result : the mutual protection pact has been useless as I have fighted the Zulu alone and the Babylonians are now furious against me because I have signed a peace with the Zulus.

I agree with you on the ROP thing. If the Civ has a ROP with you and is allowing you to move military units across your borders, it stands to reason that this movement should be easier than moving through enemy territory!

My opinion is that Civilization is a grand strategy game and that it should not try to implement such things as road movement in ennemy territory.

Well we don't have any other logistical or supply contraints, so I'm glad that it is in there, otherwise you'd see even gamier results, like a whole civ getting overrun in a single turn.

Austin

[lorddread]

Moving throw outside territories

Originally posted by Austin
What sort of tabletop wargames do you play?

Avalon Hills - Northern, Central, Southern Fronts, WWIII, Operation Market Garden, Operation Barbarossa, 3rd Fleet, 7th Fleet, wnd Fleet, 5th Fleet

Well we don't have any other logistical or supply contraints, so I'm glad that it is in there, otherwise you'd see even gamier results, like a whole civ getting overrun in a single turn.

Austin

Austin, I think you have missed the point. Modern logistics have really no bearing on how fast a armored unit (tanks or apc's) can move through an enemy territory. The logistics follow behind the armor (and hence infantry), and are set up after the armor has gone. By game standards you could only conquer 25 miles of territory in 1 year. This would put it on a footing with WWI. WWII should how the static battlefield was obsolete. Guederian's tactics showed how armor could penetrate and move through an enemy territory almost at will.

Mines are a hinderence, but not a great one. Fields and dirt roads lend themselves to being mined easily, but concrete and asphalt roads do not. It is almost impossible to mine a modern highway. You have to punch through concrete, and rebar reinforcements. During WWII, mine detection and clearing advanced to the point where mines no longer proved a stumbling block to an army. The minefields used by the Iraqi's were breached in 1 hour by coalition troops.


To your other point about overunning a entire civ in 1 turn, I have to ask you, why not? A turn is a year. In WWII, Poland, Czecholovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Holland, Belgium all were taken within a year of thier prospective invasions.. (Although it took 3 years for all of them to fall) If a civ is lightly defended, it shouldn't take 50 years for it to fall. Russia, who had the best partisan fighting force the world has ever seen, couldn't hold the Germans to 25 miles a year.

Heck the American Civil War was quicker than that, and it was fought mostly with foot soldiers and calvary.

[Coracle]

Blitz?

Just for the record, I saved my treasury to convert all tanks to modern armor in one turn; I got to it just before China (my size, and large) reached motorized transport. I took their whole civ in six turns, and my Power graph went almost horizontal. A major civ with 20 cities can be quickly blitzed, especially when the AI is too dumb to build border fortresses and a mobile reserve, and declares war on ME because I tried to plant a spy!

[Barchan]

Originally posted by Tamerlin

You are perfectly right about ennemy movement inside an ennemy territory. But the restriction should perhaps be limited to the first units penetrating into this territory and acting as scouting units. A unit penetrating into an already scouted territory should use the road normally or at a less reduced movement rate provided an ennemy unit has not projected a zone of control in the turn... Rather complicated to implement I suppose.

Fair enough, but as you suppose correctly, it'd be tough to actually implement. I think the game does a decent enough job of requiring you to take the local city before you can call the local infrastructure yours for purposes of free movement (even though this isn't particularly realistic, either; partisans anyone?). Sure, you could get into a whole complex ZOC/cleared hex/controlled hex/supply line situation to more accurately depict things, but then again CivIII is a "fun" game, not a grognard simulation.

[Austin]

Re: Moving throw outside territories

Originally posted by lorddread
Avalon Hills - Northern, Central, Southern Fronts, WWIII, Operation Market Garden, Operation Barbarossa, 3rd Fleet, 7th Fleet, wnd Fleet, 5th Fleet

Ah, I used to play a lot of those but I don't really have the time or table space anymore.

There is a discussion forum for these kinds of games, located at www.consimworld.com with something like 10,000 people.

Austin, I think you have missed the point. Modern logistics have really no bearing on how fast a armored unit (tanks or apc's) can move through an enemy territory. The logistics follow behind the armor (and hence infantry), and are set up after the armor has gone.

But all of this takes time after the initial lunge.

By game standards you could only conquer 25 miles of territory in 1 year.

? What sort of gigantic map are you playing on?

This would put it on a footing with WWI. WWII should how the static battlefield was obsolete. Guederian's tactics showed how armor could penetrate and move through an enemy territory almost at will.

Yup, but notice how quickly ANY mechanized advance started to stumble as it moved from it's supply head. Rommel's 7th Panzer Division reached the Channel coast with 24 tanks running out of the over 200 it started with during Guderian's dash.

If you look at large scale mechanized operations in WWII, they all seemed to stumble after 500 miles maximum.

Mines are a hinderence, but not a great one. Fields and dirt roads lend themselves to being mined easily, but concrete and asphalt roads do not. It is almost impossible to mine a modern highway. You have to punch through concrete, and rebar reinforcements. During WWII, mine detection and clearing advanced to the point where mines no longer proved a stumbling block to an army. The minefields used by the Iraqi's were breached in 1 hour by coalition troops.

These are all tactical details, I'm talking about the large scale logistical ones. The reasons why Guderian couldn't simply keep driving straight to Moscow after taking Smolenks, nor could Rommel sprint to Alexandria after Gazala, nor could Patton bounce the Rhine in 1944.

It's because after each offensive you wind up outrunning your supply lines, and you have to spend time waiting for them to catch up again.

To your other point about overunning a entire civ in 1 turn, I have to ask you, why not? A turn is a year. In WWII, Poland, Czecholovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Holland, Belgium all were taken within a year of thier prospective invasions.. (Although it took 3 years for all of them to fall)

On a reasonable map these would all be one city civs of course.

If a civ is lightly defended, it shouldn't take 50 years for it to fall. Russia, who had the best partisan fighting force the world has ever seen, couldn't hold the Germans to 25 miles a year.

This is a problem not with the supply model (such as it is in CivIII) but with the timescale of Civ. If you played Civ with say one month turns, how long you think it would take to go from 4000 B.C. to 200 A.D? And how many of those turns would consist of "nothing to do, hit enter". You are kind of stuck with that abstraction.


Austin

[Rear Admiral]

I agree with 99% of your critique of Civ3. The game has devolved from Civ2 by becoming simply tedious. I don't sense that I have any ability to achieve control over the outcome after some 100 hours of playing Civ3 at difficulty levels up through Monarch -- the AI simply cheats faster than I can counter it. I have found the best answer is to use the game editor to design your own game and ignore the standard one. Even so, I find that I am continuing to play Civ2 at very nearly the same rate as before Civ3 came out.