c#205 CIV3`S NOT SO GREAT LEAP FORWARD

[MarkG]

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

whats more possible: to not care if your creation is as good as it could be or to consider that a certain part of your creation is best if it is the way it is?

[lorddread]

Great Leap Forward?

Dr. Nemo had some good points. Some things needed to be thought out better.

1. Workers need a menu to tell them what to do. It does get tedious to have 30+ workers having to tell them what you want to do.

2. The AI needs to be forced to upgrade its units. How many times have you been fighting with armor or Mech Inf and run into towns with spearmen, pikemen or immortals? Even "Third World" nations use AK-47's, M-16's and other modern weapons even if they don't have hundreds of tanks.

3. The game should allow you to keep obsolete units out of the list. I don't like having to scroll through spearmen, calvary etc to get to a tank or mass transit.

4. I like the spying with an embassy or spy, but the it is too costly. I shouldn't have to pay 8500 gold for a tech the AI is willing to sell me for 2500.

5. We shouldn't have to pay for Civ III part 2 when it should have been included.

6. Some of the wonders should have been thought out better. WHy does the Pyramids give you a granary? I know you can change it, but still. Hoover Dam should be sooner (after all it was built in the 40's and 50's).

7. Pentagon should be able to be built without a winning army.

8. Governments should be redone. Democracy is the best we got in this game? Heck I was a big fan of the Corp Republic.

Well that's it for now.

I applaud Dr. Nemo for speaking his mind, even if everyone doesn't agree with him.

[DeepO]

Lorddread, everybody is entitled to his opinion, and everybody who gives well-thought arguments should indeed be applauded to. But, you should also expect someone to react to it, otherwise this wouldn't be a discussion forum.

Some of the points you make are very valid, others I'm not that sure about. For instance, why should the AI be forced to upgrade it's units? I don't do that either, it's much more efficient to simply build the newer units, and keep the old running around as police. If you can use them to get a few easy victories, you win a lot out of them. Plus, it fools the opponents in thinking your army is huge... I do agree completely that the AI could be more reflective on how to use them, but to take Dr Nemo's example: 48 legions are a considerable nuisance, even if you have tanks to counter them.

Spying is another debatable thing: If you have to pay 8500 for stealing a tech (possibly undetected), it makes sense over buying it from someone for 2500. After all, you don't steal something if you don't really need it and nobody wants to share it with you. Trading is always a lot better, but if you don't want to give all that money to your enemy, you have to pay the price... If you steal something, the money you spend is 'lost', nobody else benefits from it. This is a big advantage, and worth the extra cost, I think.

Regarding the wonders: If you plan for the Pyramids, you don't build all those settlers you could have. Getting free granaries in return is a just reward, I feel. It makes it all a lot more real if you just didn't get it, it is a big risk you're taking.
Plus, the Hoover dam is also as close to the real world as it could be: atomic theory in reality was developed in the first decades of last century, electronics was about the same time as the Hoover dam. Where is the problem with that one?

Of course, sending a space ship to Alpha Centauri in 1650 isn't really like it happened in the real world, but you need a certain amount of abstraction and fantasy in any game to make it work.

Governments are, IMHO, quite all right. They are balanced, they are more or less historically correct, and each one has it's uses. Maybe some additional tweaking could have been done, maybe some special governments could have been added, but as it is now it works. And once you know how to use them, you can have loads of fun, which is the most important thing, no?

DeepO

[Ben Williams]

This artical made me remember something I can't believe I forgot, civ was never about pure realism, it was about fun. While it should be realistic, it should never sacrifice its major appeal to do so-that is the pure rush you get from a great game-to attain this. Maybe spies were overpowered, but they were fun, it gave you a feeling of strenth. The interface was sometimes silly, but yet functional and simple, no mucking around with a bunch of graphics and mouse-clicking. There is nothing like building that grand socity from scrach (I liked to play America and take the entire western world for myself). Now everything is weighed down, it seems, and the whole game feels less like a grand socity and more like a grand pain in the ass. Thanks for bringing me back to basics.

I'd also like to add one irritating thing about civ3, that's the things the AI says. None of your advisors or advisaries talk like they might in the real world, they talk like little kid versions of leaders. Maybe I'm just gulliable, but I usually felt some emotion in civ2 when they would declare war and a sense of victory as they prayed for mercy, the diolouge in civ3 is just silly by comparison.

[King of Rasslin]

If you want to play a builder game, play Sim City or Roller Coaster Tycoon or whatever. Buy out the competition. Right. Civ 3 is about civilization, and civilization is a very, very bloody concept. Having a huge city with discontent next to an opposing city with luxuries is going to mean a lot of people are going to die.

War is what the game is about. The AI is much better than in Civ 2. The game is more balanced in many ways. And bombard units are only weak to the people that crank science up to 80% and wonder why they become obsolete so quickly, jeez.

Hey, catapults and cannons are balanced. They can be upgraded, they cannot be destroyed. You can capture them, but they don't explode. If anything, it's a game balance issue when someone makes a ton of cannons. Artillery is just a little bit stronger, but newbs like that extra range. Wow, I save one turn! Come on, is it really that fun to buy out your enemy's cities? It's more fun to start on a desert penensula yet still make #3 on the power graph in end. I bet most of the people that like Civ 2 more restart until they start on a river with cattle. Pathetic.

Civ 2 had scenarios. That's it. But Civ 2 had an expansion pack too, so you can't judge Civ 3 just yet. The editor was cheap, but the game had to be released. It isn't like the editor is a big deal to me, the random maps are much better than in Civ 2.

Ok, air is too weak in Civ 3. Bombers are great, but fighters need more bombard strength. Radar artillery is a little too weak. For the most part, Civ 3 is better than Civ 2. It even approaches Alpha Centauri, but the lack of government options and more unique civs (2 traits and a UU, big deal) prevent it from taking the throne.

Just wait until PTW comes out, you haven't seen half of how great Civ 3 is going to be thought of.

[Centaur]

Civ III has many intriguing enhancements, but it's also the most tedious game I've ever played.

1) The AI is rightfully regarded as improved. However, it doesn't play by the same rules we do. This removes fundamental elements of strategy in the name of marketing.

2) Warfare now involves massive numbers of units on both sides. This adds time without adding strategy.

3) If you try to win peacefully, you'll need to run a democracy style government. This encourages your neighbors to attack you to promote war weariness. This means you're constantly at war, and in CIV III, war is tedious.

4) If you try to win militarily, brace yourself for repetitive gameplay with meager strategic depth and almost no tactical considerations. In addition you'll face the dreaded corruption model. Capturing distant cities does not speed up the game, because these cities contribute very little while complicating your empire.

5) The "city revolt" algorithm is complex enough that one never really knows how many troops to install. The answer is either to overgarrison or to obliterate the city. In the second case, the AI will build a replacement city before you can blink. The only real way to prevent this is to found your own cities, thereby adding to your micromanagement nightmare.

6) Automating workers and enabling city governors is a great idea on paper but you'll get much more out of them with micromanagement. At higher difficulty levels, using automation is a good way to lose the game.

7) Ineffective units like bombers are still barely worth using, but their 10% success rate means they have to be used in ridiculous numbers. Again, that takes time while adding only a little strategy.

Generally, I think these changes were made in the name of "play balance". Unfortunately they created a game of "shovel the fleas across the barn".

And that's why I went back to Alpha Centauri.

[tuckson]

Hi,

Personnally I think firaxis did a great Job on Civ3. However, There are 2 things that really disappoint me. They've been mentioned in the article. Those are the bombing units and the lack of spies.

The bombing units should not be as poweful as in civ2, but a bit more than what it's now would not harm the game. It does not make sense that a battleship misses a city for 75 % of the bombardments. It also makes no sense that mostly civilians were killed, because that's a decision a commander takes. And mostly militairy targets will be bombed a a city in real life.

The spy system in Civ3 is like taking a chance in a lottery. Of course this was also the point in civ2, but with use of the spies it was at least a bit more personal. No in civ3, the use of spies would be fun because on different continents this could lead to different possibilities in enemy cities due to the presence or absence of resources.

But furthermore, I don't think the sometimes overwhelming criticism on Civ3 is correct. The guys did a great job, though it might not be the job you wanted. With one exception. The upcoming release of Multiplayer in an add-on we need to pay for. That's an absolute shame.

Kind regards,

[Blackadar1]

Hell, I'm suprised the fanboy moderators around here even published the article. Usually opinions other than "Civ III is or will be great" are quickly driven away, edited or deleted. Good article.

[MarkG]

Blackadar1, you should be paying more attention both on what articles we publish in the column as well as which exact types of threads are closed....

Beyond that, it's simply amazing that at the same time that you recognize as a positive action the posting of the article, you also insult us based on your assumptions....

[lorddread]

From Olympus

MarkG has spoken!

[Timtopia]

Back to the articule, I wish Firaxis included "state capitals" Sure that forbidden palace is great but really huge empires suck with all that waste. Think how big the US is with 50 state capitals. All I am saying is we need more then one Forbidden Palace. Im Sure there is a way to balance it out if it might radically effect gameplay.

[punkbass2000]

A palace and FP would easily cover the US, and the is US far from corruption-free.

[rhenric557]

Overall I believe CIV 3 is a great game. There will be something in every game for everyone to complain about, but What you dislike others may like.
The only way to fix this is to give the game better editing tools, such as with civ 2, which was quite easy to manipulate into what ever version of the game you wanted it to be.
There will always be things I don't like but the point is you learn to work around them. things that I miss from CIV 2 are air strips, e ability to easily add new units to the game, and the neccesity of having a diverse navy, if everyone can remember, in CIV 2 you had to pretty much stack naval units for protection battleships, aegis, and carriers just to get them out into the ocean safely, now you can send battleships, transports, and carriers out with relative safety since aircraft are no threat to an invasion force. Especially since all you have to do is wound an enemy ship to scare it off. I wish aircraft control went back to the way it was, you had more control. Besides there is no reason a fight can't search for a target and attack in the same turn.

[MaS]

Hi all,

as I read today in this thread, i am not the only one who is thinking about getting back to SMACX.

I bought CivIII 1 Month ago and was very happy that a got it... until first game....

My biggest reason is the function of GUI (besides others - see my table below).

In comparison to SMACX where nearly everything goes using 1 Click and you see what you want to see (stacked units on square or in the city, big buttons which are sensitive and near each other, units with their flags showing what they are doing right now, messages on end of turn that you can click and navigat to the place where it cames from,...),

in CivIII yopu have to double click the base, you do not see stocked units, on the base screen your have to target those little 'x'/'o' buttons which are placed so stupid, that you have to move your mouse almoust over the whole screen!
Advisors which are poping-up asking for work for a city without having the possibility to see what's going-on in the city,...

Shortly: the GUI is not so intuitive like in SMACX.

Guestion to Firaxis:
- will you write some sequel of SMACX? Because as i see CivIII, an Sequel to SMAC (integrating the only better thing from CivIII against SMACX - better negotiating possibilities) is my only hope...

here are all points which makes me angry/unhappy :-)



Item // SMAC // CIVIII
------------------------------------------------------------
Base Open // Click // Doubleclick!!!!!

Messages on end of each Turn // in Window (+ possibility to navigate) // disappered text on map!!!

Units in base // other garison seen from main map // have to open base

terain info incl. units // seen on click on terain //have to use right mouse menu (not all info at all)

worker/Unit // unit's order seen on the map (Construct road, mine,...) // have to be right-clicked


construction of spec. units // O.K. // none

battle resolving // O.K. // the same in all cases!

movies on Wonder // ! // nothing

airforce, bombardment // O.K. // weak

terain UP/DOWN // O.K. // no way

Attitude of AI // Color // text/diff. picture

work with prod. queue // O.K. // very complicated!



Firaxis, again, i hope that one of your 'unpublished' projects is a new Version of SMACX.

yours,
MaS.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by MaS
Hi all,

as I read today in this thread, i am not the only one who is thinking about getting back to SMACX.

I bought CivIII 1 Month ago and was very happy that a got it... until first game....

My biggest reason is the function of GUI (besides others - see my table below).

In comparison to SMACX where nearly everything goes using 1 Click and you see what you want to see (stacked units on square or in the city, big buttons which are sensitive and near each other, units with their flags showing what they are doing right now, messages on end of turn that you can click and navigat to the place where it cames from,...),

in CivIII yopu have to double click the base, you do not see stocked units, on the base screen your have to target those little 'x'/'o' buttons which are placed so stupid, that you have to move your mouse almoust over the whole screen!
Advisors which are poping-up asking for work for a city without having the possibility to see what's going-on in the city,...

Shortly: the GUI is not so intuitive like in SMACX. . .

In otherwords, besides all its other problems and historical lack of realism, Civ 3's game system is laborious and TEDIOUS dragging out an already slow game.