Deep (but not unexpected) disappointment

[vondrack]

Re: Re: Re: Deep (but not unexpected) disappointment

Originally posted by Coracle
Not being able to use ROADS in an invasion is a big crock. Like most of Civ 3 it is unrealistic. Roads EXIST - UNLESS PILLAGED by your own forces. RAilroads are different as they require engineers, engines, and an entire system, along with the correct gauge.

Well, the roads are still there, that's right. Just that you do not get any movement bonus following them, as they are pretty much equal to an open land for the invader. I can think of a good example, I believe: the US troops had to fight their way through the French bocage for days after the D-Day. There WERE roads, but they were of little help as far as the speed of their operations was concerned. Even relatively small groups of German soldiers were able to delay their movement along the roads (as roads were natural choices for the moving Allies and so were natural choices for the Germans to stick to).

I am not speaking about counterattacking German formations (which would be represented by units in Civ3), I am talking about scattered groups of German soldiers putting up fight wherever they could - something that could be described as a "hostile environment" or "hostile territory".

The same happened to Germans in the Battle of Bulge - they thrusted into the territory previously occupied by Allies. Although they were advancing rather well, they had to fight scattered US troops that naturally tried to delay the German troop progress.

Civ3 may be simplifying this a bit by not just lowering, but completely cancelling the movement bonus... but there is logic/realism behind this design decision (and keep in mind that it was primarily a gameplay balance decision).

[notyoueither]

DL. Dance?

Lack of reviews? Hellooo McFly. You know where Poly is now. Did you just discover us?

[Nubclear]

Re: Deep (but not unexpected) disappointment

2 Buggy as all hell on Mac 1.17 -- as in mad "autoscrolls".

Then get a PC.

a) make air units useless, although still expensive. Five Bomber attacks reduce a warrior to near-uselessness. Excellent, let's have more of the same.

Well, if "useless" air units reduce a warrior to "near-uselessness" then I suppose the "useless" air units aren't quite as "useless" as you thought, considering that "spearman (with an attack of 1, same as warrior) can take down a tank.", Air Units are very powerful.

c) make roads useless in enemy territory - which is not only realistically absurd, but slows the game down - and allows your tanks to be devastatingly counterattacked by, er, spearmen. Now, making *railroads* useless might have made all sorts of sense, for both realism and (more important, gameplay) or indeed even adopting the CtoP railroad bonus, rather than faster-than-light RR, sure.

Okay, first you say they should not have made roads useless in enemy territory, but you agree that railroads makes sense for realism and gameplay. Doesn't this also make sense when applied to roads?

d) Call to Power again: best antitank weapon, value for money, is a spearman. Do me a favour. The printed manual smugly explains that "improved combat" ho ho ho makes firepower concept unnecessary. But when a Spearman can seriously harm Modern Armor we are into nonsense.

I've had a spearman take down my modern armour once. In all my games, it only happend once. Only once, in my entire time playing Civ. So I suppose I can't really reply to this one.

d) #1: slow nearly everything down, good plan. Complicate interface (Cto P showed the way) and don't think: animate.

Complicate the interface? The interface is quite easy for me to use. Quite easy for my child to use. Quite easy for my wife to use...It does not seem too complex to me..

And complaining about animation? Were you complaining about Civ2/Smac/Etc that have those wonder movies? Hm...I would classify that as a type of animation, wouldnt you?

e) Price all units so that it is almost impossible to use city production efficiently. (ie, in late game your best cities can run to around 80, 90 p points, but all costs are multiples of 100).

My cities produce quite a bit of shields, and usually finish units in about 5 turns. Wonders usually take about 13.

I mean, wouldnt it cause just a *few* gameplay issues if you could get modern armor in 1 turn because it costs, say 70 shields. That means that most of your cities will produce 1 modern armour per turn. Along with the AI, that could cause quite a bit of slowdown....

f) AI an improvement (it will attack sensibly, at least occasionally) but still frankly woeful; observe how weak Civs will provoke you and provoke you stupidly. Diplomacy offers at least as silly and random as Civ2, with no compensating advantages.

Hey, at least it's not like Civ2. Being ahead by so many techs, having a superior army thats very near almost all of their cities, when suddenly they declare war on you. Same thing (although to a lesser degree) Happsn in Civ3, yes, however Civ2 was much worse.

g) really a summary. Spend all your efforts programming the cool graphics, and let the game look after yourself. I should have been warned by Alpha Centauri (hey, let's rename all the Civ2 units something weird, put a big graphics overhead on the whole thing and hope no one will notice that there isn't any more game there....)

What does Womens Sufferege do? I know the....time period, but I can't recognize the object NOR what it would be doing. Alpha Centauri is the same way, although there is more detail involved to it...

I mean, if I just said "The Sphinx", what would you think it would do? I mean, it could possibly increase production, happiness, corruption.....Who knows.

h) will not be buying Civ4.

Thankfully. That would mean that you won't have anything to whine about.

i) snarl, grunt

If you dont like it, why spend time posting about it? Why make derogatory comments and put others down who do like it? It makes no sense to me why people do that.

There are hundreds of things I hate about Civ2. AC. AX. About every single game I own. I don't come on here and begin whining about it, and whine about it some more. Because to me, that's just not very logical.

I'm bringing others down, making others mad, and making a fool of myself doing it just because there are things that bug me about the game. Yes, I could complain about Civ2s graphics and bugs. Yes, I could complain about ACs crashes and incompatibilities. Yes, I could complain about Civ3s culture. But I choose not to, because other people like the game (and I even like the game) and ranting would just make others mad, inspire posts like this, and clog and spam the board.

I'm sorry, but I'm just so sick of reading these. Almost every day now, people are whining and whining about Civ 3 and how Civ 2 was so much better or whatnot. They complain about leader animations (but either dont acknowledge Wonder movies or complain that their not in Civ 3), they complain that its been oversimplified (however, the interface is now too complex.), and they whine and whine and whine and.....

I mean, why am I spending minutes of my life doing this? I could be doing something for the democracy game, or talking with a friend, or doing work, or watching a movie, but instead I sit here typing up a long message complaining about how I hate it when people whine.

Do they really have nothing better to do than to sit in front of a computer, typing why they hate a game and critisizing others who like it.

This post is not pointed to anyone in general.

[Andreiguy]

Anyone see Minority Report? What a bogus, cheeseball ending!

I saw it. Yeah, everyone dies and then everyone lives happily ever after. But then again, it's not like they could've let the bad guys win...

[dunk]

Re: Re: Deep (but not unexpected) disappointment

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Okay, first you say they should not have made roads useless in enemy territory, but you agree that railroads makes sense for realism and gameplay. Doesn't this also make sense when applied to roads?

I think the idea behind wanting roads to function but not railroads function in enemy territory is to go on a road, all you need is your own feet. To go on a railroad, you need these rather large vehicles called "trains".



I like the way it functions now. No more howie blitzes.

[Jaybe]

alan L,
Regarding the 'clunky' interface, you have to remember that it was designed by people used to Windows, not to Macintosh interface standards. Supposedly PTW will have buttons for every command, rather than having to figure out key-strokes that are not in any reliable documentation that comes with the game/patch.

Both right-click and Ctrl-click (Windows) become Command-Click (Macintosh).

--
It is just a game, and if you try to play it by "reality's" rules or by Civ2 standards, you are missing the broader picture.

I have Civ3 on both a Windows PC and Mac.
Haven't played it much, only about 20-30 hours per week since Nov. 1, 2001.

[dexters]

Re: Re: Re: Deep (but not unexpected) disappointment

I actually support the handicap on invading armies as far as movement is concerned. As a game play issue, it enhances the increased movement of Cavalry, and modern units in the late game.

I don't see what's the big fuss about it. So players used to cheap tactics that won them games in Civ 2 can't use them anymore. That's not a reason to claim that Civ 3 has failed.

I found Civ 2 addictive, but its style overly unbalanced, and there was no sense of immersion. By the time RR and diplomats are around, it's a game of buying cities and sending armies straight into enemy capitals. I'm not saying it had to be realistic, realism isn't so much the issue, but rather, it is anticlimatic. The clash of two civilizations ought to be more spectacular, than some guy buying cities and using naval units to bomb coastal defenders into oblivion. Civ III with borders, and movement handicap, actually creates a sense of unity of one's civilization, and Empire. When war is wages, you move that line forward (as someone else has observed) and that creates this sense of "invading" the enemy civilization.

The argument that culture is somehow unrealistic, is one of the most innane complaints I've heard. Yes, maybe it's not only culture that determines a nation's borders, geopolitics, economics and ethnicity play a crucial role. Firaxis should have called it Cultural-Economic Zones of Control with all sorts of improvements, economic and cultural, adding points to your border expansion, but they chose to abstract it and simply call it culture. It is a matter of classification. That doesn't make the idea of borders expanding outward from a central core (the city centre) bad. It is a brilliant introduction and changes the way Civ 3 is played compared to the other games.

The ironic thing is that culture, economic and political influence flows exactly like this. When temples, courthouses, markets and cultural improvements were built in the city centre, people from the surrounding territories would be bound closer together, and pilgrims would go to the city to visit these great constructions. I'm sure we are all aware of the farmer from the countryside going into town during the weekend to sell his or her produce. Same idea. Firaxis merely abstracted it by having the area under the border an "implied" part of the city. Even though you only see a 1 tile city icon.

The complaint that the loss of the caravans, and diplo units was somehow a sign that Civ III focuses on warfare is a false claim. Diplo units were overpowered in Civ2 and much of its exploration function replaced by scouts and explorers in Civ III. The trade caravans became unweildy in Civ 2, with a poor management system on trade, many players often sent caravans to cities not knowing if the trade route to be established will maximize trade (a city can only have 3 trade routes and repeated attempts at sending caravans to the same city would essentially overwrite previous trade routes) Thus if a player had a good trade route, and accidentally erases it by sending in a carvan with an inferior trade route, the effort required to re-established the old maximizing trade route was gargantuan, and simply not worth the effort. The abstraction of inter-city trade in Civ III is a major improvement by turning it into a macro management issue. The international trading of critical resources and luxuries is heads and shoulders above what Civ II had to offer, which was, really, not much.

I'm not saying Civ III is the best, I'm simply stating that some of the complaints are misguided and deeply rooted in nostalgia and entrenched beliefs of what a Civ game should be

[Coracle]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Deep (but not unexpected) disappointment

Originally posted by dexters
. . .Yes, maybe it's not only culture that determines a nation's borders, geopolitics, economics and ethnicity play a crucial role. Firaxis should have called it Cultural-Economic Zones of Control with all sorts of improvements, economic and cultural, adding points to your border expansion, but they chose to abstract it and simply call it culture. It is a matter of classification. That doesn't make the idea of borders expanding outward from a central core (the city centre) bad. It is a brilliant introduction and changes the way Civ 3 is played compared to the other games.

The ironic thing is that culture, economic and political influence flows exactly like this.. . .

And so on, blah. . .

You conveniently missed the MOST important factor that decides and has always decided civilization's borders and the fate of cities - their MILITARY STRENGTH.

Economics, culture, diplomatic skill and achievement, science, and other factors, are all important. But having FEARED SOLDIERS in large numbers is number one. The only time cities in reality surrender (or flip) to another is when they are scared to death of an invading army and what it will do if they fight against it. That worked many times for the Mongols, Assyrians, among others. And it worked almost exclusively in the Ancient and Medieval world only.

Firaxis' emphasis on "Culture" exclusively - and the WAY it is implemented in game terms - is a BIG ILLOGICAL CROCK. Cities that have been a happy part of one civ for over 5,000 years do not suddenly decide to join a new civ because the bean-counting stupid AI said so. Borders do not in fact flip over garrisoned fortresses on improved resources requiring a civ to meekly leave that tile or be known as a warmonger forever.

It is nonsense to anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of History.

[WarpStorm]

Wow, Coracle, you mean you don't like culture flipping?

We all know it by know. You don't have to say it in every thread. I'm sure that Firaxis is aware of your opinion on it.

Civ3 is not a history simulator. It's a game. A Risk-like game. It doesn't have to be realistic. I know that no one will ever convince you that culture in Civ3 is a good idea. Firaxis, please make an option to turn off culture flipping in the editor so Coracle can move on to the next fundamental flaw with your design.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
Wow, Coracle, you mean you don't like culture flipping?

We all know it by know. You don't have to say it in every thread. I'm sure that Firaxis is aware of your opinion on it.

Civ3 is not a history simulator. It's a game. A Risk-like game. It doesn't have to be realistic. I know that no one will ever convince you that culture in Civ3 is a good idea. Firaxis, please make an option to turn off culture flipping in the editor so Coracle can move on to the next fundamental flaw with your design.

I'M SHOCKED!!!!!!

Are you expecting Coracle to reply?

I used to respond to him, but he responded exactly once.

So I don't even bother anymore.

[dexters]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deep (but not unexpected) disappointment

Originally posted by Coracle
And so on, blah. . .

You conveniently missed the MOST important factor that decides and has always decided civilization's borders and the fate of cities - their MILITARY STRENGTH.

Economics, culture, diplomatic skill and achievement, science, and other factors, are all important. But having FEARED SOLDIERS in large numbers is number one.

Actually I haven't "forgotten" anything. , the military factor is implemented in the game as an element of conquest, as it should be. You take a city, you claim the surrounding areas for yourself and start fresh. It is an abstraction and simplification for gameplay, but it is not outrageous or radical in anyway. It is a sensible interpretation of how military might, as a tool of conquest can forcibly take territory from other civilizations.

The fact of the matter is, in the long-run, military strength have little to do with the shaping of cultural-political and economic borders. History has shown us that groups have successfully retained their culture, under threat of death, and thriving after the Empires that have once subjugated them have collapsed. Cultural, economic, and political identities have nothing to do with the military. They are a state of mind, a state of being.

That is why when the American colonists crossed a threshold where they no longer considered themselves British, their "cultural" borders have changed colors (to use a detail from the game) and no amount of military presence can reunite the Americans from their British motherland, culturally, politically or economically.

Firaxis' emphasis on "Culture" exclusively - and the WAY it is implemented in game terms - is a BIG ILLOGICAL CROCK. Cities that have been a happy part of one civ for over 5,000 years do not suddenly decide to join a new civ because the bean-counting stupid AI said so. Borders do not in fact flip over garrisoned fortresses on improved resources requiring a civ to meekly leave that tile or be known as a warmonger forever.

You're mixing both a historical quibble with a gameplay implementation by Firaxis. I think there's about a hundred different ways to go about setting a system for this zone of control. Like I said, I think a more generic way is to call it that, a border, a zone of control that is genereate by the aggregate economic and cultural output of your Civ. Firaxis chose to imprement borders on a micro level as the area surrounding a city. That is their design decision and it is not less realistic than any number of possible solutions, including say, a mandatory 1 tile border from the fringe of your empire when your culture/economic development is less than 10,000 points and 2 tile border over 10,000 and 3 tile border over 30,000 and so on.

With regards to the historical quibble, it is just that a quibble. I realize this is a game, and unlike you, razing a city and leaving no trace behind is not something that jars me out of my game. I have been a gamer all my life, and I have come to intuitively accept the game rules are different from the rules we live by. You may come from a different background, but, to me, it is a reasonable expectation that a game, especially one like Civilization, is mostly about distilling the key concepts of empire building into a game. The reality of empire building is often chaotic, deadly and frustrating. For one, you don't get a second chance.

[techumseh]

Those who fail to learn from historical threads are condemned to repeat them. http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=31270

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Arrian
Alan,

You don't like the game. Ok. . .


Wow, I can't believe neither Jimmytrick nor Coracle have shown up yet.

-Arrian

Oh yes.

I took a little break after some of my posts started "disappearing", lest we offend a Firaxian or two.

There's nothing the starter of this thread said that has not been said already many times by sagacious posters going back many months to Zykla, Libertarian, or others, who have left for greener pastures.

The truth will out, Soren. The AI is not only badly programmed it is dumb. But at least the game "looks" slicker. Joan's cleavage makes up for the AI no doubt.


AS FOR ROADS. . . invading armies usually marched on ROADS in enemy territory. If the enemy did not want them too they PILLAGED the road first, as the Americans did to Burgoyne in his 1777 invasion from Canada, as an example. Napoleon always went for the roads, and he used them to great effect most notably in Prussia in his 1806 conquest of that state. The roads were not pillaged, were left open, and the French pursuit made great use of them. Civ 3's treatment of roads regarding an invader is as much FANTAsY as Culture Flipping, Settler Diarrhea, or some of the crazy things the AI does in war and with diplomacy and trade.

[Coracle]

Re: Deep (but not unexpected) disappointment

Originally posted by alan.lothian
Hi, all

I waited until I could get CIV3 at a reasonable price for my Mac, so I am way behind most of you people.

But I wish I had saved my money. Alan's Law: "There is nothing so good that some fool can't improve it into uselessness" seems to apply; I am saddened by how hard it is to find serious criticism of the game on the Web, too: I mean, many of us have been Civ nuts for, er, a long time. The game is a disaster. . .

Almost forgot that point.

The effusive and glowingly positive reviews of a severely buggy, flawed, and beta game, one filled with TYPOS, that appeared even before the first patch, has demonstrated for all the incestuous relationship between a big gaming coming and its flacks in the Gaming world. Did you know the shill who wrote that useless and idiotic "Official Strategy Guide" for Civ 3 (that cost me another $13 down the drain) also wrote a review of it that considered Civ 3 absoltely great and wonderful for, as I recall, PC Gaming World?

Lesson to be Learned: NEVER trust a reviewer with vested interests; wait and check the FORUMS before buying. As I always will in the future.

[foo12]

From another Mac user...

Originally posted by dunk999
1.21f isn't available for Mac yet.

Yes it is. Look at the main page. 1.21f open beta for MacOS. It plays quite well, fixing a lot of outstanding issues with the Mac port and crashes far less than 1.17f. Brad is doing a great job on making the Mac port work right.

alan.lothian
Suffers from Mac lack of right-click[/b]

Ctrl-click = right click. Or just drop $20 on a 2-button USB mouse.

alan.lothian
2 Buggy as all hell on Mac 1.17 -- as in mad "autoscrolls".
Tassadar5000
Then get a PC.

It's not a Mac thing: It's the nvidia slow-scroll bug --- it's cross platform, but rolling back to earlier drivers on the Mac is impossible as it's present in all released Nvidia drivers.