Deep (but not unexpected) disappointment

[Panag]

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

Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis


There are two other reasons we implemented the system this way. First, it basically replaces the old ZOC rules, which most of us found to be annoying (preventing you from sometimes moving into an empty square), by simply turning one's borders into a big "ZOC" which has the effect of slowing down road/rail movement. In essence, the new "ZOC" has been transmitted from the units to the cities. (I use quotes to differentiate this aspect from the ZOC fire rules added in Civ3). Second, it adds some more teeth to the cultural side of the game. The more culture your cities have, the farther their borders will expand, and you will control a greater area of road/rail.

hi ,

thanks Soren

, will units keep their current ZOC , .....

have a nice day

[number6]

I agree, Civ III is a big let down

In defense of the original thread poster, Civ III is a huge dissapointment. I am sorry for anyone who actually purchased this game (me included). Civ III is total crap in comparison with current strategy games. I enjoyed earlier versions of the civ franchise (Civ I and Civ II). I even enjoyed Alpha Centauari, but Civ III is all eye candy and no substance. The only people that defend this game are the "Civ fanatics" or should I call you all "Apolytonites". Whatever you wish to lable them they are always defending "features" of the game as "improvements". Give me a break. I have been playing electronic games from the late 1970's and I think I know what makes a good game. Civ III is not totally bad, just nowhere near as good as any of its predecessors. I guess a poor version of Civ III is better than most PC games released, but I think it is a huge let down for the Civ fans.

[vondrack]

Re: I agree, Civ III is a big let down

Originally posted by number6
In defense of the original thread poster, Civ III is a huge dissapointment. I am sorry for anyone who actually purchased this game (me included). Civ III is total crap in comparison with current strategy games. I enjoyed earlier versions of the civ franchise (Civ I and Civ II). I even enjoyed Alpha Centauari, but Civ III is all eye candy and no substance. The only people that defend this game are the "Civ fanatics" or should I call you all "Apolytonites". Whatever you wish to lable them they are always defending "features" of the game as "improvements". Give me a break. I have been playing electronic games from the late 1970's and I think I know what makes a good game. Civ III is not totally bad, just nowhere near as good as any of its predecessors. I guess a poor version of Civ III is better than most PC games released, but I think it is a huge let down for the Civ fans.

Oh, finally... someone really insightful, with years of gaming experience came to tell us the truth...

You know, #6, I do not mind others having opinions. I do not even mind them having different opinions than I have. I always respect their opinions even if they are supported by no arguments at all (like yours).

However, I do mind people labelling me an imbecile easily pleased by a total crap, a poor overhyped game, which Civ3 - according to you - should be. I have expressed my opinion about the game numerous times on these forums, so I feel it is safe to consider myself one of the "Apolytonites".

Thinking of my reason for involving in these pitiful arguments about whether Civ3 is a good/quality game or not, I realize that it is I feel it would be rather unfair to let only people like you influence those that still consider buying it. These people may and in fact probably are reading forums prior to purchasing the game and will base their decisions on the overall feedback coming from the community. If I let various #6s spill dirt at will on the game I like and thoroughly enjoy, it might be that many others would never give it a try. I would then feel sorry for them, as they might be missing a game they could enjoy just as much as I do.

So, for the record: I spent hundreds of hours playing Civ2. Loved it. I spent about 30 hours playing SMAC. Never become fond of it. I spent 300+ hours playing Civ3, winning it only five times so far (Regent level), losing/giving up many more times at various stages of the game. And I thoroughly enjoy Civ3.

There are numerous new concepts in Civ3. I do not consider all of them improvements. I do consider most of them improvements, actually adding to the gameplay. The concepts I like include the strategic and luxury resources, culture, civ specific traits, unit support coming from the central treasury rather than from the home cities, revised system of trading, war weariness replacing the Senate, better balanced great wonders, small wonders, more complex diplomacy... to name just few. I do not think all of these are implemented in the best possible way. Many of them can still be worked at and improved... But for me, they work great or quite fine as they are. There are several features I dislike, but none of them spoils the game for me, as I am pretty much able to avoid their effects easily. My overall satisfaction with Civ3 is high.

If you do not share my opinion, fine. Have yours. But do not label people enjoying Civ3 easily pleased idiots (or fanatics), uncapable of the real game assessment.

Oh well... and one more thing... Do me a favour, please. Do not feel sorry for me. I paid almost 100 bucks to get my copy of the LE (not sold in Europe, got mine through eBay). I like the tin box (OTOH, I do not like the tech chart included) and I do enjoy the game. It is fun. No need to feel sorry for me, really.

[number6]

Re: Re: I agree, Civ III is a big let down

Originally posted by vondrack



If you do not share my opinion, fine. Have yours. But do not label people enjoying Civ3 easily pleased idiots (or fanatics), uncapable of the real game assessment.

I most certainly do not share your opinion. I never said anyone who likes the game are "easily pleased idiots". Most of the people that post here are much smarter than I. I did imply that the people that defend Civ III here are easily pleased (or extremly forgiving I guess) and somewhat fanatical about defending every aspect of the game. It's funny how quickly the "Defenders of Civ III" strike out at any criticism of their beloved game. I am glad that you like Civ III so much. I think the game is OK, but not worthy of the Civ name. If it had come out as some other title I would have been less dissapointed, because I probably would not have purchased it. The Civ name, and Sid's, sold the game. Now both names are tarnished (IMO) and I will definitely try before I buy next time (if they make a demo). Maybe Civ IV will be better. Sorry to have offended you. I was only venting a little, not attacking anyone personally.

[David Murray]

Re: Re: Deep (but not unexpected) disappointment

Originally posted by vondrack


The trade route concept has been replaced with a different (IMHO, more realistic) approach doing trade through diplomacy.

In what way is the Civ3 trade system "more realistic"? Trade in Civ3 centres entirely around deals made by governments between each other. There is no inclusion of simple concepts like comparative advantage, i.e. the importing and exporting of goods relative to efficiency of production. There is nothing to represent the trade between markets between countries, only the interaction of governments. It's too simple! Caravans were tedious but opened up greater abilities to trade than in Civ3 (you could even trade food to starving cities, remember?)

[Alexander's Horse]

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

Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis


First, it basically replaces the old ZOC rules, which most of us found to be annoying.

Interesting insight in "Firaxis Think", lol, who is "us"?

I have to agree with all the criticisms listed by the thread starter.

I played 1 and half games and haven't even thought about opening it again.

Civ 2 Multiplayer ROCKS

[Grrr]

Really buggy CtP like interface? - You should be used to that, you own a Mac.

[notyoueither]

AS FOR ROADS. . . invading armies usually marched on ROADS in enemy territory... Blah, blah, blah.

Yes roads. Like the roads the Germans used in France to advance all of... what?... 20 miles per day after they broke out at Sedan? Against next to zero opposition.

You betchya, we should be able to blitz through enemy territory as if we were driving to grandma's for Sunday diner.

Try again.

[Alexander's Horse]

On the civ time scale you should be able to go around the world in a turn.

Try again

[notyoueither]

The civ time scale doesn't work for anything when it comes to combat. Even in your beloved Civ2 MP.

Try again.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The civ time scale doesn't work for anything when it comes to combat. Even in your beloved Civ2 MP.

Try again.

So why did you make the point about the WWII tanks? Are you retarded or something?

[Mr. President]

Time it takes for people who don't like Civ3 to uninstall it from their computer: two minutes.

Time it takes for people who don't like Civ3 to log on to Apolyton, post long lists of stuff they don't like, and insult people who do like Civ3; greater than 10 minutes.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


So why did you make the point about the WWII tanks? Are you retarded or something?

Because the game involves a simulation of combat within a framework of cities and civilisations devoloping over time. There is a dichotomy inherent in the entire concept.

Can you understand that? Or are you retarded?

[vondrack]

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

Originally posted by David Murray
In what way is the Civ3 trade system "more realistic"? Trade in Civ3 centres entirely around deals made by governments between each other. There is no inclusion of simple concepts like comparative advantage, i.e. the importing and exporting of goods relative to efficiency of production. There is nothing to represent the trade between markets between countries, only the interaction of governments. It's too simple! Caravans were tedious but opened up greater abilities to trade than in Civ3 (you could even trade food to starving cities, remember?)

Yep... I, too, miss the possibility to feed my starving cities... especially when they need just one more food to get out of the vicious circle of growing and starving back and forth. Yes, the food routes would be fine... but the food routes were actually not trade routes, they were in fact supply routes.

IMHO, Civ3 does a better job in abstracting the trade, as the "government" level trade may also be described as "nation/empire" level trade. Although this approach (just like any one else) certainly fails to simulate all of the real world, it is still more realistic for me than assembling a caravan, having it pushing its way through the world for decades (sometimes) and then finally arriving to a city which "no longer accepts Salt". Not mentioning caravans loaded with Hides actually taking part in building the United Nations great wonder...

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
So why did you make the point about the WWII tanks? Are you retarded or something?

Alex, nye mentioned Sedan and the consequent advance of the victorious army... if I am not mistaken, the Battle of Sedan (between the French and the Prussians) was in 1870. There were no tanks involved. Be careful about strong words.

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I have to agree with all the criticisms listed by the thread starter.
I played 1 and half games and haven't even thought about opening it again.
Civ 2 Multiplayer ROCKS

Well, this is probably the reason for you not liking the game. Have I played 1 and a half Civ3 games only, I would most probably be on your side of the barricade now. Civ3 needs more time than that, especially for people used to Civ2. Getting used to it might even be easier for people that never played any Civ before.

Man, I was SO frustrated losing every single Civ3 game in the beginning (Me, who won Civ2 more than 30 times before! Firaxis, how dare you! ). I was trying to play it as Civ2 3.0, which was ultimately wrong. I did not give up, tried this and that, read through the forums here, developed new strategies, refined my gameplay, and now I enjoy the best TBS civ-like game I have ever played.

[dexters]

I'm a Civ 2 Vet and have few qualms with Civ III. I find it ultimately, a more statisfying, if slower experience than Civ 2. The sense of running an empire is much stronger in this than in Civ 2, which pretty much disitegrated into a cheap Microsoft "buyout" game with Spies.

In anycase, to the person asking why people would not just delete the game and shut up, I think There is a certain amount of satisfaction breaking up a party of like minded people.

Like the Star Trek fan dressed as spock who gave the Star Wars people lining up to see the movie the middle finger.

The satisfaction is even greater when the person can claim dissent from within. There's a certain moral highground of "I was once a believer, but now, I've seen the light and I reject these beliefs" It is almost biblical.-- I am enlightened, my views are right, you are all in the dark. I am right. -- sort of rhetoric.

Not to say these people are all motivated solely by this, but it goes a long way in explaining why people prefer to rant about what they don't like and look like martyr when they are attacked, rather than do the efficient thing, delete the game, shut up, and simply not give Firaxis their business.