Does Civ3 evoke emotion in you?

[frostycreep]

I dont hate the music itself, just the way the music always seems to get stuck on a note when somethings loading. This is probably because my computers rubbish. On topic though, yes i feel emotion when playing civ 3. I hate both Bismark and Shaka with a passion!

[Andemagne]

Does Civ3 evoke emotion in you?

yes it does, but nothing in the way SMAC does.

[Odd]

I´ll never forget the day when I was getting 100s gold per turn from russia, was carefully building my industries and railroads. At the peak of the industrial age´s blossoming that russian b**** had to pour dozens of cossacks through my borders, capturing lots of workers and taking down my cities while my army was at the german border?! I had then to change the production from factories to cavalry, and my cities had to live without hospitals. Anarchy. A few turns later the infantry was available but tanks were very far away (in other words: bombard, bombard, bombard)

I disbanded all russian cities and workers, and denied all peace treaties that would give me some breathe. It lasted almost 1000 years, but I only stopped until the last russian was dead

[Odd]

I believe, hovever, that civ2 scenarios were more immersive than civ3 or smac.

Turkish armies marching over Paris in 1925, in WW1, or conquering London as napoleon, or nuking Los Angeles as a soviet was far more addictive than razing Washington with Marines in 1490, or destroing computed hackers with another plasma-laser-gravity bending ray gun

[Gangerolf]

yes

[Switch]

RE: Does Civ3 evoke emotion in you?

Sort of, but hardly in the way SMAC did.

But then again, Civ3 has all of 4 features differing between civs: 2 traits, aggresion level, and UU. Wheras Smac, having only 7 (eventually 14) factions, had MUCH more differentiation between them, and so character was able to develop more clearly (especially with the original 7). The Sister was a ***** who should be killed ASAP (although leaving her until late game, and then devastating her massive continent, gives much more satisfaction ), Morgan was a friend to be taken with a grain of salt, the Lady was an ally to be taken with a shaker of salt, Yang was a neutral to be taken with a bucket of salt, U.N. was a friend, Spartans were a neutral who you always needed to keep an eye on, and I was always the University.

Civ3 on the other hand.....I hate Cleo and Shaka. That's about it.

And when I play as Greece, I feel sorry for the backwards Romans . I give them stuff

[kimmygibler]

I think SMAC was really a better game. But that said, there are civs that I really dislike. For it's mostly the Germans. They are always ruining things for me.

[DRoseDARs]

Ah, the ever radiant Sister Miriam of the Believers...GOD WHAT BE-OCH!!! More than any of the other SMAC or AC sects, if she and her little cohorts where in the game, I ALWAYS knew who my enemy was. None of the other sects ever liked her, so it was kinda easy to keep her of my back.

As far as Civ3...none of the civs illicit a hatred that is consistent through all the games I've played. The closest thing I've got is one scenario: Huge Pangea, Me=Greeks, Zulus to the east, Chinese further east, Indians even further east, Romans to the north, Persians further north, all the rest to the east beyond the Indians. I settled in a nice, wide valley surrounded by a solid mountain range (good, fortifyable borders). The Zulus and Chinese likewise had their own valleys. For centuries I maintained my border with the Zulus and Romans by securing the highest points along the mountain ranges (kinda like what the Israelis did after the Six Days War of 1967). And for centuries, the Zulus allowed the other civilizations to use their lands as an invasion route straight to my border, while they themselves never declared war, just badgered me for tribute. After about five hundred years of putting up with that crap, killed'em and took their valley. Again secured my border, this time with the Chinese, and again my neighbors to the east welcomed invaders, as long as they were just passing through to get to my territory. After five hundred years of putting up with THAT crap, killed them too and took THEIR valley. THEN THE ROMANS TO THE NORTH STARTED DOIN' IT!!! But, they managed to piss off the Persians north of them, so between the two of us, the Romans died quickly and painfully.

I had never seen that kind of behaviour before, but on one hand, the AI was smart, and on the other hand...DAMN was that annoying.

I always liked that scenario (deleted it ages ago) because of the topography of the continent, the spread of civilizations, and the fact that three seperate World Wars ignited, almost in exact step with real-world years. Moreover, World War III had the Babylonians and Persians nuking the hell out of the Americans. Things got really ugly, really quick. From the middle of WWI through the end of WWIII, I managed to absorb the nations of India, Azteca, Germany, the United States, and half of France. Then Persia and Babylonia started getting beligerent with me. By that time, I controlled half of Pangea (with six of the seven remaining civilizations squabbling over the other half), had an unmatched modern army, and an ICBM in each of my hundred and thirty or so cities. The endgame slowdown took TEN FREAKING MINUTES BETWEEN TURNS!!! Needless to say, if I had gone to war with the Persians, Babylonians, or God forbid BOTH...I'd still be waiting for my next turn...

Despite the initial emotion of pure, unadulterated contempt for the Zulus, Chinese, and Romans, I walked away from this particular game pretty happy with myself. Of course, when I saw the first Babylonian sneak-attack nukes hit one of my mid-sized cities...I just shut the computer off...

[Dimorier Maximus]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Of course, when I saw the first Babylonian sneak-attack nukes hit one of my mid-sized cities...I just shut the computer off...

Don't we all?

I was in a game (Tiny map, 4 civs), and how does the computer start me? On an island between the Babylonians and the Zulus. Germany, gets their own island continent , and I am in such a position between Babylon and Zululand that I can only place 3 cities. I think, "This will be challenging." So I play for a while and I start kicking some Babylonian butt after they tick me off. I capture Babylon itself. Then I remember the Zulus, and I take over Zimbabwe. I think I am doing well and then the stupid Germans start bombarding me 100 times each turn with ironclads. No civilization likes me in this game, and I don't like anyone of them either. Then I am building what I have, and I get into another war with the Zulus. Zimbabwe gets mad and flips back to Zululand even though the population is half Persian (my civ) and I built a ton of culture there of my own!

So I shut the game down right there. I was finished with that one.

[The Puny Celt]

I agree the SMAC leaders were more personalised, probably because their characters were better defined. I can remember the irrational anger I'd feel towards Lady Diedre when that environmentalist started blasting me with Planet Busters - it was the hypocrisy of the woman that really got to me!

I don't know how the Civ developers can add personality to the world leaders. Maybe they could do a few audio tracks for each leader to bring them to life. Imagine a furious Bismarck yelling at you, or a cold Elizabeth, or a polite Joan d'Arc with ze sexy Frensh accent. I think I'd easily warm to Joan, then I'd feel doubly betrayed when she inevitably turns on me!

[NeoStar]

Where's the group movement...?!

Where's the scenario support...?!

Well, it used to evoke emotion before they released the patches

But emotion is what makes civ work. Sometimes you can't help feeling satisfied when you defeat a more powerful enemy, or build the biggest empire from the worst starting location...

[dworkin]

A toast to Miriam, the supreme queen ***** of the universe.

Her motivated terrorists, um, probes made her ideal to play against all those sick, demented, godless wackos who insisted on defiling Planet.

CivIII is more like II. The AIs are quite similar but each having a special spot in their co-processers for the human.

Still, I'm developing a particular hatred for Cleo and Joan. Any game against these queens of industry usually ends with a spat of nuking, sacking and pillaging as I ruah to launch the Spaceship.

[candybo]

What about that warm feeling one gets from raising your civ from infancy to a juggernaut? My feelings tend to be more toward the state of my own production units.... I mean, citizens


edited for spelling

[dworkin]

Greed - It is my gold I tell you, all of it. Those other civs are merely holding it for me.

Anger - Die you (DELETED)(DELETED)(DELETED) spearman spawn of Satan!

Exasperation - You want to build another ironclad? We've got 40 already. I'ld swear you coastal types are navy mad!

Revenge - Revolt and I'll flatten ya! Remember Rostov?
Rostov was burned to the ground.
Precisly!

Puzzlement - Where exactly are you going tank leader?
Just doing doughnuts in the cornfields sir.

Mad Cackling - Yes my evil plan worked. Everybody is shooting each other. Muwahahahahahaha!!!

[warmachine]

For me, SMAC evoked emotional responses to leaders because factions were based around idealogy. In no particular order, I hate greed, religious dogma, dictatorships and unhealthy fascinations with guns. I'm a Peacekeeper all the way.

Civ 3 doesn't evoke emotional responses as Firaxis seems to have avoided the controversial leaders. Put me against Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan and I'd strive to put their head on a pike.