Does Civ3 evoke emotion in you?

[NeoStar]

Originally posted by warmachine
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.

So Thatcher and Reagan are in the same class as Stalin and Hitler?

The leaders arn't too bad...they're just way too cartoonish and despite everything have unstable personalities.

The Nazis would certainly be a target to go after - but none of that these days, Firaxis is trying to be 'politically correct'. Still, its weird how they wouldn't put Stalin in when they allow you to cull your own population in disbanding enitre cities

[steven8r]

HE!! Yes! Civ3 evokes emotion in me--generally rage or something quite like it.

The one that usually gets me is Ghandi. I expect the others to be jerks, but Ghandi?!

Never played SMAC so I can't be partial there.

[Edrix]

I think many of us have those 'frustration' stories where we want to brutally murder the AI. I think the one emotion I've felt most while playing Civ 3 has been REVENGE. Or anger, or whatever emotion one has when they crave vengeance.
And GOD, why the HELL would GHANDI be such a - geez! I can't even... he builds his damn empire up and then attacks me while I'm fighting someone else - someone else he doesn't even have any agreements with... I think these leaders should remain somewhat true to character, as I believe Ghandi was one of those folks who practiced 'non-violent resistance'. Plowing through 10 of my cities with cavalry and then demanding 2 more cities and all of my money for peace doesn't fit that description.

[The Pioneer]

Well Civ 3 is a wonderful and very addictive game. In my collection the Civ series is up there alone with other games coming up far behind as second. Now having said that Civ is just a game and I really cannot say it "evokes" my emotions! It's addictive yes and it produces emotion like "...another turn and I'll get you , you bas*ard.." but other than that I don't think so.

So long...

[thorpey]

I love the game... here's some of the things that either
make me laugh, or get me slightly annoyed:

1. Taking/Razing the last city of a Civ and then realising that he has escaped with a settler in a galley, and you have no idea where that galley is.
2. 50 turns later finding that galley with a privateer
3. Planning a huge assault on your biggest rival and he signs an MPP with your most 'inconvenient' neighbour 1 turn before you are ready.
4. Your MPP ally wastes a dozen units on a really 'nice' target, leaving it defended with 1 rifleman that's down to 1 HP.
5. Needing 1500 gold to mass upgrade all of your musketmen and you only have 1490.

Things like that are what keeps me playing....

[DFHNY]

smac

civ2 gold was highly addictive, then for some freak reason of history I missed SMAC and never played it, only to pick up Civ 3 the day it came out with high hopes. As anyone on this board knows Civ3 has its problems but it is still "just one more turn" addictive. That being said, the AI is really not unique, as someone posted already, it is basically you vs. the computer. Period. Improving the look of the leaders is not the issue, the issue was once solved in Civ2 actually, it is improving the algorythms used by the computer. In Civ2 some civs were "builders" other "warriors" others "tech crazy" etc. etc. that gave each Civ a "personality" and as humans we quickly learned how to exploit it while having fun. So Firaxis thought, hey we will just make each CIv3 AI just like the humans, i.e. "expansionist" over all. Boring. The AI's favorite weapon is of course the settler. Boring. Firaxis has created 10 AI players all of whom have the same "human" algorythm and thus each Civ appears to have no personality. Remember way back to Civ2 how the Persians or the Babalonians were perfectionists, it was so cool, they would make these great cities w/o over expanding. Now in Civ3 all you see is the AI covering huge land masses with size 1 cities, bores me to tears!!! Now, there should be a weakness one could exploit if you know that the AI expands over all other solutions, i.e. those size 1 cities should be weak...right? Wrong. The AI should attack their over-expanding brother right? Wrong. The AI rarely wars, the map is usually "static" for a thousand years (whereever the "expansion" stopped basically). FIRAXIS needs to create a patch, and how, that gives EACH AI a different algorithm and I promise to pay say $30 for that "upgrade". Now get to work, before I go buy SMAC.

[vondrack]

I often wonder... is it the same game I am playing? DFHNY, are you serious about AIs never attacking other AIs? Civ3 being just the human vs. the computer? Do you want me to send you my last game? There, you would find out how tragically wrong you are... Static borders? Heh... Iroquois used to have the biggest empire in that game... and were eventually the first one to disappear from the world completely (yep, I took part... but not the decisive one... their AI "brothers" thought it was not a good idea to have them around). Right now, I am waging a war against the English (yes, those English that were fighting by my side against the Russians a hundred years ago, when the brown bastards declared war on me just because not getting a nice tech for free), being assisted by... surprise!... the Russians... ... that happily joined me after being offered just one nice tech for free...

I wish you could play the same game, I really wish. You would love it.

[DFHNY]

ai

play some more vondrak
my argument and it is sound playing for 3/4 of a year now is that the AI in building, growing, warring, setlling etc. is expansionist only. as others before me have posted and i was merely reiterating, there is no emotion to the game because there is no differentiating algorythm of "success" for the AI (someone else posted that you may as well call them AI 1-10).
Yes, on occassion the AI will start a war with another culture (draw you in of course and then sign a peace treaty at a time when all of your units are far away helping him out...), yes the borders can change, but rarely between the end of the ancient era when everyone is touching until the tank period. As an example--when you play several games take a look when you are allowed to see another continent for the first time (i.e. you buy a world map from someone), and notice each time how the land is settled (doesn't matter who is doin' the settlin')--it is usually pretty even, never lopsided or one AI crushing the other, and see if any AI is missing any tech that the others don't have or is pursuing a different strategy other than build settler, send out settler, repeat. We are playing the same game, trust me.

[Arrian]

DFHNY,

I have no idea what you're talking about, and I've been playing CivIII like crazy since it came out. I have, many times, seen AIs crush each other. I have seen AIs left in the dust in the tech race (with the exception of v. 1.17 and to an extent, 1.21).

You will notice much more lopsided results from the AI if you use harsh terrain settings. Some of us on the strategy forum have been experimenting with changing the AI build preferences to try and influence AI behavior (Alexman in particular).

I find this pretty amusing:

In Civ2 some civs were "builders" other "warriors" others "tech crazy" etc. etc. that gave each Civ a "personality" and as humans we quickly learned how to exploit it while having fun.

So you're claiming that the civs in CivII were more "unique" than the civs in CivIII? Are you SERIOUS? CivII (I too have the MultiGold Edition) was absolutely the human against a nearly united AI. The only real difference between the CivII AI civs was their aggressiveness rating (which didn't matter on Diety, where most of my playing time was spent, because they all automatically hated your guts from turn 1). In CivIII, each civ has 2 traits, a UU, build preferences and the aggressiveness rating.

-Arrian

[ceroomaster]

SMAC- I was nearly always Peacekeepers, quite matey with Spartans, Morganites, University and the Gaians (nearly always biggest rivals) but I didn't really trust any of them. I disliked the Hive, and they disliked me, dair enough, I hated the Believers, with all my soul. And these are fictional characters? That's the reaction SMAC got from me?

Civ 3. The same but not on the same scale. The other Civs are pretty much identi-kit cut & paste personalites.
I like Joan, she's always friendly and still thanks me, even after I rip her off totally. Don't mind Gandi, he's always friendly. Dislike Shaka's over-agressive attitute, and the was Bismark tinks he's gonna rule the world, even when he's trailing by far. My most absolutely positively hated leader is Hammy, how dare you great my as leader of the babarian whoevers?!?! I'm always richer, more advanced, and more culturally evolved than you- how dare you call ME a barbarian?!?! But still nowher near the amount of hatred I bore Miriam.

Go figure...

S~

[vondrack]

Re: ai

Originally posted by DFHNY
play some more vondrak

Yes, that could be it... I mean, 300+ hours spent playing Civ3 certainly can't be considered enough to make my opinions qualified...

Seriously... I have spent too much time playing Civ3. I wish my will would be stronger - there are so many things I would like/need to do, but Civ3 just attracts me like a magnet... I have won nine full-scale (played through to the very end) Regent games on Standard maps so far - mostly by SS, once by the 2050AD score and once with the UN vote. I have lost about 6 full-scale ones and quitted, dunno, something like 50-100 more games at various stages for various reasons (mostly because of gradually losing them... ).

IMHO, my argument is as sound as yours.

Do no get me wrong, much of your original post is valid. I will grant you that the different AIs leaders really do not differ that much as far as their behaviour is concerned. They are one big bunch of mean bastards. They will expand like crazy in the ancient times (just like me). They will go to war when there is too little space for their empire (just like me). They will trade techs like crazy (just like me). 'cause that is what you have to do to win the game. They are doing exactly what I (=human) am, just not well enough... so I finally beat them... Are we really complaining of that the AI behaves much like a human opponent in certain aspects?

OTOH, I strongly disagree with the part of your original post where you said AIs rarely warred, especially each other. That is what I found completely false. In my games, they treat each other just like they treat me. If another AI stays in their way, they attack. They look for and find AI allies. If I have something to bribe them, they will join me. If not, they will join my enemy, or stay neutral. I have seen AIs crushing other AIs so often that I simply feel I have to express my disagreement on this matter.

I guess your main concern is about that Soren wrote just one (universal) AI. That's true. Civ3 uses one universal AI engine that adapts itself to the special civ traits, unique units, geography, agressiveness level etc. It's a damn good AI and it really plays the game to win, not just to make up a stage for your gallop to the final triumph. The most important thing here is, however, that every AI plays as if it was to win the game on its own. There is no general cooperation aimed at just defeating the human. I have seen this principle proved so many times that I am 100% sure about it.

I do not think it's true that all the AI civs play the same way every time. I experienced the Russians to be a highly tech oriented civ, almost beating me to the SS launch in one of my past games. I experienced them as arrogant warmongers, expanding their borders constantly in another game... It's just that Cathy is not the same in every game... a trustworthy scientifically minded ally in one game, a treacherous warmongering foe in another. Although the basic underlying principles (see the paragraph about the universal AI engine) remain the same, the particular AI strategy for a particular game differs.

Because of that, I develop emotions towards other leaders, but only within the frame of one game. There are certain general feelings (like I usually find Bismarck to be annoyed without me saying a single word when we first meet), but they are pretty weak. Every game is different. And that's what I like.

And the game itself, I mean combat... yes, it does stir up some emotions in me... and I am not referring to occasional odd dice rolls, resulting in unexpected casualties on my side...

I remember having my coast heavily bombed by waves of enemy (American, I believe) bombers in one of my past games. I was desperately in need of a few-turn time to consolidate/strengthen my forces and carry the war over to the enemy soil. To gain myself that time, I rushed a couple of fighters, rebased them to the cities under fire and set to air superiory missions. Bomber after bomber started hitting ground... All of a sudden, a modern jet fighter flew in to bomb my city. My veteran (yes, both meanings apply here... ) fighter took off and... shot the shining new craft down! "WOW! YES!" I just couldn't help myself... I jumped up screaming and made that "yes!" gesture with my fist... only to smash a glass of coke standing to my right... the broken glass brought me luck and I did manage to fend Americans off and pay them everything back with an appropriate interest soon afterwards...

I really doubt we play the same game... or, could it be that we just use different glasses and thus not percept the game the same way?

[annoyed]

_____________________________________________
From Neostar
The Nazis would certainly be a target to go after - but none of that these days, Firaxis is trying to be 'politically correct'. Still, its weird how they wouldn't put Stalin in when they allow you to cull your own population in disbanding enitre cities
____________________________________________
And how could they not use hitler and stalin and yet use 'Chairman Mao' when he was arguably more excrable on a mass murdering as well as personal level than both Stallin and Hitler put together. And whoever has so much hatred for Reagan and Thatcher needs to go back and read the true history of the 80's and not the revisionist crap put out after ad even during their respective administrations.

Regarding the question of emotional response between SMAC and Civ3, the contrasts between the different leaders in SMAC does give it a special element of personalization missing in Civ3. What I would love a civ game that spans millenia to do is to give the AI civs different leaders throughout the game, giving them different goals and temperaments, and the length of each reign can vary according to different circumstances.
Also actions taken by the player against AI civs or vice/versa can create lengthy periods of animosity, such as historically between England and France. I just wish there were more peacetime options to irritate your enemy because constant warfare can get a little monotonous. That is all.