Still Stinks Out Loud

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Brutus66

Disagree with you there.
WWII lasted several years longer for Britain, and throughout all the setbacks that lasted until the first victory at El Alemein, London never went into revolt.

When you say thay morale was reasonably high during Viet Nam, I have to assume you were in another country at the time.

To be honest, Civ3 by it's very nature does a lousy job with scaling world conflicts. In the four years of US involvement in WWII...

It's not a WW2 sim.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Brutus66
Can you imagine doing any of that in a few game turns? A few cities in a turn is good progress in game terms.

I would estimate that the most cities I've taken in one turn is around 100. Granted, it was modern age and I had about 1000 MA's, but it is easily possible. I usually take 20-25 cities in a turn (or within 3 turns) after raising a cavalry army. The three movement units make this blitz warfare so much easier. But I also can do this on a much smaller scale in the ancient and middle ages (since the AI has handfuls of cities, it doesn't take as much material). Its all about planning and figuring out the weaknesses of the opponent.

Originally posted by Brutus66
I knew when I bought the game that multiplayer was not included- I'm not claiming false advertising. They made it clear that MP was out by then. But I just can't help but wonder if it was a deliberate move on somebody's part to get us to buy the expansion: "Nah, don't worry about multiplayer- we'll just give 'em the Civ II Gold treatment. Worry about development of the single player game as a priority.

2 points

1. Civ is and always will be primarily a single player game. MP has been an afterthought in each of the games, none have been released with it. I would bet my life that the first incarnations of the games Civ1 and Civ2 sold more than twice their MP counterparts Civnet and Civ2 MPG (or whatever). (granted, some would say my life isn't worth that much ) MP Civvers are a small, but vocal minority of the players. Which is not to say they should be ignored, but just not prioritized, IMO.

2. If you knew that MP would not be in the game and suspected that a "Gold edition" would be released or an xp added to make more money, then why did you buy it last october. They are going to come out with a civ3 gold or whatever that is going to cost about the same price as the original. This is due out this october. You could have waited a year then purchased the game with mp at the same cost as the original release. Why did you not wait, knowing that you would be ripped off?

Just my thoughts, trying not to be too antagonistic.

[Brutus66]

It's not a WW2 sim.

I never said it was. I was trying to make the case that the game tries to portray massive global conflicts, and if you look at it realistically (rather than from a playability perspective) it falls flat.
I honestly don't fault the game for that. The real objective was to make the game fun rather than an accurate model of real life.
Zachriel made the initial comparison to WW2 when he was evidently attempting to justify the war-weariness in democratic societies (though I am not clear as to what his point really was).

[notyoueither]

All I know is I have a hell of a lot of fun playing.

Sorry you don't reach the same result.

[vmxa1]

Zachriel, that is true. In fact the protest were basically over before we got out. They ended when the draft end and we were still in Vietnam. Having been in the Navy in 1963-1968, I recall it. I guess we can mind staple them via the lux slider.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Brutus66
I don't think I said that, but if I inferred it, it was accidental and I apologize if that's the way I came across. I just get revved when I read one line responses like "if you don't like it, go away."

And, in most likely the same way, I get upset hearing sound bytes like "I think that one critic does more good for the game than one hundred sycophants ever could."

I knew when I bought the game that multiplayer was not included- I'm not claiming false advertising. They made it clear that MP was out by then. But I just can't help but wonder if it was a deliberate move on somebody's part to get us to buy the expansion...

If not false advertising, what are you claiming? If they promised something and did not deliver, that would be false advertising in my book. So, if not that, exactly what are you taking offense to?

By the way, I am inclined to think that MP was originally planned but IG decided to kick the project out the door by cutting MP. Not the best of decisions, but apparently the weasels at IG did their jobs well because Civ3 still sold quite well. I accept publisher greed as part of the business... I odn't really care for what comes out when, I just want what I buy to be worth what I paid. If MP comes in an XP, so be it... as long as the total price is something I am willing to accept I have no problems with it. Once again, this really isn't so much criticism of the game as criticism of the market... to XP or not to XP, price, etc... not something that you should take out on the game or developers, IMO.

[vondrack]

Re: Still Stinks Out Loud

Brutus, you know... there is an inherent problem with posts/threads like this one of yours... perhaps you do not realize that you are venting off your aggravation in a forum that is full of people that mastered the game at least on Regent - and many excel on Monarch, Emperor, or even Deity. All these people know that most of what you complain of, shall be attributed to the lack of your skills ONLY. Most people here (me, too - and I do not consider myself a Civ3 pro, even though I successfully moved from Regent to Monarch) went through the same - they were failing in their first games, since they had to adapt their strategies to the fact that Civ3 was not Civ2. But instead of ranting about Civ3 "flaws" they looked for solutions, for working strategies. And they found them. And they are now enjoying the game, KNOWING that people complaining of this or that simply DON'T KNOW what they are talking about.

Originally posted by Brutus66
I was playing on Warlord- not a very tough skill level; I wasn't looking to get spanked.

You see - this alone is a very clear indication that none of the experienced players here should take your post seriously. Anyone struggling on Warlord is a newbie. No offense meant. Everyone used to be a newbie, including myself. But - IMHO - newbies are not really entitled to tell others how flawed Civ3 is, simply because it is obvious that most of what they perceive as "game flaws" is actually just a lack of their skills.

I have reread your first post through carefully again - I believe that every one of your complaints was addressed by follow-up posters, so you should now know what you need to do differently.

Originally posted by Brutus66
And last, why can I upgrade a spearman but not a swordsman unit? That makes no sense. Every warrior unit you make at the beginning of a game is going to eventually be good for nothing but the scrap pile, even if they distinguish themselves in battle and win their own unique name. You'll be able to upgrade 'em to swordsmen, but that's the end of the line.

Actually, this is a gameplay balance issue (exactly the same as with cavalry not upgrading to tanks). Civ3 does its best to help (temporary) losers catch up (or, at least, not to lose completely). You are able to upgrade your DEFENDERS all the time, but the same is not true with ATTACKERS. The upgrade chain breaks are there to force you to use some kind of strategy, instead of just mindlessly pumping out attackers - I bet that if swordsmen upgraded to something better, you would build MUCH more of them, wouldn't you? It would be a no brainer... The way it is now, it is not that easy... achieving a relative military domination with swordsmen does not mean you will remain a superpower for long - unless you succeed in replacing the swordsmen of yours with knights at the proper time.

Originally posted by Brutus66
Civ2 didn't infuriate me or puzzle me like this, and neither did either of the Call to Power games.

Other people explained what was infuriating you, so you can see that it mostly was not about game flaws, but about you not understanding various concepts vital to Civ3.

That Civ2/CtP did not infuriate you means just that these games were probably easier to learn/master for you. It has nothing to do with whether Civ3 "stinks out loud" or not.

Generally speaking, it is rather foolish to accuse other people of being sycophants, while you do nothing else than demonstrate your inability to handle the game the proper way. These people KNOW the game sucks for you because you suck with the game. I actually bow to those that offered you suggestions, instead of just "yawning" at another aggravated newbie that was too lazy to look around the forums for tips and hints how to overcome his difficulties.

If you actually do a bit of research, you will find out that anyone and everyone asking for help ("everybody hates me, even though I did nothing bad to them!", "I seem to be unable to get fair deals with other civs" etc.) is offered explanations, suggestions, and hints, even if his question might sound "stupid" to experienced players. Such people NEVER receive "yawns" and dismissive one-liners. It is people like you that do. When someone starts a thread naming it "Still Stinks Out Loud", pointing out "flaws" that are actually not flaws at all, he deserves nothing but dismissive one-liners. Especially if he later poses as a "critic", labeling others "sycophants".

It is much like if you came to a forum discussing cars and started a thread about how much your new car sucked (it stopped after driving just first few hundred miles!), not knowing it only needed to be refuelled.

Before you start stinking threads and call other people sycophants next time, be sure to do your homework first, ok? You may find out that there was nothing to be aggravated about... but your own inexperience.

EDIT: typo

[Kindbud]

Well said Vondrack, well said...

I am STILL one of those noobs who struggles with the transition from Civ II but there is so much great info here that you can't help but get better if you pay attention AND are ready for a new game. If not, just load Civ II back up and have fun - I still do from time to time. But every time I do I find it less satisfying and challenging.

[THIS THREAD IS READY TO BE CLOSED]

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Brutus66
I said Activision and I meant Activision. My intent was to give credit to Firaxis where it was due.

That was what I thought. But I looked at again later and it was bit ambigous WITHIN the paragraph. Not within the whole of the post though.

I sometimes notice myself doing the same thing as you did so I add words to enhance the redundancy. Sometime I don't notice it and other people can be confused. IT being the the lack of full precision in the meaning of words that refer back to previous sections for the full meaning.

[Q Classic]

vondrack has a big point. the problem with a lot of these people saying that civ3 sucks tend to be people who expect civ3 to be more of the same, along the lines of civ2 and smac.

and the problem is, these are the same sorts of people who often want it to be "completely new" with "fresh ideas".

not to rag on you personally, brutus, it's just that you can no doubt understand that after the first 20-30 threads like these, all of them generally complaining about the same thing, it's only natural for a lot of forum regulars to kinda just get tired of them. especially when some of those things can be dealt with in existing strat guides, or in just modding the dumb thing...

yes, well. that's why threads like these aren't often treated with much respect~

and i'll have you know, i'm not exactly a fanboy. i don't even play civ3 anymore.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Brutus66
Disagree with you there.
WWII lasted several years longer for Britain, and throughout all the setbacks that lasted until the first victory at El Alemein, London never went into revolt.

When you say thay morale was reasonably high during Viet Nam, I have to assume you were in another country at the time.

Britain had a very strong anti-war movement. Indeed, the reason Churchhill is given so much credit is because he was able to rally the British people when it appeared all hope was lost. If high-morale was inevitable, then Churchhill deserves little credit. Which also shows how little things (ringing rhetoric, stalwart courage) can have huge strategic effects. In Civ3, these "little things" beyond our control are represented by the randomizer.

In 1972, Nixon won by a landslide v. the peace candidate. Meanwhile, the hippies were chanting that "your government is lying to you." Lying about the progress of the war. Lying about who the enemy really was, but the general public was deceived. Indeed, it is now known that the U.S. government was well aware of the "problem" of Vietnam and knew it could not be won with any reasonable strategy, should have known it from as early as the late 1940's, definitely knew it by the mid-1960's, yet continued to tell the American public the Lie. This fact is well-documented. Nevertheless, the tide in public opinion was turning, as "war weariness" set in.

To be honest, Civ3 by it's very nature does a lousy job with scaling world conflicts. In the four years of US involvement in WWII, the war progressed across North Africa, through the nation of Italy, then across the channel from the UK through the western European continent. In the Pacific theatre, the amount of territory covered was staggering in Civ3 terms. Can you imagine doing any of that in a few game turns? A few cities in a turn is good progress in game terms.

Western Europe is actually a small (though very important) continent. On a standard map, it would represent just a few, albeit very powerful, cities. The U.S. was never much involved in the Asian mainland, but "conquered" very small parcels of land in the Pacific, excepting the powerhouse of Japan which was never invaded. Again, on a standard map, it would only represent a small number of cities, while many other large cities in China, India, Sub-Saharan Africa, South America, etc., were left untouched.

Ultimately though, Civ3 is a game and an abstraction.

The scaling of the game has always been a problem for me. What does a tank unit represent? Is it an armored brigade? Or is it just a platoon of tanks?

That one's easy. It's an abstraction. Sometimes it may represent a larger unit than at other times. Even a Battleship may only represent a projection of "Battleship power," in whole or in part. If you want something more than an abstraction or with more tactical detail, you need to play a different game, something which is not on such a large grand strategy level.

(In Diplomacy, the entire army of Germany at the start of WWI is represented by just three units; two Armies and a Navy.)

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Brutus66
Zachriel made the initial comparison to WW2 when he was evidently attempting to justify the war-weariness in democratic societies (though I am not clear as to what his point really was).

Actually, the comparison was yours. From your initial post, "Hey Sid, I got some news for ya, it's not 1965 anymore, and every war isn't Viet Nam. Democracies don't automatically start rioting when the shooting starts. If they did, we wouldn't have made it against the damn Kaiser, much less Hitler."

In any case, I wasn't trying to get into an off-topic discussion of history, but just to point out that war weariness is an intrinsic component of warfare in free societies, and as a game abstraction, the game depicts this reasonably well.

For instance, in Civ3, when attacked your Civ often gets a momentary bump in happiness, and only prolonged warfare with casualties results in war weariness. Also, war weariness appears to carry over from war to war, if you enter a new war just after ending a previous one. If you can't handle the war weariness in democracy, try a different form of government.

[Wormwood]

Originally posted by Zachriel


For instance, in Civ3, when attacked your Civ often gets a momentary bump in happiness, and only prolonged warfare with casualties results in war weariness. Also, war weariness appears to carry over from war to war, if you enter a new war just after ending a previous one. If you can't handle the war weariness in democracy, try a different form of government.

I don't want to get too OT here, but how long should the "cool-down" period between wars be? In other words, how long between wars should I wait so the previous wars weariness doesn't affect the new war?

[WarpStorm]

I'm guessing about 20 turns from experience.

[vmxa1]

20 turns is what I heard.