I've been following the civ3 forums for some time now. It's hard to keep up with all of those threads, but I try...
I had been expecting to get the game for Christmas, but due to some unforseen economic issues in my life, I probably will not be getting it as a present from my family (bottom line is that my company did a major cutback on hours, so the kids will be getting presents, but neither me or my wife will exchange gifts - so no free civ3 for me).
The whole aspect suddenly becomes - 'Is civ3 worth the $50?' If I want the game, I will eventually have to buy it myself. EU2 is looking better and better. (and I did get 'Stronghold' recently - though not as good as 'Pharaoh' IMO, is still a good game)
I'm one of those people who is a fence sitter when it comes to civ3. I believe it has a lot of potential, but at the same time, I am wondering if it is worth the time and effort to start playing. Several issues, in particular are troubling, with the most critical at the top.
THE BIG 4
1. Late game system performance is horrible. 2-15 minutes per turn on good systems. (and I have a low end system PII/350, 192 RAM)
2. Extreme micromangement with workers and unit movement - no stacking.
3. Combat is broken because of the lack of firepower and a flat rate of HP for units.
4. No warning system for revolts.
THE MINOR 3
5. Corruption is unmanageable and unresolveable.
6. Very weak editor.
7. Weak tech tree.
On the plus side, the AI is supposed to be very aggressive, and the in-game atmosphere looks promising. Graphics are acceptable, with the exception of the extremely ugly road/railroad setup.
Now the patch is supposed to address many of these issues, though IMO, I do not think it will change #2 and #3, and I do not think it will be able to adequately fix #1.
My question is...
'Is civ3 a huge improvement over the modded CTP2 setup - and is the civ3 AI light years ahead of what has been accomplished in this community?'
I am posting this here, because posting this in the civ3 thread will only get a bunch of players who already have a built-in aniti-CTP bias based on playing the default game (or not playing it at all), to spout their garbage. (Not that this won't happen here)
What I am looking for are reasoned arguments from players who have played both civ3 and CTP2 Modded (and CTP2 Cradle in particular - with the recent AI SLICS from player1/Martin, which have really helped out the AI infrastructure). And please give specifics rather than the old 'CTP2 or civ3 sucks' mantra without backing up your statements.
I will admit that there are limitations in my Cradle setup that do not bother me too much, but other players may see as major game flaws. But at the same time, I am still greatly challenged by Modded CTP2 (Cradle in particular) and I still am having a blast playing my setup. (Still struggling along on 'Hard') And if there is little difference in the challenge level between Cradle/civ3, then there is no real need to get civ3.
So do my suddenly limited funds go to civ3???
I had been expecting to get the game for Christmas, but due to some unforseen economic issues in my life, I probably will not be getting it as a present from my family (bottom line is that my company did a major cutback on hours, so the kids will be getting presents, but neither me or my wife will exchange gifts - so no free civ3 for me).
The whole aspect suddenly becomes - 'Is civ3 worth the $50?' If I want the game, I will eventually have to buy it myself. EU2 is looking better and better. (and I did get 'Stronghold' recently - though not as good as 'Pharaoh' IMO, is still a good game)
I'm one of those people who is a fence sitter when it comes to civ3. I believe it has a lot of potential, but at the same time, I am wondering if it is worth the time and effort to start playing. Several issues, in particular are troubling, with the most critical at the top.
THE BIG 4
1. Late game system performance is horrible. 2-15 minutes per turn on good systems. (and I have a low end system PII/350, 192 RAM)
2. Extreme micromangement with workers and unit movement - no stacking.
3. Combat is broken because of the lack of firepower and a flat rate of HP for units.
4. No warning system for revolts.
THE MINOR 3
5. Corruption is unmanageable and unresolveable.
6. Very weak editor.
7. Weak tech tree.
On the plus side, the AI is supposed to be very aggressive, and the in-game atmosphere looks promising. Graphics are acceptable, with the exception of the extremely ugly road/railroad setup.
Now the patch is supposed to address many of these issues, though IMO, I do not think it will change #2 and #3, and I do not think it will be able to adequately fix #1.
My question is...
'Is civ3 a huge improvement over the modded CTP2 setup - and is the civ3 AI light years ahead of what has been accomplished in this community?'
I am posting this here, because posting this in the civ3 thread will only get a bunch of players who already have a built-in aniti-CTP bias based on playing the default game (or not playing it at all), to spout their garbage. (Not that this won't happen here)
What I am looking for are reasoned arguments from players who have played both civ3 and CTP2 Modded (and CTP2 Cradle in particular - with the recent AI SLICS from player1/Martin, which have really helped out the AI infrastructure). And please give specifics rather than the old 'CTP2 or civ3 sucks' mantra without backing up your statements.
I will admit that there are limitations in my Cradle setup that do not bother me too much, but other players may see as major game flaws. But at the same time, I am still greatly challenged by Modded CTP2 (Cradle in particular) and I still am having a blast playing my setup. (Still struggling along on 'Hard') And if there is little difference in the challenge level between Cradle/civ3, then there is no real need to get civ3.
So do my suddenly limited funds go to civ3???
Comment