Hypotetic poll: Civ 4 NOW.

[Spiffor]

Here: http://www.apolyton.net/forums/forum...176&daysprune=

[HalfLotus]

Firaxis Civ 4: nada
BHG Civ 4: priceless

[Nubclear]

but it has a much more solid AI, great grpahics, an imaginative trade system, and a much better diplomacy interface than any Civ/Smac game around here.

More solid AI: I'll grant you this, but it does border on "blatantly cheating AI"
Great graphics: Oh yes, this REALLY makes a game
Imaginitive Trade System: Perhaps, but also a really bad trade system.
Better diplomacy interface: Yes, but unfortunately it didn't quite include the "Better Diplomacy" part
One can have the best interface in the world but if theres onthing to interface with, the interface is...useless

They already ripped me off with Civ3. I'll get the fourth for free.

I'm not paying a single penny for Civ4. Not unless it can prove its leaps and bounds ahead of Civ3 (which isn't difficult to do)

[BustaMike]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Civ3 was, and still is, a great game. It has fewer features than SMAC, but it has a much more solid AI, great grpahics, an imaginative trade system, and a much better diplomacy interface than any Civ/Smac game around here.

I played Civ2 like crazy, and I was a highes fan of Civ2. But I can say it without hesitation: now that I own Civ3, I cannot possibly imagine going back to play Civ2.

That's ridiculous. Civ3's AI only seemed like it had a clue because the game had next to no flexibility. The AI never has a chance to screw up because there's nothing to screw up. A crappy computer will tie a chess Grandmaster at Tic Tac Toe every time, but it would get its ass kicked at chess.

I'd much rather play Civ2 personally.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by BustaMike
That's ridiculous. Civ3's AI only seemed like it had a clue because the game had next to no flexibility. The AI never has a chance to screw up because there's nothing to screw up.

Let's see:

- Civ3 has the most advanced combat system in any Sid empire game, thanks to the bombardment system, the various bonuses, and the renewed air combat system (well, making the combat system more complex than in the other games is not a really great feat though);
YeT, the AI is more adept at it than in any previous game.

- Civ3 has the most complex trade system, where trade is highly required even without being automatic. The AI is much more adept at trade than in Civ2 (where it basically didn't trade) and in SMAC (where trade was fully automated and asked no decision to take place)

The really lacking features of Civ3 are unit-trading (see sig, it's been my pet peeve from the beginning), peacebrokering, and multilateral diplomacy. Other than that, Civ3 has more features than the previous games, and the AI is more adept at them.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Hey! Why is there no Civ 4 wishlist thread. huh? Can anyone tell me why?

There is one in the Civ future forum

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
nah, civ3 isn't 'CIV.' Its a poor game going under a great name.

C3 was an improvement over C2 in almost every possible way

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by BustaMike


That's ridiculous. Civ3's AI only seemed like it had a clue because the game had next to no flexibility. The AI never has a chance to screw up because there's nothing to screw up. A crappy computer will tie a chess Grandmaster at Tic Tac Toe every time, but it would get its ass kicked at chess.

I'd much rather play Civ2 personally.

Yup, C2's AI was insanely good, wasn't it

[monkspider]

I'm too spoiled by Paradox games, i don't think I could go back to a Civ game.

[Nubclear]

[QUOTE] Civ3 has the most advanced combat system in any Sid empire game, thanks to the bombardment system, the various bonuses, and the renewed air combat system [/QUOTE[

Again: Too bad it completly fails in implimentation.

Civ3 has the most complex trade system, where trade is highly required even without being automatic. The AI is much more adept at trade than in Civ2 (where it basically didn't trade) and in SMAC (where trade was fully automated and asked no decision to take place)

I will give you this.

Other than that, Civ3 has more features than the previous games,

Only in your little fantasy realm

[monolith94]

I played Civ 3 one game through, on Emperor Fabulous' computer.

The beginning ancient game went waaaay to quickly. That was my first big problem with it. The second was the graphics - it looked decent, but it didn't have that classical, imperial and regal feel to it that civilization 2 had. The third problem I had was that it just didn't grip me like civ 2 did.

I stick to civ 2, now.

[Inverse Icarus]

c3c has extended the ancient era greatly.

graphics can be modified.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Only in your little fantasy realm

So, what exact features does SMAC have that I didn't name? I'm not even talking about Civ2, that has less features than Civ3 in all ways.

[Nubclear]

So, what exact features does SMAC have that I didn't name?

Terraforming, multi-level governments (which, along with other things, form social engineering), an operational UN, a "unit designer" (of sorts, better than what Civ3 has), better diplo AI (usually), a ***much*** better spy system, not to mention nice little tidbits such as wonder movies, quotes, interludes, a much more interesting background, random events, a much more immersive atmosphere....
However this doesn't quite make my argument as easy as this does....

Civ3 was, and still is, a great game. It has fewer features than SMAC,

Oops?

[BustaMike]

You Civ3 fans are living in a crappy game fantasy world . Sheesh.

- Civ3 has the most advanced combat system in any Sid empire game, thanks to the bombardment system, the various bonuses, and the renewed air combat system (well, making the combat system more complex than in the other games is not a really great feat though);
YeT, the AI is more adept at it than in any previous game.

Have you even played SMAC. There is a FULLY CUSTOMIZEABLE UNIT WORKSHOP which allows you to not only make units with a multitude of combat bonuses and abilities, but also non-combat uses. SMAC has bombardment implemented at least to the degree Civ3 does plus is has numerous options to enhance air, sea, land, base, open terrain, or psi attack and defense properties. Nerve gas, AAA, infantry bonuses, quick bonuses, cloak, etc... Civ3 isn't even close by any standard. Your statement shows a complete lack of understanding of either game.

- Civ3 has the most complex trade system, where trade is highly required even without being automatic. The AI is much more adept at trade than in Civ2 (where it basically didn't trade) and in SMAC (where trade was fully automated and asked no decision to take place)

I will concede that the Civ3 trading options are more plentiful than in other Sid games, but anything here is really superficial at best. Sure you have a couple more options but really it still comes down to treaties, alliances, trading techs and cash, and not much else. Any advantage here can be disregarded because the rest of the game is so bad.

The really lacking features of Civ3 are unit-trading (see sig, it's been my pet peeve from the beginning), peacebrokering, and multilateral diplomacy. Other than that, Civ3 has more features than the previous games, and the AI is more adept at them.

Civ3 does not have more features than anything. One stinking golden age and one stupid civ specific unit (which could end up being completely worthless if you're say the Americans) don't make for anything better than what Civ2 had. Not to mention Civ3 has less techs than Civ2 and some of them do absolutely nothing. What the hell is that? Civ2 has nice wonder movies, an actual ending (not some crappy you win screen), advisors that talk to you (not those god awful carved apple head guys), all features that are lacking in Civ3.

As for the AI...

Civ3 makes a pitiful attempt to give civ specific characteristics based on who you choose but the system doesn't offer even 1% of the customizeability that SMAC's faction specific bonuses and social engineering do. It might as well not even be there. Obviously Civ3's AI is going to do much better with this optionless system than it would with SMAC's complex social engineering.

Now about the units. All the Civ3 AI has to do is build the best defensive and best offensive units available at the time based on what tech you have and it's set. There's nothing to think about. This isn't the case at all in SMAC. When used correctly, inferior technology can crush superior technology through effective chopper use or tough psi bonuses. The Civ3 AI isn't doing some awesome job, it just has no chance to **** up.

I'm not saying the SMAC AI is good, far from it. That thing acts like an idiot waaay too much and it's very predictable. All I'm saying is that the Civ3 AI only looks a lot better because the simplicity of Civ3 gives it no chance to look bad. And I think I've made a pretty stong case.