View Full Version : Civ3 screenshots & Info from PC GamePlay!

Apr 26, 2001, 10:23 AM

Just seen some Civ 3 screenshots over at PC Gameplay ( in their news section.

Apaprently the magazine is running a feature on it. I'm going out to buy it now.

[This message has been edited by Thunderfall (edited April 28, 2001).]

Apr 26, 2001, 01:06 PM
Zaswady, Thanks for the news! <IMG SRC="" border=0>

I like the screenshot, it's very realistic overall! <IMG SRC="" border=0>

However, I think the graphics for irrigation effect is a bit ugly. The map would look bad if you irrgiate all those grassland and plain squares. I prefer the irrigation graphics in Civ2... <IMG SRC="" border=0>

I also think they over-use the yellowish green color in the terrain. It's not an exciting color to look at. I would prefer a brighter green color for grassland & forest, just like in Civ2.

Click on a thumbnail to see the screenshots directly:

<a href=""><IMG SRC="" border=0></a> <a href=""><img src="" border=0></a>

[This message has been edited by Thunderfall (edited April 26, 2001).]

Mongol Horde
Apr 26, 2001, 01:27 PM
Sheesh, I don't wanna be the first to say it but these graphics are not quite the quality that I expected. You're right TF that irrigation is awful. I am still not worried though why?

1. It's still early days
2. I still trust Sid
3. They never look as good as screenshots
4. Who cares about the graphics anyway?

Apr 26, 2001, 01:53 PM
hey LeoWind, it seems I deleted your post accidentally. Can you repost it? Sorry about that...

Apr 26, 2001, 02:18 PM
It figures, first time in the Civ III forum for a long time, and then you delete my post <IMG SRC="" border=0> <IMG SRC="" border=0>
I agreed with you, TF about the colors and the irrigation. I'm also not sure I like the way the roads look. I very much like seeing what each city is producing and I assume the number beside it relates to how much production has been done or needs to be completed.
What struck me, however, was that the river runs along the square *borderS* rather than through the squares like in Civ II. This will have major implications for trade, movement, and defense iF it is the case.

P.S. THUNDERFALL, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE REMEMBER DON'T DELETE MY POST. So did my first post get counted and now I'm a spamming double poster, or did I get cheated out of a post in my meager post-count <IMG SRC="" border=0>

[This message has been edited by Leowind (edited April 26, 2001).]

Apr 26, 2001, 02:26 PM
lol, I'll be more careful in the future. <IMG SRC="" border=0>

I opened photoshop and changed the color balance of the first screenshot. The trees and grassland now look much brighter... <IMG SRC="" border=0> You can compare the difference between the 2 screenshots by opening them in separate windows.

Let me know what you think...

[This message has been edited by Thunderfall (edited April 26, 2001).]

Apr 26, 2001, 02:39 PM
I also agree with Thunderfall, in addition to that I don't like the colors under the units. Makes it look much more artificial instead of giving you a "realistic" feeling. What do you guys think? I also don't like that they're copying the border-graphics from SMAC.
Plus, where is my population counter?
But maybe I'm just expecting too much...

Apr 26, 2001, 03:02 PM
I hope those over head titles will not make it to the final release, they look awful in my opinion. Other than that, reminds me too much of SMAC, and I can't say I have a good memory.

Håkan Eriksson
Apr 26, 2001, 03:03 PM
I think you are to querulous. Ok maybe the irrigation doesn't look the best. But here is some things that I think looks good:

1. The map. You can se that the is deeper wathers marked with darker blue.
2. The mountains and hills are at diferent size and looks way better than in civ 2.
3. The borders. They don't look to hard but yuo can see them.
4. The "main" window were you have your units and stuff are over the entier screen insted of one window.
5. You can see how much gold you get per turn right in the window.
6. you can se wath the cities are producing with oute haveing to look inside.
7. The natural resources looks way better than in civ 2.

Just to take some exampels.

<IMG SRC="" border=0>

Apr 26, 2001, 04:08 PM
Thunderfall, Re: "Pulling photoshop out"... you really need to get a life LOL

Nevertheless, although the buildings look too green, the rest of the picture is actually alot better <IMG SRC="" border=0> Great "reconstruction" *hehe*

I too don't like the little round things under the units. I am hoping that it is just a blank spot where the "unit base" gifs will go or something.

I recon the roads look like they are floating too, and the irrigation is terrible.

On the other hand I agree with Mongol Horde, Who cares about graphics?

It is still too early to tell. Some of my favorite games have been equipped with lousy graphics (remember Adventure on the Atari 2600)?

Well, actually, I'm not saying It's lousy. I'm just saying there's some things that look a bit 'ordinary'. I thought Civ III woould be an absolute killer (for a strategy game) in the graphics dept, but oh well, you can't have your cake and eat it too I suppose.

I am 100% certain at this stage that Civ III will be better than Civ I and Civ II put together, rolled into one and/or multiplied tenfold <IMG SRC="" border=0>


Link to (
Webmasters and Pagebuilders

[This message has been edited by MrLeN (edited April 26, 2001).]

Apr 26, 2001, 04:43 PM
Very cool!! The thing that puzzles me is the second screenshot. It almost looks like a clip of an apollo wonder movie, but in the CGW magazine release, they said wonder movies were out. Any speculations?

Apr 26, 2001, 04:55 PM
I don't particularly like the graphics in this picture. It reminds me too much of CTP2.
And Thunderfall, holly green Batman! Now the pic looks green
I'm sure that even if the graphics look this bad that the game will rock. In addition to that, the great modifiers on this site will make and post a graphics fix for it.

<FONT face="tahoma">
All rights reserved, all wrongs avenged. </FONT f>

Apr 26, 2001, 06:13 PM
I think the graphics is quite cool, the colors are nice and warm. But it's going take a little while to get used to the changes of course.

<IMG SRC="" border=0>

[This message has been edited by R (edited April 26, 2001).]

Apr 26, 2001, 06:42 PM
i´m not sure but aren´t the pics from the smac based prototype?

what is the smoking thing in the lower left corner anyway and what is the function of the heads?

the river looks bad too.

Apr 26, 2001, 07:20 PM
I don't put a lot of stock in the screen shots.
Probably the best thing available, but I think the real deal will look better.

It's In The Way That You Use It

Tuatha De Danann Tribe (
ICQ 51553293

Loaf Warden
Apr 26, 2001, 07:47 PM
Personally, I thought the city names were too hard to read quickly. I don't know whether anyone else had a problem with it, but my color vision isn't quite up to scratch, and to me there was not enough contrast to make the city names easy to read without straining.

This is in addition to my agreement with those who say the irrigation looks bad and the disliking of the color discs under the units. But those are more minor points for me; I can easily forgive a game for sub-par graphics if the game is fun. To me, graphics aren't very important when compared to gameplay, fun, re-play value, and, when appropriate, storyline.

Still, it would be nice if they fixed the city name thing before the game is released so I don't have to strain my eyes every time I play. . . .

Apr 26, 2001, 09:42 PM
well, the screenshot gets my vote overall. the icons for the special resources are nice, and the depth and richness are decent, although i do agree with tf that there's room for more richness and variety in the colors.

i have to disagree, though, with those who think the discs under the units is bad. for one thing, it helps alot to see what position a unit is in, which is a big help for newcomers to the game. in civ1, it was very easy to determine the position of a unit, but it was quite ambiguous in civ2. my guess is that they added the discs as a fix to that. also, the discs are a nice cue to identify the civ a unit belongs to.

[This message has been edited by Prometheus (edited April 26, 2001).]

Håkan Eriksson
Apr 26, 2001, 11:43 PM
Yes! Wath a nice screenshots!!! you can see the borders and all! Nice graphics!

<IMG SRC="" border=0>

Apr 27, 2001, 12:31 AM
Has it occured to you that the other screans hots (I forget what mag - a british one that someone scanned) looked A HELL OF A LOT BETTER that this?

I am guessing the game will look much more like those pretty pastelish artsy shots than he icony stiffy sticks of graphics that are there. Liek eveyrone else said - it isnt bad - but it sure ain't what vicious Sid worked me up towards.
Oh well - I do agree - its gameplay that gets me

"The enemy attacks, we retreat;
The enemy camps, we harass;
The enemy tires, we attack;
The enemy retreats, we pursue."
- Concepts of Guerrilla Warfare (by the People's Liberation Army of China)

Apr 27, 2001, 12:53 AM
Hey I don't care what they look like, just seeing them means that this game is closer to release date


Mongol Horde
Apr 27, 2001, 03:37 AM
Has anyone been out and bought the mag yet? I will be going out in my lunch hour to check if the poxy little newsagent round the corner stocks it.

Håkan Eriksson
Apr 27, 2001, 04:15 AM
Maybe the second screen shoth is the lanch of a SPACE SHIP!

<IMG SRC="" border=0>

Apr 27, 2001, 09:25 AM
First post!

Let me introduce myself. I am Tricks.
I am new to turn based strategy games - the only two I have played (don't flame me) are CTP1 and CTP2. However, I cannot wait for Civ3.

I'm going to buy that magazine on the way home tonight, but about the screenshot. I know graphics are arguably the least important part of a turn-based strat game. However. IMO that Civ3 'shot looks almost identical to CTP2, maybe a bit uglier. What gives? The unit animations on however do look fanastic.

What I would really like to know is why Civ fans hate the CTP games so much! Can someone enlighten me?


Apr 27, 2001, 09:40 AM
i just understood
the numbers under the cities rnt the units in
but the turns left to build it...horsemen:53 wow lol

Håkan Eriksson
Apr 27, 2001, 10:04 AM
Welcome to the froum Tr|x or is it Tricks?

<IMG SRC="" border=0>

Håkan Eriksson
Apr 27, 2001, 10:13 AM
And remember also that this might not be their final grafiks. Maybe they will change the irregation.

<IMG SRC="" border=0>

Mongol Horde
Apr 27, 2001, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by Tr|x:

What I would really like to know is why Civ fans hate the CTP games so much! Can someone enlighten me?


Play civII and you will understand. Welcome to the forums mate. I hope you have a long and happy posting career.

<IMG SRC="" border=0>

The Mongols are coming.........

Apr 27, 2001, 01:50 PM
It is still early everyone. Firaxis can change how the graphics look everyday. Wait till it is released and then decide. When I changed from Civ to Civ2 it me some time to get used to the graphic changes but I love the graphics of Civ2 and it will take some time to get use to the changes in Civ3.

Apr 27, 2001, 02:48 PM
There are apparently some great features like deep water and borders but the graphics...

Well guys I do'wanna be pesimistic but the is not exactly what was waiting for...

-Are shields gone???
-Maybe the mountains and the forests are more realistic but look how stupid the units look when they stand on them!
-Is that supposed to be irrigation??? For those who have played the "Mars" Scenario well, they look exactly the same!!! They were far more realistic in civ II

<IMG SRC="" border=0>

<IMG SRC="" border=0> <IMG SRC="" border=0>


<IMG SRC="" border=0> <IMG SRC="" border=0>

[This message has been edited by Az (edited April 27, 2001).]

Andu Indorin
Apr 27, 2001, 03:06 PM
Frankly, graphics are not that important for me. As long as the overall look is "clean" and functional. ("Form follows function.") Otherwise, I hope they spend at least as much time improving the AI's capabalities as they appear to be on the graphics.

Apr 27, 2001, 04:04 PM
I agree with you but all I'm doing is criticising what I see...


<IMG SRC="" border=0> <IMG SRC="" border=0>

Apr 27, 2001, 05:46 PM
Overall impression: Very nice. Not much can be guessed from this pic about gameplay--which is far more important to just about everybody--but I give the graphics a solid 8 on a scale of 10.

Terrain: The mountains, hills, forest, and resources--all excellent (the mountains in particular are gorgeous). Ocean, also nice, especially the strip of sand at the shore. Plains? Desert? Salt flats? What is the rest of that stuff? I don't get it. Visual clarity, please. I agree that the irrigation looks horrible, and the roads not much better.

Units: Those little army-man circular bases have got to go. I realize that you've got to know somehow that that spearflinger is an Apache and not a Quebecois. But I much, much prefer the flag/shield system of Civ2. Also, I don't get how the base will tell you if the unit is damaged.
A 'small point': There is a unit right beneath St. Louis that looks, for my money, waaayy too much like a butt plug. (But then, I'm twisted...)

Grid: Related to the unit base is the question of how you tell which 'space' the unit is occupying. That's unclear to me here, which might or might not be fine...I'm the kind of player who spends the whole 4000 years with the grid ON anyway. Presumably that'll be an option in CIII.

Borders: I like 'em. A whole lot, from what I can see. Never played CTP or SMAC or whatever it is people complain they're too much like. And thank you, CivGods, for extending them into the water where appropriate.

Cities: Beautiful. Love to see what a big one looks like, but so far so good.

Colors: Nice overall, except for two things. The flat yellow-green needs work (as in terrain, above). And the tribal colors are much too pastel. No way I'm wanting to play as the Pepto-Bismol Pink Palestinians or Baby-Blanket Blue Barbarians of Boeotia. I also think bolder colors for that would make the city titles easier to read.

Population Indicator: There's something weird and creepy about those faces at the top. They've got a cadaver look that just kind of icks me out. (For whatever it's worth, I had the same reaction, but much milder, to many of the Leader Faces published previously.) Also, something obvious should be done to indicate whether they're happy, content, whatever.

The title bar: The adjectival form should be used there. The Romans Despotism sounds wrong. "The Roman Despotism", eh?

Iconography: Please, please, please give us those of us prejudiced toward Words over Visuals the option to label some of the buttons. I'm thinking in particular of the five at the lower right.

Miscellaneous thoughts: Someone asked what the burning thing is in the lower left. I don't think it's on fire...The white may be a bit of terrain (?) ... Any ideas on why some cities have a little "F" by them? Fortifications? Meaning City Walls?

Looking forward to more. God/dess bless and keep El Sid, Danny the Mouthpiece, and the rest of Tribe Firaxia.

Apr 28, 2001, 02:01 AM
Beautiful Screenshot though the terrain improvements need a little improvement themselves. BTW those guys faces on top are your advisors, something like those 5 five clowns who would pop from time to time bickering over what to advise me. I lke the Border system most and I think thise numbers next to a unit, under the city stand for the number of resources collected

Håkan Eriksson
Apr 28, 2001, 07:23 AM
I would like Dan from Raxis to reply to this post

<IMG SRC="" border=0>

Håkan Eriksson
Apr 28, 2001, 12:15 PM
Yes this "new" screen shot have a much better garfiks!

Maybe the army-man bases is a on/off option.

<IMG SRC="" border=0>

Apr 28, 2001, 12:47 PM
<IMG SRC="" border=0>

This is A LOT BETTER!!!

Notice the circle arround the city and the type of building currently being constructed...


<IMG SRC="" border=0> <IMG SRC="" border=0>

Apr 28, 2001, 01:07 PM
Four more scans from the PC GamePlay UK preview are available. These screenshots are actually better than the ones posted at PC GamePlay's own site. The irrigation graphics looks MUCH better! <IMG SRC="" border=0> Click on the thumbnails to see the full image:

<a href=""><IMG SRC="" border=0></a> <a href=""><IMG SRC="" border=0></a> <a href=""><IMG SRC="" border=0></a> <a href=""><IMG SRC="" border=0></a>

More details from the preview:

Completely Revamped ZOC system
Real Stacked Combat
New Tech Tree
Minor Wonders
Two new, so far secret, Multiplayer Modes
More details on the Resource system
New Barbarian model

New info on... Wonders
Jeff Briggs: "Wonders of the World are as important as ever. We have all the Civ2 ones, a couple of new ones, some that are old and function in new ways and a brand new set that we call "small wonders". While you can only constuct one of each Wonder of the World, small wonders can be built by every civilization, such as the Strategic Defense Initiative, Apollo Program and Manhattan Project.

The Great Canal is one of the new Wonders in the game. When you build that, you can chose a place on the map and connect two oceans, so it's like the Panama Canal. We also have the Great Wall, which is an old wonder, but now you can chose a section of your border and you get a wall that is really hard for someone to get through. We have another great Wonder, the Internet, but we're not sure exactly how that's going to function. We know it's got something to do with education, it will create a smart populace, but appart from that we're stumped."

New info on... Misc.
Multiplayer: "Right now we're looking at doing some unique things with the multiplayer, but we're not ready to start talking about it yet. The challenge in the past for turn-based games has been to make it really fun and we're looking at new ways of approaching that. We have two big online features, which I can't really say any more about. It's just not there yet and we're not comfortable talking about it. But both of these features are something you have never seen before and will be a big part of the game."

Start date: 4000 BC, as usual

Starting Units: One Settler, One Worker.

Number of Civilizations: Cut down to 16.

Number of Civilizations in one game: Still seven.

Victory Conditions: "UN Victory", essentially like "Diplomatic Victory" in SMAC added. Another possible addition is a Corporate Win: "We're talking about some new interest at the end, perhaps global investors, that spring up independently of any nation and control the end game if you make a deal with them. These are very unformed ideas, but we're looking at them."

Unique Units for Civs: Yes, they're in. Zulus - Impis. Americans - F15s. Germans - Panzer Tank.

Barbarians: "Barbarians now work in a totally different way. In this game Barbarians have cities, like all other civs, and they originate from these cities and make raids. Sometimes building roads can be really hard because there are barbarians out there that constantly attack. Each time you destroy a barbarian town, it will respawn itself in an area of the map you can't currently see. So what you have to try to do is set up a situation where you can see as much of the map as possible so that you can keep pushing them back.

New info on... Combat
Jeff Briggs (All quotes are from him, by the way, in case you wondered. The other info I try to summarise as much as possible): "Combat has become a much more significant part of the game. For starters, we have changed zones of control. In Civ2, all units had them, which made for some weird situations, like a phalanx fortified in the mountains stopping tanks going by. But we're finding the fewer zones of control we have the more fun the game is. Now only the fast, big units have them."

"We've also added bombardment. Catapults can now attack city walls and we have coastal bombardment. If you build a coastal fortress and a ship goes by it will immediately open fire." (Think about the potential for ocean choke points!)

BIGGEST NEW ADDITION (IMO): "Armies". Like a transport, you can place different units in an army and move them around together. "Say you have a tank and an infantry guy in an Army, and someone attacks. The unit with the best defense will stand up and do the defending until he gets worn down by the battle, then he will stop and the other will stand up and defend. The same thing happens in attack. So big armies are really, really powerful. In order to combat somebody who's got armies you pretty much have to build your own. It's an escalating thing which has a big impact on the game."

Armies can come into play in one of two ways: the most common is by researching Nationalism (new tech!). Once you've got nationalism, you can put your economy in one of three modes, mobilized, normal or peace. In peace mode, military buildings and units will cost twice as much, and peaceful buildings and units half as much. With mobilization the reverse happens, except you can now also build army units. The other way is through leaders, who will appear randomly after a successful battle. They will be named after real historical figures, and might also confer special benefits depending on their real historical status (the ones mentioned in the preview are Patton and "Stonewall" Jackson, with Patton adding a Tank bonus). "We'd like to do that - in some cases it makes a lot of sense, in others it doesn't. But Civ has always been very abstract in terms of its interpretations of when things occur and who's where. So we could easily go either way and make it work."

More info on... Nukes and Interface

Nukes: "There are two types of nuclear weapons. We have ICBMs that can hit anything on the map (yin26, Infinate missile range, eh - transcribers comment) and tactical nukes that can be put on submarines and launched as cruise missiles. If you think you can have a war and launch tactical nukes you can try it, but it's a challenge in the game just to survive the whole erea.
"The nuclear war part of the game should be (and this is something we're working on) something that you come to and pass through. In Civ2, it's sort of the end point. When you get nukes, everybody gets nukes and the game is pretty much over. In this game, if you're the first person to get them you will have an opportunity to benefit, but once everybody else gets them it's unlkiely that you can use them and have a successful game."

Interface: "The city screen is now on the map. We've put infromation at the bottom of the screen to make the player get more connected with the map and the cities. We're trying to keep the player on one screen as much as possible.
"One thing we really paid attention to is that is Civ2, there were a lot of pop-ups which would stop the game and you'd have to click through. Now we've put a lot of these pop-ups on the map so that you just read information and get on with the game.
"We're working hard to make it a seemless contious experience on the map instead of having to click a lot of buttons to proceed."

New info on... The Tech Tree

JB: "The tech tree is split into four sections: Ancient Times, Renaissance, Industrial and Modern. The new rules are that, in order to advance to the next section of the tech tree, you pretty much have to complete everything in the section before it, except what we call the arts or the intellectual pursuits.

"For example, you don't have to develop horseback riding in order to advance to the next era, nor anarchy, republic or literature. But literature gives you the Great Library, so they're useful to have. The whole new concept with the arts is that they're things you don't need to progress, but if you have them your civilisation is much stronger, more developed."

New info on... Trade, Resources, Culture

Resources: "When you look at the map now, you don't see that many resources. That's because they don't appear until you've researched the technology that needs them. For example, you can't see iron until you've researched iron working. And you might already have some, but it might be somewhere else.

"What we tried to do is clump the stuff. It's not spread evenly over the map. The idea is that one player can corner the market on, say, iron and he becomes a powerbroker in the game. The same thing happens with uranium, so your diplomatic relations become really important. You definately want to have friends that have the stuff you need so that you can trade with them. If not the only way to get the stuff is to attack people.

"By the time you get to the end of the game you really needto have coal, iron, oil and rubber otherwise you can't build anything. The way you develop a civilization, to a large extent, depends on where you start the game and what kind of resources you have available. If you start in an area that has iron you're in good shape at the beginning, but later on in the game iron is not enough."

Trade: You can trade in Luxuries, and resources. Luxuries goods trade is vital to keep happiness up, and resource trade (as you can see above) will be exceptionally important. Keeping peace will be more important than before, because you need a constant supply of resources to build your units. Complex diplomatic treaties and trade agreements can be arranged.

Culture: Accumulated by long-time cultural city improvements (as in last preview). Three effects:

(a) In diplomacy, a high culture rating will make other civs admire you more, and positive outcomes are more likely as a result.

(b) A high culture rating will literally expand your borders, the Greater your civilization the larger it will become.

(c) The aforementioned effect of pacifying newly conquered cities. Cities can now resist in a variety of fun and interesting ways; citizens can refuse to work, lower the defense value of the city, or revolt and rejoin their original civ.

Our thanks to <a href="" target=link>Apolyton</a> and especially its forum poster Snapcase for posting the the details from the preview</a>!

[This message has been edited by Thunderfall (edited April 29, 2001).]

Loaf Warden
Apr 28, 2001, 02:48 PM
Okay, there's no real reason to comment on the parts I like--let's just say I'm very excited about a number of things.

However . . .

1) Combat is being made more significant? How much more significant can it be? It already takes up most of the game. Ah, well. With new victory conditions, maybe I won't have to fight all the time anyway.

2) I am extremely disappointed that they have added specialized units. I still maintain that this will just bollocks up the balance and take away from what I consider to be one of the main things Civ has over other games of this kind--the fact that all civs have an equal chance at the beginning, and the only thing that will give an advantage to one civ or another is good leadership.

3) Why, why, why would they reduce the number of civs in the game? It would have been a disappointment enough if they had simply not added more, but now they tell us they are taking some away? It doesn't make sense. I had understood that everything that changes in a sequel is theoretically supposed to do so in order to improve the game. How does it improve the game to take civs away from us? I know I can't speak for everyone, but I was happy when they added more for Civ II. I thought it added to the game. Removing some will not add to the game, it will take away from it.

[This message has been edited by Loaf Warden (edited April 28, 2001).]

Apr 28, 2001, 03:16 PM
this info is all very cool, but I too am upset at the number of civ's. Although I've read the arguments about the exponentially higher amount of processing power it takes for each additional AI controlled civ, why would they take away from the number of civs that you can choose from? And despite those arguments about the limit of in-game civs, I have great trouble believing that the limits cannot be stretched just a little bit farther on a computer today from the limits established for computers several years ago. I propose we run another pole to see what peoples' current opinions on the civ limit are.

Håkan Eriksson
Apr 28, 2001, 03:24 PM
WOW!!! It's rely exciting to read about all the new things!!! I like the advisor screen! Many good new ideas!!

As for the cut-down of the number Civilizations i think they had to do that. Since now it seems that every civilization is more unique. More specefide leaders and uniue units make every civ to make more space.

<IMG SRC="" border=0>

Apr 28, 2001, 04:46 PM
great canal... doesn´t sound like a wonder i´m gonna race to build.

Apr 28, 2001, 05:41 PM
>Thanks for the link.<

My pleasure.

I still don't get why they'd be releasing such dissimilar screenshots...unless we're unwittingly participating in some clever market research. Heh.

Which I've got no problem with, either. C'est la guerre.

Apr 28, 2001, 05:48 PM
the pics reminds me of a game that came a couple of years ago called 'conquers' or something like that. the game was like colonization about colonize america. the incaesar2 pic with the horseman reminds me a lot of that game, just can´t recall the name of it. i´m gonna see if i can find the name of it somewhere.

is it pentagon we can see on the cityview pic? is the pentagon a new wonder? is the colloseum and a stadium there too?

Apr 28, 2001, 11:21 PM
Interesting. Hmmm.

I just returned from the 'other' Civ site, and they've got a very similar screenshot up from PC Gameplay. However:

--There are no 'army-man' bases on units.

--The difference between desert, plains, and grassland is crystal clear.

--The irrigation is different (better).

I've debated the ethics of posting a link to the competition...I guess if I'm out of line my post will be struck with godly thunder. I would understand, no problem. In the meantime, you can see what I'm yammering about here:

Apr 28, 2001, 11:56 PM
Thanks for the link. The irrigation in that screenshot looks better and different than the "irrigations" in the previous screenshot.

btw, can someone in UK scan the entire preview and send it to me? I would like to post it. Thanks.

[This message has been edited by Thunderfall (edited April 28, 2001).]

Apr 29, 2001, 12:59 AM
I See that the popular demands of most civ lovers have been met and this may be the best Sid Meier game yet. I just want to know whether they will allow us to customize our civs or we hav to accept only their 16 civs. I liked the second set of pics way better thn the firt andthey look a lot better. The resources idea is an excelleny one and will make the game far more interesting. Also the introduction of culture will prevent any civ from building mass units from a just captured city. The Nuke concept will probably make combat in the latte stages of the game far more intresting and prevent "modern" scenarios from ending up as nuke exchanges. In short I sincerel hope Firaxis releases a demo or shareware, to satisfy theniggling curiosities of Civfanatics, which cannot be quenched by mere screenshots

Apr 29, 2001, 12:25 PM
the game i was thinking about is called conquest of the new world. i haven´t played it since -96 so i´m not sure how it exactly looked like, but i think that civ3 reminds of it. have anyone else played it or have screenshoots of it?

Apr 29, 2001, 12:27 PM
I like the idea of tribute being payed on a continuous basis (N gold per turn), and also loans and interest! MONEY MONEY MONEY

Loaf Warden
Apr 29, 2001, 02:41 PM
Well, for my part, the reason I seem overly critical is because I'm only commenting on the points I have complaints about. To list all the things I'm excited about would be rather long and redundant. Suffice to say if I didn't complain about it, I'm probably happy about it.

Originally posted by Dreadnought:
I think that even though war has becoe more significant, i don' think they meant there would be more. I think they meant that it would be more inflential. Like a few battles between opposing forces could decide the fate of a civilzation instead o f about 50 or so..anyone follow.

I see what you mean. Yes, that would be good. Wars as they stand now can often last centuries and involve dozens of 'battles' that really amount to just meaningless squabbles. An Armor falls here, a Marine there, and the war itself goes on unaffected. The only important battles are the sieges (of cities, mainly, but sometimes of fortresses as well). It would be good if they are making battles more significant within the war itself. Of course, with the new stacked armies feature, it will be easier to do that, I think.

Håkan Eriksson
Apr 29, 2001, 03:29 PM
Ít seems to me that Strategy will be a much more important role in civ3 than it is in civ2.

Now all you have to do (simplified a litlle) is to get Fundamentlaism and buy and send all military units as you can at your enemy.

<IMG SRC="" border=0>

Apr 29, 2001, 05:00 PM
Things I like.

1. The mini-wonders concept. Now to get in space, all races would need Apollo.

2. Units ability to attack each other from ranges, very good. This includes the sea bombardment areas.

Things I'm unsure of:

1. The Army system: Depends on how it works. It might seem overly complicated. Also, I like ambushing a large group and destroying all the units. Now it is like they are in a city or something.

2. The Barbarians: This could be very cool. On the other hand, having constantly to build units to hunt down and attack barbarians could be annoying. Also will these barbarian cities respawn in the territories of other empires?

Things I hate:

1. Custom UNITS!!! One of the great things about this game is that does not matter what group you start out with. Now its going to be unbalanced, as some units will inevitably prove to be better than other units. Then there will be wining and endless debates over which Civ is the best. Aggggghhhhhh.

2. The entire Mobilized, Normal, or Peace. First, wasn't this in CTP ( I wouldn't know, I never played the game ). I think governments should reflect on what kind of military you have. In a government like Fundy, it's like you have declared martial law and have already mobilized. It's not a government to be under during peace. On the other hand, Democracy is an excellent government for peace, as fighting wars makes keeping people happy very unpopular.

Frankly, I'm starting to get nervous, but I trust Sid.

Apr 29, 2001, 05:21 PM
it think the new barbarian thing is good, cause now it won´t be possible to explore a whole continent with a horseman and building a empire will now be more like how it was to the romans.

Apr 29, 2001, 06:28 PM
So, would anyone care to guess which civs they are cutting?

Apr 29, 2001, 11:32 PM
Oh man!! Just reading those articals was awesome..this game is going to be soo cool.

I think that even though war has becoe more significant, i don' think they meant there would be more. I think they meant that it would be more inflential. Like a few battles between opposing forces could decide the fate of a civilzation instead o f about 50 or so..anyone follow.

And i'm really glad that trade agian is going to be SO important. Your really going to have to trade in this game to win. In civ II you didn't even have to in lower levels like prince.

This game is going to be awesome beyond belief. i really think some of you guys are being to critical. The graphic arn't bad, they just need to be tweaked. Like the city name for example. You'll get used to all the other changes pretty quick. there probobly for the better anyway, and if there not, all the beta testing will solve that problem.

Yeah nice to be back tin the forum!!!

"It is well that war is so terrible-we should grow too fond of it."
-Gen. Robert E. Lee, 1863

Mongol Horde
Apr 30, 2001, 04:41 AM
This is excellent news really, it has put the game right back on its pedestal for me. I echo LoafWardens sentiments really in that most if it is great but I have just one or two niggles:

1. Lowering the number of civs is disappointing if not earth shattering.


At the end of the day you can't expect everything and there are some tremendous ideas in there noteably armies and trade/resources. So who's excited then?

Apr 30, 2001, 08:28 AM
I'd guess the decision to give customized personalities and units to civs is limiting the overall number of civs on offer. Hopefully they find a way around that .. i really get sick of fighting the same civs over and over ("oh no, not next to the Zulus again..")

As for units, it's sort of cool that Germans produce panzers, Americans F-15s etc but I'm doubtful they'll get each civ to end up with equal tools. Maybe they should just make it decorative? ... the units look different but have the same ratings?

Apr 30, 2001, 08:46 AM
I assume the reason for cutting the number of civs was the resources required to come up with things like the super-duper-3-D-wiz-bang-transmogrifiying-animated leaders like Abe and Mao. I find this unfortunate because I honestly question how much they will improve gameplay and...well, I still think they look like they have serious G-I tract issues.

I also agree that the civ-specific units are a bad idea...leave that to the scenario makers. The whole point is that *WE* dictate the outcome of our civs, not "real" history. Every civ should be able to develop whatever they want based on their choices.

Does this mean there are separate tech trees for each civ as well? That, too seems like a bad idea.

Also, is anyone else surprised at how much of the design seems to still be up in the air? From a software development perspective it seems like they're going to cut it pretty close. Can you say "Buggy"?

Like many others, I am focusing on the negative here. I have seen and heard many very good things. But maybe if Dan M. is lurking around here he can at least give us the party line on some of these topics. Please?

DEATH awaits you all...with nasty, big, pointy teeth.

Apr 30, 2001, 09:55 AM
Civ specific units and leaders seem to be a bad idea to me. It will make game play unbalanced. Leave that to scenarios. They probably cut some of the lesser know civs from Civ2, probably the Souix, Spanish, Indians, maybe even the Japanese. I have never played as the first three civs and only once as the Japanese. The well known civs will be in Civ3, Americans, English, Germans, Romans, Zulus, Egyptians, Russians, Chinese.

Apr 30, 2001, 02:08 PM
I think that the enemy's mustn't start throwing nukes at once, but think about the conseqeunces. Nukes as last resort otherwise yuo will get immediate nuke war.

Apr 30, 2001, 08:56 PM
as long as the persians, romans, americans, and mongols are still there, i will be fine. otherwise, i will demand tribute to my patience.

i like the idea of different units.

everything sounds good except the number of civs. very bad, very bad. i was hoping for a 30-civ slugfest.

in diplomacy, can you request a peace treaty between two civs? i just hate being torn between my allies.

Loaf Warden
Apr 30, 2001, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by TimTheEnchanter:
I assume the reason for cutting the number of civs was the resources required to come up with things like the super-duper-3-D-wiz-bang-transmogrifiying-animated leaders like Abe and Mao. I find this unfortunate because I honestly question how much they will improve gameplay and...well, I still think they look like they have serious G-I tract issues.

Ugh! That's a valid hypothesis . . . personally, I would gladly do without those constipated zombie figures if it meant their removal would let us keep all our civs. (Actually, I could do without them anyway.) In fact, I would be more than happy for diplomacy to be reduced to text-only with no images at all if they would give us more civs to deal with. Let the graphics take a backseat to gameplay, please!

May 01, 2001, 01:03 AM
Looking good, looking very good.

May 01, 2001, 10:05 AM
Lots of good stuff to think about in that article.

I like the idea of armies - hopefully it will allow for combined arms combat as well (e.g. cavalry and infantry being better than cavalry alone)

Really like the different wonders - I always thought it was wrong that when one civ builds Manhattan or Apollo, everyone benefits. Now you can have a real space/arms race.

Not sure about this Corporate victory though - sounds a bit like they've been reading too much anti-globalisation stuff. Maybe it combines with the idea of getting interest on your money. Could investment be a part of the game now? Could be interesting - and I always thought it odd that modern governments would still have huge piles of gold sitting around.

Like the barbarians idea - hopefully it means that they'll stop popping up in the end game right in the middle of your territory. Will it be possible to talk to/trade with them, to get them to oppose your enemies? Something like the Roman Empire did (for all the good it did them)

Anything they can do to reduce the number of clicks required has to be good. It's a real disincentive to increase your luxury rate knowing that you'll have to go through 30 announcements of WLTP days!

Trade and luxury stuff sounds interesting, but I'd have to see how it works.

I'm not sure about this unique units idea - after all, an impi is no match for a panzer! But I like the way it works in the TOT scenarios.

I agree with what people have said about not needing improved graphics for diplomacy - what's the point if they're all going to gang up on you anyway?

Mongol Horde
May 01, 2001, 10:43 AM
Welcome aboard Supernaut, I see that you are our newest fanatic. Good post one before this, intelligent, on topic and adding something new to the discussion. I hope you stay around and post some more. I see that you are replying in my ranged attacks thread I wonder what you will make of it................

May 02, 2001, 02:48 PM
I know a lot of you hate how the graphics are one of the main priorities for Firaxis and think they're spending too much time on it, but a lot of people won't care about Civ3 if the graphics suck. Sure there's thousands of experienced Civ players, but there's also people who look at the game box and go "Wow, the graphics are awesoem. I'm buying it"

There has to be graphics good enough to compete with games like Red Alert 2 etc.

May 02, 2001, 05:03 PM
do you think it will be possible to take out a civ in one turn with nukes?

May 12, 2001, 09:08 AM
I believe that they will most likely try to fit the game on to a reqular 700 MB CD which would explain why they have to cut civs if they want to put the graphics in. If they are using CD's why not produce on DVD which gives you 2.6 GB single side or 5.2 double side which would give them more than enough room to keep the graphics and current number of civs and room for more.

As far as the screen shots they look good with the exception of civ colors and irrigation. I can't wait to get my hands on a pre-release demo.

May 17, 2001, 05:26 AM
Maybe they will leave only such civ like american, canadian, brasilian, english and other countries where they expect to sell most copies of the game...

May 17, 2001, 06:17 AM
i agree with who ever said 'CIV IS NOT AOE!'
i mean, those beaches, sure they look cool, but they are not nessecsary, and that irragation looks GAY. i dunno, i don't want to have to get a better computer to run c3.

May 17, 2001, 02:22 PM
One of many things I liked in Standart Civ and in CivII was the some units for all civs. By the way, playing Civ, you are building new, and independent History. And was Germans able to discover Panzer Tanks in other variant of history? No, no and no. So this feature we don't need. What we need is a, bigger amount of civs and bigger amount of one game civs.

May 17, 2001, 09:41 PM
Come on SCORCH! A great discusion about a game we all love and have in common; and you have to use phrases like "irragation looks GAY."
-Please be more responsible with your choice of words, no need to offend anyone whether intentionally or through ignorance. bring on CIVIII!!!