3 Problems of Civ 3

[Graadiapolistan]

Civ 4 should fix 3 problems.

1. The First Age should be split into at least 2 or 3 ages (stone, bronze, iron) or (bronze, iron). Persian immortals shouldn't even be able to compete with Roman legions, and definately not with midieval infantry. Chariots are useless, and therefore the Hittites and Egyptians are doomed.

2. Spearman are invincible. Spearman should not even be able to wound any unit using guns (except perhaps musketmen)

3. The civs one are be are poorly chosen. China had many different dynasties, one should be able to choose the ming or the han, while the celts were continuously conqured by every nation they came in contact with

It has always been a pet peeve of mine that the Ai won;t trade cities.

Note* This is a personal opinion, if I'm wron I'm wrong, but don't get angry at me

 

[mastertyguy]

1 What's the point
2 and beat tanks bring back firepower!!!!!
3 OK, there is room for 19, what if 3 are Chinese dinasty? wouldn't it be annoying. Seriuously , the soultion is a civ named western civilization, including USA, UK, France, etc. but it would be a little boring, as most civ players are from those countries. but it would give place to QC !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Portuguese]

1. I agree to more ages, as it gives more depth. I am not seeing they doing it, though...

2. If you had read the news, you'd now they have corrected that in Civ4

3. I don't agree and it is not likely. I do agree they could choose the leaders a bit more carefull though...
PS: and idea on different leaders available for each civ have been discussed but put down due to the graphic resources and disc space it would require, and with 19 civs only we cannot afford to have 5 different dinasties from China...

Why should we be mad with one with plausable ideas written in such a way?

Off topic: Is that me or is there someone lobbying for a province to become a Civ when the country itself is not a civ?

 

[Graadiapolistan]

One time in a starcraft foruma couple of years ago... I posted an idea for starcraft 2

Then everybody started "yelling" at me and flaming me, they wanted the post to be taken off. Why? Because "You think the designers don't allready know this!!!!"- I'm careful that everybody knows that I'm just tossing around Ideas

 

[Graadiapolistan]

Oh- also I think the Iriqous and the Zulu should be there but the aboriginies shouldn't
The Celts and the vikings shouldn't- Perhaps Normans?
Rome and Byzantium should remain 2
Arabia should be 2- wait allready have ottomons- I guess you could leave it...
China should be 2- Modern china and Han china (more would be rediculus, but we must recognise chineese empires! Romes covered france and Germany and spain and england geographically, but we have all those countries)
Add Guje (Tibet)
There were afew countries east of the Muslim empire before mongolia conquered them- one should be added
Take out babylon (Persia being almost the same) or add Assyria
Although this will never happen...- Take away Greece and make Macedonia
India should be 2- The Indus Valley Civilizatiion- not much is known and India
All the rest can remain the same
I find it unfair how the Americans conquered the Iriqous
The Spanish Conquered the Mayans Aztecs and Incas and they are seperate civs
While India was conqured many times and has only 1
China went under many different leaders and in civ is only China

This is what I think the leader heads should be

Note* This is a personal opinion, if I'm wron I'm wrong, but don't get angry at me

 

[CurtSibling]

There is this thing called marketing.

The developers will field all the well-known and instantly recognisable culture groups,
in order to make the game playable and to appeal to a wide audience...Sure we all
love historical detail, me more than most, but we have to accept that CIV4 will be
ruled by the publishers and marketing teams. That is why I stick with CIV2, as the
sky is the limit, except for the crap AI...

.

 

[mastertyguy]

2. If you had read the news, you'd now they have corrected that in Civ4

As in civ2 and civ3. Then for civ5, 6, 7 and someday, when I'll be 100 years old, they may make it better. Don't make me laugh! But I think it went backward it this way in civ3, bring back firepower!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

For me, a key issue is to have an Ancient Age and Classical Age, as they are VERY different and distinctive ages, and deserve as much seperate consideration as Middle and Industrial Age did. Also, to keep things even, Middle Ages might be split up into two as well, to mark the strong delineation between the Low Middle Ages (what we know of as the Dark Ages) and the High Middle Ages (the period which ended with the Age of Enlightenment).
Anyway, just a thought.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sir_schwick]

1. Remove ages and go to a more interesting tech tree scheme. The ages concept was experimented in Civ 3, but found to limit flexibility and historical 'what-ifs'.

2. The entire combat system could use a good reworking.

3. Personally I am sad to see they are stopping at 19 civs. This may just be a concession that modders do the legwork, but I doubt it. Instead it signals the 'vast empty plains' punctuated by a few cities landscape that has dominated Civ for 3 iterations.

4. It seemed like a good way to simulate territory exchange.

 

[Graadiapolistan]

For me, a key issue is to have an Ancient Age and Classical Age, as they are VERY different and distinctive ages, and deserve as much seperate consideration as Middle and Industrial Age did. Also, to keep things even, Middle Ages might be split up into two as well, to mark the strong delineation between the Low Middle Ages (what we know of as the Dark Ages) and the High Middle Ages (the period which ended with the Age of Enlightenment).

This was only in Europe- elswhere there was no seperation of the mid- ages wich is why it bothers me the knight is there it should be heavy cavalry or sometng

Anyway- the ancient Age I think should be Stone, Bronze, Iron (cassical- such as persia), Iron (Inperial- such as Rome)

This is because the ancient age is so fun, the game gets repetative later on

-just an idea, wouldn't it be awesome to have small countries like small wonders (poland, afhanastan, parthia, yugoslavia, soux) that you could boss around and manipulte- you couldn't be them but yiou could install new leaders declare without a reputation hit as much like small countries today

 

[Colonel]

-just an idea, wouldn't it be awesome to have small countries like small wonders (poland, afhanastan, parthia, yugoslavia, soux) that you could boss around and manipulte- you couldn't be them but yiou could install new leaders declare without a reputation hit as much like small countries today

If you like what you have said you might want to look up the minor civilizations idea.

 

[Dachs]

I am particularly angry with tactics in Civ 3. I mean, I hit a mech infantry from the front with Modern Armor and can't kill it. Okay. I hit it from another side with more MA. It should be oriented toward the first MA, and so would not be able to defend adequately against the other one because its flanks would be wide open. Instead, it defends against the other unit like it did against the first one! I'm not too bad at maneuver warfare, but in Civ it's completely destroyed!

 

[sir_schwick]

Once again this is an issue of what tiles truly represent. If its a very large area, then you would be suprised what kinds of manuevers would be possible. Also flanking is not as effective against mobile targets unless they are engaged, even at the division scale. Of course this is the best argument for battlegroup combat and combined arms factoring in.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

1. Like Aussie Lurker said, the better division of the Ancient Age would be: Ancient Age and Classical Era. Almost everywhere in the world had that clear distinction. I think some better balancing or expanding of ancient times, and the shrinking of the Industrial and Modern Eras would be good step. I never, ever got a game which lasted into the modern era. The Industrial Era was so slow and largely irrational (with MPPs, the entire world would be at war, and everyone would end up in war with you no matter what you do) that I ended up by winning by Culture, Domination or Conquest, or quitting.

2. They said they'll improve it. I reckon Civ 3 was a step back in this; it was about as good as it was in Civ 1.

3. I don't like their civ choices either. But it is all marketing, and every bum-land in the world wants to be a civ. I wish they'd just go for a fair balance though, instead of the massive Euro-centrism which has dominated every Civ game.

Anyway, my three Problems with Civ 3 were:
1. The editor. It couldn't do enough to begin with. You could not make flat maps, use a minimap, make a decent scenario, or make units (unless you got Moenir's FLICster). It was a royal pain in the arse to edit diplomacy and so forth text files, edit the tech tree, or make a good and useful Civilopaedia. The shoddy releasing of PTW didn't help much as a lot of people ended up not getting it through all the fuss and bother.

2. The Mongols weren't released as an original civ.

3. The Ancient Age and the early Medieval Age went too quickly. Slow expansion and the tech pace down so that several units (like Chariots) and choosing tech branches could actually become strategic. On the other end of the scale, the Industrial Age went too slowly.

 

[Vael]

If ages are kept for Civ 4 I would not want to see the Ancient Age split up even more. It may be the most interesting era, but drawing it out further will only make the other ages less important than they already are.

 

[Graadiapolistan]

If ages are kept for Civ 4 I would not want to see the Ancient Age split up even more. It may be the most interesting era, but drawing it out further will only make the other ages less important than they already are.

"the ancient age" covers 99.998% of human history

of course it should be split up, the modern age and indultrial age are tiny parts of human history.

I find the ancient age the most fun, i would find the game the most fun if one played through dtone age and bronze age and iron age and advanced iron age and midieval age, then went into the modern ones. That's just my opinion, I think it would be fun

 

[Colonel]

The stone age can't be an age as it is before the first civilizations were formed, short of createing a nomadic age you can't have a stone age. As for spliting age is up, this is how it should go.

Bronze Age-->Iron Age-->Later Ancient Times-->Dark Ages-->Age of Conquest-->Renassiance-->Age of Exploration-->Early Industrial Age-->Age of Imperialism-->Later Industrial Age-->Modern Era

Also each era would need to last at least X turns (cant decide anyone choose)

To solve the problem of going by to fast, you would have to settle for longer research times for a good portion of the game, also you would have to have something to limit mass settler explosion which would envitabaly be there

*PS sorry to non Westerners who think those eras are to Eurocentric but Europe is the only contient to affect events in all of the other 5 inhabited contients, in most of recorded history*

 

[Vael]

"the ancient age" covers 99.998% of human history

of course it should be split up, the modern age and indultrial age are tiny parts of human history.

I find the ancient age the most fun, i would find the game the most fun if one played through dtone age and bronze age and iron age and advanced iron age and midieval age, then went into the modern ones. That's just my opinion, I think it would be fun

But this is a game about human civilization, not human history.

 

[Colonel]

and the difference is

 

[Graadiapolistan]

The stone age can't be an age as it is before the first civilizations were formed, short of createing a nomadic age you can't have a stone age. As for spliting age is up, this is how it should go.

Bronze Age-->Iron Age-->Later Ancient Times-->Dark Ages-->Age of Conquest-->Renassiance-->Age of Exploration-->Early Industrial Age-->Age of Imperialism-->Later Industrial Age-->Modern Era

Parts of the egyptian and indus valley and fertile crescent were in the stone age

perhaps you would start out as a nomadic tribe or something- but the tone age should definately be in there-I agree with you except that later industrial should be removed and stone dhould be added

and later "ancient" times- perhaps the dawn of sivilization or someting, but I know a lot of people disagree, but I see the dark ages more "ancient" then roman times (not chronologically of course, but by the culture and science)