3 Problems of Civ 3

[sir_schwick]

How about we rid ourselves of ages so these discussions are not an issue? Civ 2 did fine without categorizing development according to our history rather than the game you were playing's history.

 

[Graadiapolistan]

I think that although ages are unneccesary for ecperienced gamers people new to thr game rely on them to get their bearings

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Call me an Optimist, Sir_Schwick, but I am hopeful that this might mark a move AWAY from the vast empty plains of the past 3 civ games. The important wording that was used is 19 playable civs. Now, I might be reading too much into this, but I hope that it means that other civs will be represented as Minor Civs-bringing them up from their current status as mere goody huts and barbarian encampments.
Like I said, though, this might just be wishful thinking on my part.
As for ages, I actually think this was a GREAT addition-though it should be a little more flexible, and should be based on more than merely the tech tree (i.e., you should need to have a certain level of cultural, social and/or economic development first).

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Graadiapolistan]

Ages are just "land"marks- they make the game more fun but have no real use

like i said before they help bring new people into the game

an experienced player doesn't need ages- but perhaps it helps gameplay

 

[Vael]

and the difference is

History includes anything related to humankind, from apes onward. Civilization is much more specific, requiring the building cities above all else, though also includes other ingredients like agriculture, domestication, writing and so on. Though exact definitions vary. This is why the game begins in 4000 BC - there were very few civilizations prior to this date and certainly none over 10-15,000 years ago.

 

[Graadiapolistan]

regardless, the "ancient" age takes up a majority of human "civilization" and I think it should be longer, for it is allready dwarfed by the less fun modern and inustrial ages

 

[Vael]

Very little progress was made during those years though. I don't really care much for an era where it takes thousands of years to complete a single tech (to put it into Civ-terms). Tanks and Bombers and diplomacy and colonization and conquest is fun for me. Not learning about how to plow dirt.

 

[Graadiapolistan]

Perhaps what civ 4 needs is multiple modes of play- i like ancient age- you like modern-

 

[Vael]

Well, if nothing else the game should hopefully be moddable enough to give everyone what they want.

 

[Graadiapolistan]

one thing that civ 3 does well is get many different audiences together playing one game. i think civ 4 will succumb to marketing and just be civ 3 with better graphics and ai, i don't think many other changes will be made

 

[Vael]

That certainly remains to be seen. What I've read so far has me optimistic though. My understanding is that Civ 3 was rushed out and didn't have a smooth development process, and even after that it was still a great game. Civ 4 seems to be the game Soren, the designer, has wanted Civ to be but wasn't able to do with Civ 3.