Big fan of civilization 2 but 2 words sum up my thoughts on civ 3

Charmer indeed but if you gotta have MP only MP will do. I can take it or leave it all I want to do is build a big empire on a huge map with high culture and dispose of any tribe that prevents same but a little bit of corruption(well rather a lot) let me down.
Seems a reasonable sort of request for a civ game if I just want to play war games seven kingdoms is far more fun and harder than this. Yes I like winning but in style not scorched earth and no I never played civ2 on deity level if my citizens are unhappy getting out of bed in the morning then let them be. Problem with these 'ego trip' levels is that they distort the whole purpose of games and render much of it obsolete. I am trying to do something about corruption levels by working the editor which I can get into occasionally by repeatedly disabling group start (msconfig) and rebooting most of the time I get 2 empty windows and everything hung. The only viable things I have seen in posts
is increasing optimal number of cities I don't understand original values since a small map is 9 times smaller than a huge map (no of squares) and hence huge should be 9 times larger not 3 maybe somebody doesn't realize the relationship between sides of a square and surface area or radius and same; also decreasing corruption on city improvements so my religious improvements temple cathedral are going to do that(my religious citizens would not be corrupt at any price) plus my courthouse is going to cost peanuts so they can be built easy at a distance. Does anyone know how to change government from Republic to Democracy without losing seven turns what a sack of sugar that is. The only other fix made since I always play English was male, king and Henry still get graphic Liz but better than being called Ma'am.
This may enable the sort of game I want to play if it don't it departs from my hard disk and something more satisfying will replace it put the fifty bucks down to bad experience with makers and bye blue period. Maybe I'm being naive; is the huge map option decoratiion only? Game maybe ok, as is, for hair shirt and self flagration brigade but I'm not that fanatical. I still can't get my head around the statement 'I like corruption' yeah right I've just captured 2 enemy cities sitting on scarce resources and due to the map size are remote from my capital - one poxy production per turn!!! and they have got my 20 Knight Templers shining upright examples of incorruptability who rule the cities with a rod of iron and impose harsh punishment for crime in situ. This is supposed to be about building cities is it? probably take workers most of the game to build a road there so where can I put the harbour if there was no city and a colony and I thought Caesar 3 +variants was crap on trade. Mind you speed the thing develops at maybe Pharoah building pyramids brick by monotonous brick had some plus points at least the wonder was on display and my offspring loved the talking sprites. I wonder if the same programmers did the market ladies and automated workers(civ3) - like politicians lots of running around without much effect.

Now for all those that constantly whinge about whingers how about putting some grey matter into above so that I can have 2/3 of map win on a huge map pategonia plus good cities (most improvements) and wonders warlord level will do for starters only going to war when forced or to secure resource. In fact I'd like to go further than 2/3 but it's a good base.
 
I beleive you need to give Firaxis and there boys some credit! they have already released a patch that has infact helped a ton and yet people still bash them. They obveously know what there doing or they wouldnt be one of the best game inventing companies. Yes the game has problems but it is still new i wonder how long it took to get all of the bugs out of civ 2 and before we got MP!! My advice it to jsut sit back relax have fun wiht the game the way it is and have your mom wash your mouth out wit soap...!
 
Bob hitchen

I think maybe you should send your ideas to Firaxis and ask them to design a new game, because the game you want to play isn't CIV III, CIV III was not designed to play as you want, and never will be.

I am not sure if there are any games on the market that are how you want, and i must say I would also like a game to play the way you indicate, I love CIV III and also the one you talk about, but they are not the same, and never are meant to be the same.

In my opinion.:)
 
Every one of these threads always ends up as "those who love the game" vs "those who hate the game" with name-calling, insults, etc.

Meanwhile, I suspect there's a large group of people out there like me who are "in the middle". We like the game and are playing, but we're disappointed. We wanted the game to be better, to be deeper, to be more unique from anything that's been done before.

It's not something I'd get into a fight over -- again, I like the game... I'm still playing... but yes, I am a bit disappointed.

Jon
 
Hi Cutiestar,

this really is the issue here if you look at what really
disappoints former civ2 players in this forum it is precisely the lack of scaling and flexibility. Zone corruption is just too crude an instrument to allow variation in map size or land layout (terrain forces ribbon development like nerve fibres) so it can't effectively be done on number of squares from capital without imposing frustrating limitations on the huge game. There are other ways of restricting massive early development that would allow better scaling a simple one would be if you take an enemy capital you get the palace with it that would allow far better but still limited development the second method would just have a option on the setup screen to get rid of zone corruption or scale it; there are myriad other ways that would achieve similar ends.

I prefer to stick to the issues in this forum unfortunately the love it/hate it ping pong produces so much noise that these get lost in the melee and achieve nothing but fixed positions and in some cases downright rudeness. Civ3 sells because of past classics in the series and I can't understand design decisions that alienate former players hence lose segments of the market. In concentrating on making things difficult and keeping tribes at or around the same level the whole balance of the game has been
undermined.
 
Originally posted by Bob Hitchen
Civ3 sells because of past classics in the series and I can't understand design decisions that alienate former players hence lose segments of the market.


Point of fact, I am glad to have spent my $50, and Civ3 is one of the best selling games on the market today -- #6.

I have played quiet games with wonder building;

I have fought very difficult wars with Civs being at similar levels, and actually won a major confrontation with rifles and cannons against entrenched infantry (that was hard, and took many turns per city);

Just finished an easy war where I was the only one who had tanks, used naval to cut off their resources, and just blitzed the enemy in a few turns;

Played ancient conquerer winning with Mounted Warriors;

I have played as a vassal, having happy citizens and strong friends to protect me;

Lost a few too, but not without having fun. So there are many ways to play the game.


I usually play on Monarch Level. I vary the map, but usually play on wet, continental, standard size. There are many things I would change, suggest, but that is part of the fun, too.
 
Don't start that "My right to whine" crap here. It IS your right to whine, so nobody start that "You have no right to whine" crap either. In fact, why don't we try and keep the conversation free of finger pointing so that I don't have to play big bad mod and chop this thing off at the knees.
 
I also enjoy a lot playing.
Agree with Zachriel that fighting with cannons against entrenched infantery is very difficult.
In that part of the game there is no strong offensive unit. You have to wait until tanks are discovered.
Cannons are useful for lowering the defense of the city.
BUT, you do so by 'killing' civilians. When it drops under 6, there is no defense-bonus of 50%. And I feel somewhat guilty about that.
:(
There seems no other way, because the cavalery or rifles can't win by themselves.
 
Originally posted by dutch-legionary
BUT, you do so by 'killing' civilians. When it drops under 6, there is no defense-bonus of 50%. And I feel somewhat guilty about that. :(

Aim at the military units. The civilians are just collateral damage. Of course, once you reduce the city to rubble, it is easier to secure its control

:cry:
 
Big fan of civilization 2 but 2 words sum up my thoughts on civ 3
Deeply Disappointed.


Why??

1. No cheat mode.

2. Excessive scarcity of strategic resources.

3. Nothing left to explore after 500 AD.

4. Useless Espionage system - too expensive and too ineffective.

5. Too stubborn AI in wars.

6. Difficulty in trading for certain resources, even when offering them a fantastically good deal (with no trade embargo in effect).

7. Local governors mishandling production - ordering obsolete units when new ones are available, among other things.

8. #'s 2, 3, and 6 above force players into constant wars of conquest.

9. Land-grabbing settler units encroaching on your territory requiring players to either go to war to protect their border integrity, or, before war, post units all over the map to discourage land-grabbing.

10. Certain Civ-specific units are all but useless being too weak or quickly out-dated by others.

11. The Army unit is treated as a Big Deal about relatively little. Armies - and leaders - should be more effective.

12. There is no way for one city to help another hurry with a Wonder.

13. The supplied maps of Earth leave a lot to be desired - a LOT.

Other complaints to be added later. . .
 
1. No cheat mode.
Why would you want a cheat mode? Isn't the Way Back Machine enough of a cheat?


2. Excessive scarcity of strategic resources.
If resources are always available, then they would not be fun. If you can't lose, then it is no fun to win.


5. Too stubborn AI in wars.
Stubborness is a strategy. Certainly the computer should be able to use that strategy. If it is a good strategy, you could do the same. If it is a bad strategy, then you should be able to exploit the advantage over the AI.


6. Difficulty in trading for certain resources, even when offering them a fantastically good deal (with no trade embargo in effect).
See #5.


8. #'s 2, 3, and 6 above force players into constant wars of conquest.
See #5.


9. Land-grabbing settler units encroaching on your territory requiring players to either go to war to protect their border integrity, or, before war, post units all over the map to discourage land-grabbing.
See #5.


10. Certain Civ-specific units are all but useless being too weak or quickly out-dated by others.
You get to pick the civs in the game. See #5.
 
I think Zouave meant to say this game is too difficult for him, as it plays now.

I agree about the maps, but then again it is game, so the maps are pretty much just an added bonus. Other arty specialists would supply maps in quick time, they can be found on this fanatics site actually, so rather a desperate addition to the problems there.
 
I must admit Civ 3 has some fairly substantial changes to it and is difficult to get in to,almost like learning a new game.I'm sure though,given time it will become as popular(and addictive)as Civ 2.;) ;)
 
Has anyone else noticed there is multiplayer files in the game but no multiplayer option in the game. The file is called "Jackal" in the main Civ3 folder. This goes along with my theory that they deliberately made a half-finished game to get people to buy the add-ons to give the other half. The ar?eholes, trying to make me spend more money, I guess thats capitalism.
 
redtom

you could find that old civ II game anywhere on the internet for free, i think it is so old it isn't even illegal anymore actually.

As for going back to CIV II because CIV III bores you, haha, who do you think you are fooling, I know CIV II backwards after many years playing it, it is the same game as CIV III but has a few less things, so if you are bored with CIV III you will also be bored with CIV II.

Infact i went to play CIV II about 1 month ago, gave up after 15 minutes, bored me crazy, too easy, too outdated, I very much doubt you see such a big difference that the very old version is still fun for you, when the new version isn't.:p
 
Not very effective answers to my points. Yea, it's "too difficult" for me. LMAO. How lame.

Why would I want a Cheat Mode?? Why would I not? Very useful for created scenarios and such as going to "No Human Player" (with the Barbarian map) and quickly running through as many decades as you might want of a scenario if you think it is going nowhere and has been played out.

You think it is cool to have a local governor producing privateers when the city next to him is producing battleships and the enemy states have long had ironclads and destroyers?? I do NOT.

You think it is good to have those damn rival settler units wandering all over my territory looking for one tile of open space to settle on and thus encroach on my territory grabbing off developed tiles and limiting my growth?? Maybe you think throwing workers and scouts on those tiles makes sense?
Worse, if another state land-grabs in my territory (a HOSTILE act), and I attack it, I will get blamed diplomatically for any wars!

Are you denying there is much of anything left to discover after 500 AD?? Explorer units are pointless as there is nothing to explore when they are available. I also can't get ocean-going vessels until after all territories are already settled.

Strategic resource tiles are EXTREMELY rare, subject to depletion, and extraordinarily difficult to trade for. Thus, wars, wars, wars.

The Espionage feature stinks. First the Civ-advance, then the Intelligency Agency, then TRYING to plant a spy, and then TRYING to gather intelligence, assuming you're not discovered by the enemy's spy. And all at exorbitant costs. Not worth it.

The leader/army unit is very disappointing in terms of military effectiveness. You think such units reflect the real effectiveness of, say, Napoleon, Hannibal, Alexander, Caesar, Nelson (no Naval leaders??), or Grant, Patton, or Zhukov? I do NOT.

I could go on, but suffice it to say, good game; I expected better after Civ II.
 
I hus don't understand all this cr*p about MP. Who ever said that Civ3 had to have a multiplayer option? Just because Civ 2 did it doesn't imply that Civ 3 is missing something. Sure it may come in the future and if its an add-on pack then those that want it can pay for it. (Personally I'm not that interested at this stage).

As for scenarios and editors - sure I want to see them, but I'm certainly in no position to demand them (like some people have). As someone else said - Firaxis didn't promise them as part of the game, and they're obviously intent on fixing those areas later - probably as free downloads - so quit the beefing.

When it comes down to it, how many people have actually abandoned Civ3 and gone back to Civ2 (for all its wonderful MP and add-ons) - not many I suspect.

Civ3 is a far superior game to Civ2 (if you ignore MP and scernarios) - otherwise why would we be bothering to play it?

Yeah sure there are a few bugs that still need fixing, and some aspects of the AI are still broken - but that hasn't stopped me spending just about all my freetime playing it - ever since it came out.

You want to talk about dissappointment? Go talk to a Sim City 3000 player (I'm one) - bugs, crashes, lack of features, cludgy editor - all a way of life over there - and that game has been out a damn sight longer than Civ3.

Some people just don't realize when they're well off! :p
 
Edited.
 
Originally posted by Zouave


You think it is good to have those damn rival settler units wandering all over my territory looking for one tile of open space to settle on and thus encroach on my territory grabbing off developed tiles and limiting my growth?? Maybe you think throwing workers and scouts on those tiles makes sense?
Worse, if another state land-grabs in my territory (a HOSTILE act), and I attack it, I will get blamed diplomatically for any wars!

You can cancel any Peace Treaty after twenty turns. It is not dishonorable in Civ3 to fight wars, so don't worry about your reputation. Just don't say peace, then declare war.

If the AI can cause you misery by settling in lands you claim, then so be it. That is a strategic decision available to all players. If it is a wise decision, then you should consider doing the same. If it is not, then you should be able to exploit it.
 
Back
Top Bottom