The reviewer gives a lot of credit to Civ3's difficulty. His focus on the fear and loathing (...in Civ-vegas --just HAD to add that) is a little much. Many gamers don't play CIV because it doesn't offer much of a challenge, others because it's just too repetitive (i.e. you go through the ages and build more advanced stuff but gameplay is pretty much the same) and others because it's to complicated (notice I didn't say complex). I don't think I've ever heard of anyone being afraid of Civ3's AI. Granted, when you get half the planet allying against you, the odds will certainly not be in your favor.
One thing I find interesting is the emphasis many reviewers place on the 'Pearl Harbor' effect. Civ2 has an identical feature. Odd how people rave about this as if it were something new and different. And what of the other things Conquests is meant to include? The Double attack feature for amphibious units is something that wasn't in Civ2 and I would say that it is just as relevant to the new WW2 Pacific scenario as the caught-in-port feature.
These 'pro' reviews make the game (or in this case, expansion) out to be a jewel in the world of software development. As an expansion pack, it is a scenario-fest (players complained about that aspect of PTW). IMO, way too many resources were spent on creating these scenarios and not enough on the core game (i.e. the Editor).
If I want scenarios, I'll play Civ2 (with its suicide-encouraging yet extraordinarily useful macro language).
Firaxis is always saying that there wasn't enough in the budget to include more cool features into the original Civ3, so I think I can say that most players assumed that future expansions would gradually include more and more features --a work in progress, so to speak. This has not been the case. PTW was a flop in that it only added "fixes" that were clearly meant for the original Civ3 (this may have had more to do with time constraints than budget issues, but personally I think it's just that they know we're suckers and will buy whatever Civ3-crap they send our way) and all the other "additions" were extra fluff without substance. C3C doesn't make up for PTW, instead it is just what PTW was supposed to be with some new "professional" scenarios added on. This is EXACTLY what I expected.
They almost seem disappointed that it isn't a "great leap forward" in the Civilization series -- yet it isn't a whole new game, it's an expansion pack! If I were them I'd leave those kind of comments for Civilization 4.
I think the reviewer was referring to Civ3 overall. Civ3 HASN'T been a great leap forward from Civ2. At least not in the concept sense. Gameplay is quite similar once you remove all the bells and whistles. If anything, I would say that it has changed too much in terms of graphics. I mean, do the units really have to move when selected? Do we really have to be able to see the individual bolts along the side of an Ironclad? Seems like Firaxis is pandering to the lowest common denominator here.
If the development of Civ4 is proportional to that of Civ3 and its expansions AND its never-ending patches, then I suggest you write this stuff in your memoirs so that when CIVXII comes out, your grandchildren can say, "CIV's really changed since grandpa's day...units actually have supply limitations! Wow! Talk about changing the game!" (Note the sarcasm.)
...aside from that, nice review...
with very old ScreenShoots 
