Civ 3 is incomplete and a step back in gaming.....

[pim9555]

Ok , so i can kind of understand why civ 3 isnt as deep as SMAC. I know that some of the things in SMAC wouldnt fit anywhere into the civ historical story line, BUT: Sid himself said that this game was going to take the best parts from Civ2 and SMAC Which it didnt and ill give a couple examples.

These are things that should be fixed and added in patches:

1- Biggest issue i have with the game: When Global warming starts to kick in, the game is over. WTH is the point of playing when during every turn half your land turns into desert and you cant do crap about it (except for slowing it down a LITTLE with mass transit, etc.) ???? IN SMAC you could transform squares back and pass laws with other civs to reduce pollution: WHY THE HELL WAS THAT TAKEN OUT? As it stands now, the game is over once you start building factories, WHICH YOU NEED, later in the game

2- Diplomacy is WEAK as hell now compared to the one in SMAC. You dont have many options and the AI leaders are straight up stupid. You cant coordinate battle plans with your allies like you could in SMAC, which makes the point of being allies kinda weak.

3- WHY OH WHY did they switch back to 2d terrain? Rain effects on one side of a mountain that created nice farmlands, while making the other side poor for farming and good for mining was one of the most amazing things that was added to a strategy game in SMAC. *thats just one example*

4- The AI is just plain stupid. It uses NO tactics when it comes to war, basically in every single game i have played (*with the latest version of the game 1.21*) the AI bleeds its cities down to Level1 and rushes my borders ONLY relying on numbers and not the type of units it uses.

Those are basically the biggest things that annoy me about civ3, its still a good game, but it was a step back in strategy gaming, certainly not the next SMAC for the genre.

 

[FrosTi]

I agree... I used to play SMAC a lot of time and was disappointed by Civ3...

 

[saintides]

Originally posted by pim9555
IN SMAC you could transform squares back and pass laws with other civs to reduce pollution: WHY THE HELL WAS THAT TAKEN OUT? As it stands now, the game is over once you start building factories, WHICH YOU NEED, later in the game

That is one of my biggest complaint with civ3. Not enough options to deal with pollution. In smax, you had quite a few things you can do about it (when it came to voice of planet though.. watch out!).

Wish civ3 had ways you can deal with the whole pllution stuff a little better. Tech does exist to deal with it the real world (wish we use that tech more).

 

[BiatchGuy]

Originally posted by pim9555
Diplomacy is WEAK as hell now compared to the one in SMAC. You dont have many options and the AI leaders are straight up stupid. You cant coordinate battle plans with your allies like you could in SMAC, which makes the point of being allies kinda weak.

agreed, about not being able to coordinate battle plans.. That was a cool thing about SMAC..


and what do you mean the AI leaders are "stupid"...... you talking about the way I can constantly break r.o.p. agreements with my enemies, mass troops on their borders, and sign embargos against them, all the while maintaining superficial peace, and they never wise up and do a pre-emptive strike?

 

[Zouave]

Agreed, with all above.

As for those Allies, even if I steal the military plans of a civ we are both at war with, I can't even give those plans to that ally.

 

[Selous]

nice post pim, and i beleive the fact that firaxis took out the ability to stack with your allies REALLY reduces the effect of having allies, taking away the ability to give your allies units and diplomacy has been crippled compared to civ3

personally .... i dont care too much that the 3D terrain has gone .. but the thing that i REALLY miss is the living earth, the spreading forrest, the rising/falling sea levels

i heard a vicious rumour that brian renolds and sid meyier had a huge fight/falling out .... and i guess that is the reason that civ3 was botched?? .... out of pure spite?

 

[D. Boon's Ghost]

Originally posted by Selous
...i heard a vicious rumour that brian renolds and sid meyier had a huge fight/falling out .... and i guess that is the reason that civ3 was botched?? .... out of pure spite?

Are you kidding?
What gaming manufacturer would shoot itself in the foot by intentionally putting out a bad game?
Now distribution is another thing entirely. These are the big money men - if you have a gripe, blame them. They were the ones that rushed Civ III for the Christmas shopping season, what was Firaxis supposed to say...no?

The more typical complaints coming from veterans are old hat, these days. Having to buy an expansion pack, most likely, for MP? Or better editing features? It has been done.
A sequel that 'dumbs' down the franchise - how many times have we heard that?
A game needing patches just to get it up to snuff? Hmmm.

You see, we have allowed these companies to do this. How many expansion packs have you, or your parents bought over the years? How many crappy sequels?
How many games do you own that have been patched?

There is money to be made, and people willing to part with it.
It is the way things are.

Now, if you want to say that this feature should have been added, or that feature should not have - that is fine. I will agree with you on most points.
Sometimes, though, the complaints are a bit much. In my opinion, of course.

 

[LaRo]

I never played SMAC. Sound like a missed a really good game.

I don't understand. When you create a series. It's suppose to be better everytime.

It's just as if Ford would release the Mustang 2003, a Mustang that are less powerfull and less technologycally advanced that a 1996.

And as always, no response, no commentary from Firaxis. Just a few word as: "We are working hard for a mp." We know no more.

In buzziness, securize the customers is very important. I think that if they don't do that it is because they got big big problem with the game. No news, bad news.

 

[metalhead]

I think the reason they do things this way is because we will all rush out and blindly buy anything named Civilization (myself included). Why would Firaxis put extra energy and resources (read:money) into a game when its going to sell like gangbusters and get high ratings from gaming magazines, no matter what? Sure, we can all complain about it, but lets face it - by falling short on Civ III (which I am still pleased with despite its faults), Firaxis has guaranteed a huge market for Civ IV/CivIII expansion. Not only that, they got their sales #'s boosted by releasing before Christmas. The only way to change this is to demand quality games BEFORE we buy them, not after, instead of rushing out to the store the minute a game is released with the name Sid Meier attached to it. Since thats not gonna happen, I guess we'll have to sit back and wait until Firaxis asks for another $50 in return for the game that Civ III should have been. And that's another $50 they are guaranteed to get from the vast majority of us, again, myself included.

 

[sappling]

Great posts. There are numerous items that made SMAC great that are missing from civ 3. I really felt like you could make solid alliances in SMAC that could be counted on. In civ 3, you make an alliance and Mutual protection pact and 3 turns later that civ is attacking you. I like the 3-D terrain and being able to customize units. Airplanes and helicopters were also so much better. I like the great leaders and culture of civ 3, but think that these 2 items were the only improvements.

Diplomacy in civ 3 is horrible.

Me: AI Civ, do you want gems?
AI Civ: I will give you 2 gold a turn or no deal.
Me: Okey.

later . . .

ME: Can you give me ivory?
AI Civ: Give me 30 gold a turn, 500 gold, democracy, refining or no deal.
Me: No way.

Why won't the AI trade fair with the human player?

 

[Unspeakable Horror]

About the customization of units in SMAC... I didn´t like it and I´m glad they did it in Civ3 the old way... with the SMAC system there was no way to add new graphics. I still hope that the next patch, xp, game, wathever will give us new options and ways to customize the game.

 

[Sebastian]

Civ III is (all together now) streamlined. I, for one, love it. SMAC was great and all, but it can't really hold a candle to Civ III. If you don't understand Civ III and direction Sid went... that's fine... go play SMAC. Civ III is an entire tier above SMAC IMO. We could debate the points endlessly, but it's not really worth it.

 

[LaRo]

Originally posted by Sebastian
Civ III is (all together now) streamlined. I, for one, love it. SMAC was great and all, but it can't really hold a candle to Civ III. If you don't understand Civ III and direction Sid went... that's fine... go play SMAC. Civ III is an entire tier above SMAC IMO. We could debate the points endlessly, but it's not really worth it.

I don't want and I can't debate because I did'nt play SMAC but I would like you to explain why did you say that.

 

[damunzy]

I would say dumbed down, when looking at SMAC. I never did get into SMAC b/c it was too much too soon after coming from Civ2.

 

[etj4Eagle]

I would agree with PaleHorse76 that CivIII is in many ways a dumbed down version of SMAC. Though at the same time I am okay with that for the Civ line, as it appeals to a greater audience than SMAC and I remember people complaining about some of the more complex parts of SMAC. What I would love to see is the SMAC line continued as well. Ie alternate releases of SMAC and Civ games, that way you are also not pilling sequals on too fast.

 

[ulik_kel_droma]

We could debate the points endlessly, but it's not really worth it.

Please do. If I can see what you see, I may be able to appreciate the pile that Civ3 is. Okay, it's not a pile, but IMO it's inferior in almost every way to SMAC.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Whilst I agree that SMAC is a more sophisticated game than civ3 I won't let people ignore it's failings:

1. Air war...the A.I was appalling with it and human players could easily use it to dominant the A.I.

2. The game was too easy for the human player.

3. SMACx had to be one of the worst expansion packs I've ever bought. Lifeless new "factions", pointless alien races and techs allowing huge over production in the sea.


SMAC failing was the A.I was not able to compete with a good human player in the long-term games and was inept at using air power...great on taking out formers, useless at applying it to actually taking towns.

 

[tomdy2k]

hi

my biggest problem with the game is compared to smac it's just plain predictable and tedious.....

the bad diplomacy by itself ruins the game.

the cheating AI does make it a challenge but whoopee.

I'm going to speak a terrible blasphemy but maybe said is not the game God he's cracked up to be.....
smac was designed by Brian Reynolds.

I saw a couple of post on Apoloyton that the game is 100 times better since the latest patch..really?

i don't see it at all and i'm tired of shelling out for hyped up games that disappoint.

 

[Sixchan]

For £8, I think SMAC-X was ok.

As for SMAC Vs. Civ3, I do miss the AI that asked for Doctirine: Loyalty in exchange for Centauri Ecology. Now, the AI gives Horseback Riding in exchange for Writing and 100 gold.

I also miss Global Warming causing rising seas rather than all your terrain turning to desert.

I miss the Social Engineering table.

I miss the Planetary Council.

I miss alliances that meant more than your military.

I miss the Design Workshop.

I miss 3-D terrain.

I miss terraforming.

I miss Nerve Stapling.

I miss Scientific Factions having better research, rather than getting free techs at each era.

I miss those simple borders that were just based on distance.

MOST OF ALL:

I miss my Drop Clean Shard Invaders!!!

 

[etj4Eagle]

On thing to miss from SMAC, I miss the singularity planet buster. There was nothing better at saying you are irrelevent to an AI faction than to just wipe them and all their land off the face of the map. I remember my last game in which at the end I was the only faction that actually still had any land mass left.