Civ III no real sense of war

[getak]

Civ three simply hasn't been able to grasp war as well as i hoped. the statement may be an army of one, but three? come on that is reduculous. also units have to be supported with food, sheilds, and money not just money! not to mention the rail system is totally out of wack when it can take you anywhere in one turn. in real life that has no relation. also there should be real recource strainability. recources shouldn't just dissapear randomly in real life the last a little while and then run out. there should be a turn limit on that, and say you only have one mine, well it sure can't support 100,000,000,000 trains (in real life) please don't even let me start on the navy in this game. the navy is pitiful. two squares? thats it!!! in those years a battle ship could go around the world.

any other things that have slight of no relation to the real world?

 

[Zachriel]

Yeah, and it takes 50 years, from 4000 BC to 3950 BC just to move one square! Who dreamed that up? And how did they know it was "BC" anyway?

 

[Troyens]

Great Leaders should supply a COMBAT BONUS to every battle they are in (with a small risk of death).

Naval warfare is really awful. Privateers and subs should be able to damage the trade and commerce of an enemy, but not in Civ III. We can't even sink a warship with bombers! :crazyeyes

 

[D.Shaffer]

Civ3 isnt an EXACT simulation of the world? OMG! HOW COULD WE HAVE MISSED THIS IN THE FIRST TWO INCARNATIONS OF THE GAME! I've been so BLINDED! Thank you for opening my eyes to the utter folly that is Civ3. That'll show me that having fun playing the game is of any value next to a blind adherence to reality! Thank you, sir!

 

[holyman]

u can always edit the rules if u are not happy with the default ones...:crazyeyes

 

[DrJambo]

exactly my sentiments mr holyman

 

[EMan]

You know a game, yes GAME, is truly GREAT, when people compare it to real life!?