Originally posted by Wardog
I too think that it should be called an Editor Patch.
Patch after patch and they can't solve the main problems of the game. For instance, the slowness in huge maps (I just can't believe how someone can play these kind of games and wait 15 minutes for one turn!).
Why not make a better AI instead of wasting time on the editor? Maybe 5% of civ players use it. I like to create some maps, but certainly it´s far from being the most important aspect of Civ 3.
Maybe a lot more will use it now that many of the needful features for scneario-creation are there.
The editing capacity was the *PRIMARY* strength of Civilization II, and the failure of the Civ III one to deliver on scenario-editing capacity was a major problem for many members.
Contrary to your assessment, map-creation and, more important, *SCENARIO* creation have long been key aspects of the civilizations game. Combining the impressive modding capacities of this game with the ability to place units, cities, etc, will, unless they really forgot diplomacy (and even if they did, IMHO) give a tremendous boost to the game.
No, fixing the editor is not a waste of time.
As for game slowness, figure what? They improved on it. Removing the file compression on auto-save *IS* such a step to make the game faster. Otherwise, to make the game faster, they would have to either weaken the AI (by making it consider less option and an even shorter timeframe when moving its units) or simply build the game only for fast, top-of-the-order machines - but they can't do that once the game's out.
On the other hand, increasing the skill of the AI would come into lengthening the time between turns, because the AI would "consider" more options - ie, more operations for the computer to run before the AI get its answer on "what move to make."