CIV3 Flaws

Originally posted by Zouave


I once played peacefully with the Romans as neighbors for millennia. Then, 5,000 years after the game began, Actium, a ROMAN city of '12', decides to join my civ. Was I happy? Hardly. I thought it absurd.

I once had a tile with a road, mine, iron, and garrisoned fortress within a city's production radius. Then, for reasons known only to the bean-counting AI, the Aztec BORDER flips over that tile - and I am expected to just meekly leave.

You know Zouave, you seem to be a bit obsessed with those two events. It's been months now that I have seen your posts, and you almost always refer to those two instances.

I am concerned about you.

Perhaps you need to go back to the realism of Civ2, a game you seem to think is great, where a small band of spearmen can block passage through hundreds of miles of territory due to their "zone of control".

Helpfully,
Bill
 
Originally posted by cat98
My fourth thought, upon revewing my third:

What the blody'ell was that? :confused:

:lol:


We might ask the same question about your signature Cat, it makes no sense whatsoever, at least in English. Whatever you're on at the moment, I want a dozen bottles of it.
 
Wow!! I thought I was the only one frustrated to hell with this game! :crazyeye:

I can't believe that I spent US$59.99 on the LE version of Civ3 the day it came out only to be more frustrated with it than with anything else in my life! :mad:

I thought I was the only one who was doing poorly. I read all the advice found on this forum and @ other Civ3 forums. My game improves somewhat and just when I thought I finally got the hang of this game I lose instantly because of the constant wars.

I'm really trying to like this game but no matter what I do I'm getting more and more frustrated! A COMPUTER GAME IS SUPPOSED TO BE FUN AND ENTERTAINING, DO YOU HEAR THAT FIRAXIS? I'm not supposed to die from a heart attack when playing any level except chieftain. I really really really really really really really don't understand how so many people can write strat guides boasting how the beat the game on deity level. Either they're lying or they're lying. I've followed the advice of so many good gamers only to get hammered by the AI. I've altered my gamestyle so many times to improve my game but all for nothing.

I've come to the realization that it's because Civ3 has so many stupid flaws with it, including cheating beyond FUBAR that I will never ever buy another firaxis product again. I used to have so much awe and respect for Sid but ever since Civ3 came out I've been utterly disgusted. It is painfully obvious that Civ3 was not even looked at by Sid during the developement phase. :eek:

Sorry if I sound mad but enough is enough. I want to enjoy civ3 but am really finding it hard.
 
Moff you don't have to exactly copy the strategies posted here but kind of morph them into your game.

I had civ2 but i rarely played it. Only reason i got it because i used to play it at my friends house and it was really cheap. It was a good game. I only played on chieften and warlord. I got kicked so badly by the AI at prince. I almost always played chieften and i still would lose often. I sucked, other than those scenarios.

Then got civ3. First chieften game, i lost with score of 200-300 at 2050. We were in the middle ages still. I got some wonders but it was horrible. Another chieften game as Persians. Got destroyed by Japan in the BCs.

Then played a few more chieften games which i won with low score though(see HOF). I played a warlord and got killed. Then played more and managed to get somewhere. Then i was winning a warlord game and stopped and decided to play regent. By then i found regent so easy. Chieften, a month ago was so much harder for me. And then i decided to play a monster regent game for HOF. Now i'm almost at 6500 and will be 3rd place in standings.

A little while earlier i decided to try GOTM5. I was so horribly beaten i retired with score of around 500. Now a week or two ago while playing and killing AI on my regent game, i decided to play monarch because milking was getting so boring(i'll finish that game someday). I just trashed all the civs on monarch. it was so easy, but then again it was a small map. I'll try a bigger map and then go to emperor.

Anyway i don't use the strategies that often. I'm sure they worked out for others really well but i like to make my own. People ask tips for regent. Everybody says, early conquest and there you have half the world. I say expand, expand, expand. Its my way of winning. Screw horsemen. Only units i build in ancient era are settlers, spearmen, warriors, and a few workers.

Just don't give up is what i'm saying.
 
He means that you should be able to play on Civ3 on another level that Chieftain without dying of a heart attack.
ie : the difficulty/frustration curve is too fast.
 
Thanks for the kind words God! Don't worry I won't give up. I'm too addicted to this game to stop. I usually play on regent but will go back to warlord and try again when the new patch comes out. ;)

Akka you hit the nail right on the head WRT the frustration/difficulty curve :goodjob:
 
I do not know if Moff Jerjerrod has any form of life insurance but according to a number of his posts it might be worthwile checking his pay conditions for heart-attack and for suicide while playing Civ 3.

He Moff, some-of-your-kind made the LongWindedChanges mod, check it out, could extent your life and create some additional bandwith on the web.
 
So far it seems that the patches have really fixed what users at the forum have asked for. With the customization, it seems that a lot is adjustable. I find the game is more fun all the time, but I just stopped playing at Chieftain. Maybe it becomes less fun at the higher levels ahen the AI isn't cheating in our favor, but then multi-player is coming soon also.

All in all, this is a darned good strategy game - I still dream about it when I play too late at night, then wake up and play a few turns before work in the morning. Maybe my standards are too low...
 
Ya know I see some valid points, ie the corruption.past that though lets put it this way: IF YOU THINK THE GAME IS THAT UNPLAYABLE THEN UNINSTALL IT, FIND SOME NEW GAME, AND QUIT YOUR CRYING. That simple. Zouave, the rest of ya, play the game, edit it so ya can play it , but quit the whimpering and whining, your mommy doesnt read these forums
 
dikwhit, this is a warning: Your post started out ok but in the end it was a flame. Flames are not a good thing. Only good things are allowed at CFC. The next time you post make sure it is not a flame as a flame can lead to a ban. Thanks.

"your mommy doesnt read these forums" = not nice :D
 
Big biggest sin of Civ 3 is

'It just isn't as fun to play as Civ2 was'

When I first played Civ1,
"hey this is the best game i ever played'
When I first played Civ2,
"hey this is the best game i ever played'
When I first played Civ3,
"hey this is the buggiest game i ever played'
 
Originally posted by Ozz
Big biggest sin of Civ 3 is

'It just isn't as fun to play as Civ2 was'

When I first played Civ1,
"hey this is the best game i ever played'
When I first played Civ2,
"hey this is the best game i ever played'
When I first played Civ3,
"hey this is the buggiest game i ever played'

Civ1 was the best game i'd ever played.
Civ2 i hated with a passion -- the whole direction of the series i hated.
SMAC I loved.
Civ3 I love.

As for it being buggy, first off I think its LESS buggy than SMAC when i first played that. Plus I've played tons of buggier games (Daggerfall anyone?)

Civ3 has flaws. Civ2 has flaws. Civ1 has flaws.

I think Civ3 was rushed to market, but i don't blame Firaxis.

I applaud many things in Civ3, but i also HATE many things -- so I mod the game myself. I can't wait for a better editor, I hope to be able to do more things more easily.

Bottom line, it seems to me a lot of whining turns SO negative SO fast without keeping in mind a bigger picture. The most useful criticism is CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. I always try and keep that in mind.
 
Pale Horse that was not a flame, trust me, when i flame some1 I am not anywhere near as nice:D , thought i put a smiley in my original post it was intended that way.
Sorry, I am just sick and tired of reading Civ3 sucks, its f"ed up, I cant play it etc etc etc.Dont get me wrong, i am all for CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM of the game, in other words if your gonnna rant and rave great------ offer a possible solution, a suggestion, etc. , instead of sounding like Eric Cartman (screw you guys, im goin home):D
Hey guess what people there are flaws in every game i dont care what it is,,, just look at the designated hitter in baseball.I dont know maybe im missing the point here but basically what i see is its ok to curse/slander/maim/ defame and generally flame firaxis/infogrames/sid/ and the ruin of the civ series and then offer nothing more.
I guess what it comes down to with me is if we are going to have an ADULT discussion great, any subject is fully acceptable as far as im concerned, but when you dont ????? Exactly what is the appropriate response.

Apologies for my diatribe, and apologies to any mommies that do read these forums, the comment was made to point out that they were sounding a bit less than constructive criticism.

Peace all


Oh and as a postscript...... for all of you that think that spearmen beating tanks is a complete impossibility that must be totally overhauled....... go ask the russians about Afganistan.
 
"Oh and as a postscript...... for all of you that think that spearmen beating tanks is a complete impossibility that must be totally overhauled....... go ask the russians about Afganistan."

Well i dont know exactly what weapons Afghanistan had, but im sure it was more than pointed sticks. Definately they had some rifles, and probably some rockets/missiles.
 
I used to, er, actually, still do, host the Lurkerlounge and its forums. Anyone here ever play Diablo 2? Remember the 1.08 patch? I loved it, but boy a lot of people hated it. I remember deleting about 40 new whine threads about it per day for about a week or more, and watching the five or six that were whining about different parts of the patch grow to 300 posts or so before I let anyone make (and keep) new ones.

If you have constructive criticism, fine. Just whining? Play another game, or go post it somewhere else. Or, at least just add it to the other whine threads. Quit making new ones all the time.

I think there's some definite difference here between those who played Civ2 and didn't play SMAC/X, and those who *did* play SMAC/X. Civ3 is more like Alpha Centauri than it is Civ2 in some ways, although both had caravans/crawlers and Civ3 doesn't. I don't miss them, though. Too easy to abuse.

As the post heading says, this crap just amuses me. Oh, and if you were on the Lounge back then, and want to call me a Nazi for deleting all those crap threads, I don't mind. I personally like the game.


Combat system: Check out the calculator, and exactly how it works. Nothing wrong with it, really. I just spent the last six games in war, at Emperor level, by choice, as I'd beaten it in mostly-builder mode several times. Yeah, I gripe a little to myself when the AI's regular archer kills my elite pike with no damage, but then I laugh when his elite tank attacks my regular infantry and dies without scratching the infantry, too, so it all balances out. Which is more likely? 2 attacking 3, or 16 attacking 10?

Corruption: Yeah, it's a pain, but, if it wasn't there, you'd just kill the AI every time, no contest. I *will* be interested in how much more a courthouse/police station combo helps waste/corruption.

Culture Flips: What problem? Yeah, I've had a few, but, I *never* put more than three units in a city, plus the wounded, except at first whatever I need to quell resistance. *All*, and I mean every one of my cities that flipped after I captured them, I didn't quell the resisters fast enough. 99% of the time, I quell the resisters by the next turn, pull the extra units out, rush the temple, and I'm good to go.

I use tons of arty/bombers, once the AI has Infantry (10 defense+bonuses), unless I'm using Modern Armor, in which case I just stack them high, and keep on fighting. Keep building them and use airports/helicopters/transport loads/rails to keep the stack high. I *always* take a stack of garrison units along for just that purpose; to garrison captured cities, guard the guns, and occasionally finish off a defender or unit left out in the open. I also use up my vet units first, and keep my elites, as much as possible, for 1-hp defenders. I usually get 10 leaders/game *if* I'm fighting a lot.

If I'm in builder-mode in the modern age, I can just turtle like you wouldn't believe, with a mobile force of tanks/inf/arty to kill any force that dares to enter my territory. Ships on the coast? Arty/bomb them to one point, and I always keep a stack of cruise missiles (which move by rail just fine) to finish them off.

War weariness? If it gets about so high, I flip to monarchy, and keep fighting. After a certain point, you'll have better production/money from monarchy than war-weary democracy. Get yourself in too deep after Nationalism? Draft when you have to, yes, but don't forget to mobilize if you're in a fix. Only takes a peace treaty with ONE of the civs to get out of it, and any wonders/improvements you were building at the time will finish faster, too.

I *always* keep spies around, mainly so I can always see how many units they have. Intelligence is good. I do occasionally use the 'plans' spy mission, so I can see *exactly* where my enemy's stuff is.

Huge games slow? Configure your computer right. That's all I have to say about that subject. (I'm a network admin by trade, and I don't have *slow* Civ3. And I play on a 500MHz processor, 32 MB vid, 512 RAM, so it's not the newest 2.2 gig thing either)

Yeah, I lose games sometimes. Overextend myself, prod too many AIs too many times and get the prod stuck somewhere that it hurts. But I learn something from them. Sometimes I do it just to learn how the AI ticks. It's instructive watching 8 AIs attack you in 1400, and they still can't kill you off by 2050. I may have lost in score, but it was interesting. I also just plain get my butt kicked sometimes. It's all fun. Win more than I lose.

Just for the curious, I random the map/climate/temp/age/civ/barbs just about all the time, so I don't play just one type of map or game or civ.

Favorite UU in builder mode? the Hoplite!
Favorite UU in early war mode? Immortal or Legion
Favorite UU late? Panzer, every time.

Anyway, I've blathered on long enough. I just thought I'd add some more crap to this thread, and maybe some of it positive, to counterbalance all the whining.
 
That quote posted by Zouve was the greatest and truest thing i've ever heard about civ 3
Here it is again, just cuz i think it's that good:

Software/Packaging

1 - The pathetically packaged “collectors edition” tin which sums up your entire operation. Anyone end up getting those designer notes? Anyone’s tech “poster” end up enlarging itself into an actual poster, or aligning its print to the paper? I do hope those biscuit tins are large enough to hold your customers shattered expectations.
2 - Bugs upon release. I won't specify the overly horrendous and inexcusable variety of the aforementioned, otherwise it would be Zylka’s 1,425 theses on why your programmers suck.
3 - Lack of multi-player upon release. Anyone in their right mind would have waited an extra few months for it to be included, but that doesn’t work with planned obsolescence, now does it?
4 - Lack of Scenarios. One of the many steps backwards in regards to civ2.
5 - “Maps” included. Seriously, those shouldn’t have taken more than 20 minutes to make, so you’re either lazy, or incompetent. I vouch for the former with a touch of the latter.
6 - Lack of editor upon release. Current editor is a sad consolation worthy of a swift kick to the gonads.
7 - Lack of windows format, or anything close to not being a pain in the as* for minimizing. Alt + tab makes for an incredibly messy scheme, often crashes the program, and does not work without another program already running.
8 - Patches. Not enough changes, not fast enough. Quite amusing how over half of the listed “changes” for each patch have consisted of fixing typos. Care to borrow my ms-word spell check, next time?
9 - Speed. Why is it so slow, even on a hotrod of a computer? Was an incredibly dated processing engine used for this game?


Graphics

10 - The water is jade, the mountains are red. What (other than reality) inspired you to choose such an unrealistic terrain palette? And no, fixes by the mod community don’t count in saving your collective as* (thank you, Sn00py).
11 - Mountains are way too obtrusive on the land’s layout. It does not look good, quite irritating in fact. Perhaps you should have made them even more unrealistically gigantic and thornlike, I don’t think the common idiot can decipher them as mountains, yet.
12 - Civ score caveman "animation". I won't even attempt to vent my frustration on the fact that an already flawed game had some of it's production diverted to that pile of sh*t.
13 - The 3-D advisors and Leaders are so lame. Again, I would rather you had just used static pictures, with the saved amount of work put towards the intrinsic side of the game. Then again, (neo)classical portraits of leaders don’t sell as well as goofy looking 3-D animations.
14 - Joan de Arc’s cleavage really sexed up civ. No really, you sexed it right up and into a filthy whore of half-wit humor.
15 - Modern resources look horrific. The sight of a tire for rubber, a neon-green slab for uranium, and a garbage can for aluminum literally makes the modern map look like a garbage dump.
16 - Firing of nuclear missiles was done in such a lame manner, it makes red alert look professional in comparison. OOH BOY LOOK DAR SCREEN IS SHAKING BOOM I R USE EXPLOSIFFS!
17 - The “loser” screen. Stupid, not at all well done, tacky.
18 - More shots of the “Evolution” Tower of Babel, please. That’s what we paid for, right?
19 - Why do all naval units have such a melodramatic firing animation? Battleships don’t violently rock back and forth with active turrets, they do weigh a good 50, 000 tons, after all. This may seem petty, but it’s yet another piece of crap decision to make the game a little more radical/explosive oriented exciting for the market’s idiots.
20 - Civ colors. Saints preserve us, an Easter-egg was not a good source for influence. Looks silly, mmk?
21 - Cities need a subtle, blending grid outwards. Current form looks like a clumsily dense mass of buildings sticking up out of nowhere, more of an outpost than anything.

Gameplay

22 - Corruption. It's not, nor has it ever been realistic. It was a pathetically obvious overlay fix for an unexpectedly high timeline speed. Next time, hire logistics programmers before you make such crucial decisions.
23 - Culture, and city reversions. Nice try implementing the abstract of immigration/emigration, it was done horribly. Whole cities do not leave and join empires, “individual” populations (by that I mean 1 city size) should have been the integer. Even a choice route bank specifying to what city(s) immigrant populations should add on would have worked better. Of course, the emigration would have worked on a non-choice level, deriving from cultural formulas according from city to city. See? Even I would have made a better logistics advisor than whoever you had. Problem is, I don’t associate with two-bit operations. No wait, my solutions are too difficult for a drooling moron to comprehend – that wouldn’t work for marketability!
24 - AI cheats. However, it does its job just fine – and anything short of a human must cheat to be challenging. The issue here is admitting it cheats, against what was previously implied, and the programmer’s ego.
25 - AI exploit issues. Tends to militarily expand in odd spaces past their periphery territories, often leaving huge power vacuum areas which are easy to pick off repeatedly throughout the game.
26 - Trade was a half noble/ half cowardly streamlining change. Smart people want more options and more manual control, that includes setting up individual routes from city to city, be it moving the caravan itself. A combination of the two would have been nice, but that would’ve taken more than an hour lunch break to come up with.
27 - Domestic nag. Kill, murder, destroy, gone.
28 - War weariness. Why is it that a celebrating democracy crumbles on the exact turn that some sh*t island nation half way across the globe declares war on it? I fully realize that you were bent on making warfare near useless in this game, but this is just absolutely unacceptable. Closer to real life next time, is that yet clear?
29 - Limited terra-forming is needed.
30 - ICS has become even more a horrible necessity than it was in civ2. REX compounds the problem. Players used to work like hell to secure that perfect setting for a city; a river running through it, a nice patch of grassland, rich resources within hinterland radius… now it just doesn’t matter. Filling up the map is an immediate necessity, and it doesn’t matter where you choose to settle. Huge mistake.
31 - Ships which should, do not have even minor AA abilities.
32 - Resources. Oh goody, my civ has a near infinite cluster of gems. The concept of strategic resources was a noble one, but poorly executed. No civilization should have the need (due to shortage of) a resource as widely available as aluminum. Horses as a strategic resource - seriously? Oil is understandable, yet this kind of limiting factor will wreak havoc on multi-player. You must add an option which turns strategic limitations off. Back to the basics, to give multi-playing equality of opportunity.
33 - Lack of unit obsolescence. This ties in to dependence on strategic resources, and should be dealt with accordingly for multiplayer
34 - Modern ships do not take 20 years to trek the globe, in parallel with soldiers who can travel a continent via rail instantly (realistic given the time frame). Modern naval units really should have been given a one move infinite range, followed by a 2 or 3 single square allowance, and the standard 1 attack move. I’m pretty much talking about giving modern ships a chess queen’s move, followed by the specifics necessary for combat.
35 - 89 technologies in civ2. 82 technologies in civ3. An increase was widely expected, but a decrease is just as good! Did the other 7 techs run off to join Snow White?
36 - Submarines are useless.
37 - Wonders are handed out on a near random basis, with great leaders and lack of ability to rush production. The only plus being that caravans were taken away in wonder production.
38 - Bombers are useless.
39 - Bombers can land on aircraft carriers. Next time you’re landing 50+ meters of wingspan on a quarter mile deck meant to hold fighters, tell me so that I might take a picture.
40 - Nuclear warfare was completely botched. An immediate counter launch chance upon initial launch system
should have been adopted, but that would have made things more realistic, right?
41 - Spying was completely botched. What suggestions would you like, seeing as how it’s irreparably screwed up?
42 - The tech tree. Simplified, and dumbed down with almost no real choice of direction. I’m beginning to wonder if the repeatedly aforementioned market range is that of the 8-12 year old developmentally disabled.
43 - Civ specific units. Yet another attempt to push this game over the not so fine line between classy and red-alert tacky. You’re lucky we can disable them.
44 - Privateers are useless.
45 - There are less governments than civ2. Unacceptable. It should have been expanded with the likes of democratic socialism, fascism, totalitarianism, whatever. Fundamentalism could have easily been dealt with to make for a more realistic model.
46 - Barbarians are absolute pushovers.
47 - All your base are belong to us? You say you want a revolution? How about grow the f*ck up. Lame cult classic sayings have absolutely no place in the game we were expecting.
48 - Armies are useless, especially in the modern era. Who in their right mind would give up a wonder for a useless army?
49 - Whoever decided that cruise missiles should have a range of 2 squares should receive an on-the-spot **** punching. A fitting follow up would be Jimmy’s suggestion to put them on a mental disability leave as soon as possible.
50 - Colonies are useless.
51 - Whoever decided that howitzer type artillery has a 2 square firing range deserves a swift elbow to the sternum. 155 mm canons are not capable of lobbing shells 500 mile distances. It is so bloody easy to exploit this, in rendering armored warfare near ineffective.
52 - The Iron Works is: A – rarely possible B – Useless, for the amount needed to build it.
53 - UN based victory??? Do I even need to pick on that one? Just who thought it up – seriously, which member of the team was it? Again, you’re lucky we can opt out. See a pattern here? Good players want MORE OPTIONS.
54 - Helicopters are useless.
55 - Unit hit points & firepower were brought back to a halfway point between civ 1 and 2. They should have logically been brought to a higher level than civ2; further specified so more accurate ratios could have been assigned according to unit type. Then the whole “my tank lost to a fehking spearman” complaint would have been less frequent, if not absent.
56 - Units can not use enemy roads. It’s fine enough that you can’t use enemy railroads, but roads??? Again, you’d like to render warfare in it’s entirety obsolete, I see. What’s the story here - are you a bunch of hippies, or what?
57 - A nuclear warhead halves a city’s population (point based) and infrastructure – whilst a warrior, a few hundred men with spears (or molotav cocktails, it’s irrelevant how you want to justify it), can destory EVERYTHING in an instant? Something is wrong here.
58 - Bombers can not sink ships
59 - Razing cities is a ridiculous option. It should only be an open choice to smaller cities, preferably 3 and under. A unit of a few thousand (or less) soldiers can not effectively murder and destroy an entire city of over a million people with them sitting idly by. It has not, does not, and will not happen - It’s just that simple.
60 - Bombers can not target specific improvements.
61 - Even less civs than number 2: too few to pick from. Redundant streamlining.
62 - “Random number generator” has been proven time and again to be completely out of whack.
63 - AI trades very poorly
64 – I want the two hours of my life which I spent writing this back.
65 - You have sold your souls to a ship of fools.
 
Mummy man. a thing caught my attention


47 - All your base are belong to us? You say you want a revolution? How about grow the f*ck up. Lame cult classic sayings have absolutely no place in the game we were expecting.


What is this? i'm curious, i hope this is not something the enemy says when you lose the game.. please explain
 
Back
Top Bottom