Civ3 is AWFUL

What do you think for Civ3?

  • Awful

    Votes: 11 8.0%
  • Bad

    Votes: 17 12.4%
  • Better than Civ2

    Votes: 101 73.7%
  • I have not played Civ1 or Civ2

    Votes: 8 5.8%

  • Total voters
    137

itokugawa

Chieftain
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
3
Location
Greece
Somebody may disagree with that but who has played Civ1 and Civ2 (especially a good player) will certainly agree.

1) There are no ZOC. In the name of reality units like "Spearman" have no zones of control. Other units only cause some damage to the enemy trying to bypass them instead of stopping these units. Result: there is only 1 military strategy, Brute force. I consider this as a GREAT damage to the game. Especially for a so-called strategy game. Further evidence I provide with a screen-shot from civ2 where I have blocked Zulus with 3 fortresses. As for reality, I know that in a real war, there are things like Strong positions. Enemies sometimes can bypass them but they cannot afford that risk. If one disagrees with this point I challenge him to show me a fortress (s)he has built. Finally if the Civ3 team believes in reality, then why units can recover damages?

2)Artificial Intelligence is horrible. In war this is not important (see point 1) but in diplomacy is very important. I had the following trade:
a)I wanted a technology and I asked the other side what may I trade for that technology. The answer was that there could be no deal. Then I offered 5 cities for that technology and the answer was ... NO!!!!!
b)Then I did something else: Offered 1 of the cities and asked the other tribe what it wanted to give me in return. The answer was the technology I asked plus money.
This has happened many times.

3)There are some new features. Some of them are good, some others not. Nevertheless I do not think anybody has ever thought about the impact in the game. They simply added features only to advertise them. There can be many examples:
i)Resources: Bad idea because Computer civilizations cannot trade. I badly wanted iron and I could not get it for any price
ii)A unit winning combat moves to the square of defeated unit. The result is that I cannot defend a city because my units with strong attack will be massacred at the next round. If I support them with defensive units, then the defense of my city will be weaker.

I have no doubt that Civ3 team did not make any efford to improve the game. They only use the success of the previous versions and lot of advertisement. My comment is that competition in nowadays is very hard and noone affords to lose his old customers. Please correspond because Civ team must receive a clear message.
 

Attachments

  • screenshot1.jpg
    screenshot1.jpg
    114.1 KB · Views: 907

eyrei

Deity
Retired Moderator
Joined
Nov 1, 2001
Messages
9,186
Location
Durham, NC USA
Originally posted by itokugawa
Somebody may disagree with that but who has played Civ1 and Civ2 (especially a good player) will certainly agree.


Since this is a civ3 forum, you will probably be quite disappointed with your results. In fact, you may actually get flamed. I may actually get flamed, too. Oh, the misery.:cry:
 

DaEezT

Civ, Pizza, Spam, Repeat
Joined
Sep 22, 2001
Messages
1,087
Location
Munich, Germany
ii)A unit winning combat moves to the square of defeated unit. The result is that I cannot defend a city because my units with strong attack will be massacred at the next round. If I support them with defensive units, then the defense of my city will be weaker.

Thats why they added bombardment units! Put one or more bombardment units into your city and you'll be able to attack enemies surrounding your city.
 

sail lbi

Chieftain
Joined
Nov 13, 2001
Messages
17
Location
CT
Originally posted by DaEezT


Thats why they added bombardment units! Put one or more bombardment units into your city and you'll be able to attack enemies surrounding your city.


That would be a lot more helpful if the bombarding units actually wiped out the enemy units.

However that said, I still think CIV III is better!
 

eyrei

Deity
Retired Moderator
Joined
Nov 1, 2001
Messages
9,186
Location
Durham, NC USA
Originally posted by itokugawa

ii)A unit winning combat moves to the square of defeated unit. The result is that I cannot defend a city because my units with strong attack will be massacred at the next round. If I support them with defensive units, then the defense of my city will be weaker.


Also, an attacking unit will not advance if there are other units in the stack. One truly great improvement over civ2 is that killing the unit at the top of a stack does not kill the entire stack.
 

-proletarian-

Chairman and CEO
Joined
Oct 28, 2001
Messages
359
Location
the land of milk and honey, Canada.
You are mistaken. There ARE zones of control in CivIII, you just have to build fortresses and coastal fortresses. In my game, I built up a Maginot line of sorts, on my border with France I built 11 fortresses on hills and mountains, then stuffed them with infantry and artillery. The artillery will blast away at them during their turn if they try and move through. You are simply frustrated with the game because you aren't exploring all it's possibilities.
 

Zachriel

Kaiser
Joined
Oct 7, 2001
Messages
2,294
Location
Jovian System
Originally posted by itokugawa
1) There are no ZOC.

Maginot Line
http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/maginotline.htm

Finally if the Civ3 team believes in reality, then why units can recover damages?

It is realistic. Unit cohesion becomes stressed in combat. Time to relax and to reorganize between battles is crucial.

2)Artificial Intelligence is horrible. In war this is not important (see point 1) but in diplomacy is very important.

I trade with AI civs all the time. Indeed, I make most of my money and tech by trading.

I have no doubt that Civ3 team did not make any efford to improve the game. [/B]

I have no doubt that if you try a little harder you will find solutions to these problems. If the puzzle was too easy, there would be no satisfaction when you find the solution.
 

eyrei

Deity
Retired Moderator
Joined
Nov 1, 2001
Messages
9,186
Location
Durham, NC USA
Originally posted by Hamlet
Brilliant options you gave us in the poll :rolleyes:

It seems we are not allowed to actually like the game. Well I like it dammit, and those who do not will face the inquisition!:crazyeyes
 

LayZMan

w/ Recliner at Desk
Joined
Nov 20, 2001
Messages
117
I'm not really involved in this Civ3 debate (played 2 and 3 and sure there are things not to like, but Civ3 is a good game).

Anyhow the Marginot Line strat, one must keep in mind not everyone is good at making dough to support such a line and if the other civs have marines, you have to support the line and defenders in coastal cities, but the timeframe I think the person is griping about is pre-industrial. The time where imo catapults flat out suck considering 1)reliability 2)the fact they take one unit of support (I no longer even build bombards until artillery unless I'm playing modified hit points musketmen are REALLY stubborn w/ modded hp) and 3) they can't kill a unit period. Not a low chance of killing a unit, no chance. Your better off sending a horseman out the city and praying he can retreat.
 

Zachriel

Kaiser
Joined
Oct 7, 2001
Messages
2,294
Location
Jovian System
Originally posted by Hamlet
Brilliant options you gave us in the poll :rolleyes:


Fallacy of the excluded middle.
Example:

This poll is not well thought out.
or
This poll is not thought out at all.

You choose.


(Just kidding itokugawa. :) )
 

Zachriel

Kaiser
Joined
Oct 7, 2001
Messages
2,294
Location
Jovian System
Originally posted by LayZMan
The time where imo catapults flat out suck considering 1)reliability 2)the fact they take one unit of support

Ever see Search for the Holy Grail by Monty Python? Remember the bombard scene with the cow.

See they work!
 

Woody

General
Joined
Nov 16, 2001
Messages
439
I have only one thing to say to itokugawa, CivII and CivIII are different games. If you dont want to take the time to learn how to play under the different reality of CivIII go back to your CivII.

PS Just for the record I am a long time Civ1 and CivII player.
 

Selous

King
Joined
Feb 19, 2001
Messages
766
Location
aussi
well .... i do agree with u itokugawa, but not on all of your points, civ3 IS a better game than civ2, but civ3 isnt better than AC and it could have been so much better if thought and vision had gone into the game.

civ3 has done some excellent fixes to the 4x gaming world but have gone backwards on so many things!! Air combat is excellent as is (would be nice to have bombers sink ships but then u would only need ships if u wanted to invade as your bombers would be all u need to defend a naval invasion, and that isnt realistic), i think that the resorce and trade system is superb!!, the AI is the best of any game to date and the graphics are excellent also, but i think we can all agree that graphics dont mean much, exept to mainstream audience.

the unfortunate thing is that diplomacy has gone backwards from AC but its importance is increased, warfare has taken a large backward step to civ2, because now there is only one way to wage war rather than any sort of gurilla warfare (now that hasnt been very important in our history :rolleyes: ), the government system is the same as civ 2 :( and the editor doesnt even touch civ2 at the moment (and that was supposed to be a big thing with civ3)

im impartial to culture as is now, i love the idea of culture and i think it is implimented brillently, but .... u shouldnt lose your whole army because a few pesents revolt, and that ruins culture for me

i see civ3 as a shameless remake of civ2 rather than a new game in the genere of 4x gaming. obviously with the base of the game being civ2 it is going to be a good game, but it is essentially civ2 lookin pretty and i think the civ crowd is more sofisticated and care a bit more about gameplay than graphics.... in short, civ3 is a rehash money spinner, and that burdens it to be medocre at best :(
 

Anglophile

Warlord
Joined
Dec 6, 2001
Messages
185
Location
Philly USA
It is of interest that this flame poll has become a discussion on defensive tactics. Given the attached Civ2 game (worst position I've ever seen but then I do tend to play the biggest possible maps) - and itokugawa thinks Civ3 is worse - he must really hate this game. No wonder we were provided with that array of choices in the poll - from sucks to really, really, really sucks, OK maybe one choice for 'not worst game in the history of the world'. Anyway, back to defensive tactics. If a city is threatened, always have some of the best available 2 MP units in that city. If they beat the only unit in a tile, you can retreat them back into the city after the win; if they lose, they survive and stay in the city to recover. If the tile contains a stack, the best defensive unit is usually a 1MP unit, so your 2MP unit will generally either win or withdraw after getting to 1 HP, except at 1 HP all, it becomes a crap shoot and someone dies. You gotta have horses for defence and offence in the first two ages since I agree that catapults really do suck. I only build them if I really need them to dig the enemy out of a really well-defended hole. Mind you, once gunpowder units appear, it is only fair to expect to be able to deal with them with things more modern than catapults.

Finally, I always build a line of fortresses, a.k.a. The Maginot Line, as I solidify a border and of course I always try to get some rough terrain along the border - mountain ranges make natural borders and defensive positions - and I back that up with mobile troops in the cities behind the border. That makes any attack slow and expensive for the AI and gives me time to mass those mobile troops for a counterattack. The other thing that line of fortresses does is force me to make many, many more units than I otherwise would. My first few games at Civ3 taught me painfully just how inadequate my normal Civ1/2 level of mobilization was in this version. It is worth remembering that the unjustly infamous Maginot Line was not broken through but that the Germans invaded two neutral countries to go around it and take it from behind.

My only complaint about the AI in this respect is that it won't suck it up and take the casualties to storm and break the fortress line, which would then be a real threat to the soft underbelly behind. The AI prefers to go around (which takes so long that even my military is ready for them by the time they've finished their end run) or infiltrate through, taking the casualties every time and leaving themselves open to counterattack.

I have just thought how off topic this response is - am I going to get in trouble for this with a moderator? I voted! I really did!
 

Chaos

Chieftain
Joined
Oct 26, 2001
Messages
25
Goddamn it, you are a biggest whiner I have ever seen. Its obvious CivIII is WAY superior to CivII. Good graphics, LOTS of options and AWESOME diplomacy system. If you think its so bad then don't play it and stop flaming it with these pathetic useless polls.

Moron :midfinger
 

Zachriel

Kaiser
Joined
Oct 7, 2001
Messages
2,294
Location
Jovian System
Originally posted by Anglophile
I have just thought how off topic this response is - am I going to get in trouble for this with a moderator? I voted! I really did!

On topic. itokugawa's first complaint was defense. Believe me, it took me a while to get used to the lack of zones. Having played Civ2 I was used to stopping up all my borders from the beginning, plus you could screen enemy settlers with just a unit or two.

Units should not have zones of control like in Civ2. A "Zone of Control" is the ability to stand a square off a road and still be able to attack anyone who travels the road -- by intercepting their travel. You can force combat. We have that ability now. Later, with cannon we have more direct control of the surrounding terrain, so wider zones make more sense later in the game. (I like how forts bombard automatically, but I'm not sure it works correctly.)

That is the neat part of the game; how units have aspects of tactics and of strategy at the same time. Everyone knows a turn is years in length, and yet up close you can see all sorts of tactical movement by individual units. It's as if there were two systems of measure, one in years and hundreds of miles, another in days and tens of miles, sometimes even hours and just miles.

That is the essential genius of the game.
 

Bill_in_PDX

Grumpy Submariner
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
1,880
Location
The Wilderness of Orygun
Originally posted by Zachriel


Units should not have zones of control like in Civ2. A "Zone of Control" is the ability to stand a square off a road and still be able to attack anyone who travels the road -- by intercepting their travel. You can force combat. We have that ability now.

Agree with this point. I especially chuckled hearing the complaint that his spearmen do not have zone of control.

What kind of range would spear men zone of control really be? 30 - 40 feet? Then once they threw all of their spears at the road, they would be unarmed, and should turn into scouts....stupid game indeed!

Bill
 

Troyens

Warlord
Joined
Jan 6, 2002
Messages
195
Civ III is not "awful", but it sure is a BIG DISAPPOINTMENT, and it's filled with bugs, historical idiocies, a crazy AI, and that Culture Flipping garbage. And if the mindless, easily-pleased Firaxis shills around here don't want to hear that, too bad. I'm sure Sid could even sell them snake oil if he put his name on it.

I highly reccomend you download and try the LWC mod on the other forum on this site. It is much better than what Sid slapped together. At least it has a lot of the History correct, unlike Sid.

As for Civ III, here are a few complaints:

1. Submarines and privateers on TRADE ROUTES damage the opposition's commerce and trade in real wars. Protecting commerce is a navy's real purpose, not constantly bombarding "improvements". Wooden ships shouldn't do that at all. Navies cannot attack trade (or even diplomats or caravans) in Civ III and it hurts the game.

2. Bombers can sink warships in the real world. But not in Civ III!!!

3. Great Leaders should supply a Combat Bonus even after forming an army.

4. I want a Cheat Mode.

5. I want to be able to make SCENARIOS.

6. I want to be able to toggle OFF the nuclear war option; i.e., no Manhattan Project.

7. Less Culture Flipping with no more mysteriously vanishing garrisons. As the game is now we have to raze city after city.

8. Nuclear submarines should be far less visible than regular subs. SSN's stay submerged; SS's mostly ran on the surface (as in WW II) being diesel powered subs.

9. I want crusader and cruiser units back.

10. Less corruption.

11. STOP THE AI CHEATING!!!!! The AI cheats shamelessly from handing out free techs to AI civs to having ocean-going galleys. I've seen it over and over. It destroys the game for me more than anything. The AI must STOIP BREAKING ITS OWN RULES. Advantages and bonuses are one thing; outright cheating is something else.

12. Bring back the Eifel Tower and its effect on civ's opinions of you. The Statue of Liberty can have a similar effect.

13. I WANT CANALS!! Why isn't the Panama Canal a Great Wonder??

14. "Broadway" and "Hollywood" can both be Small Wonders creating Happy Faces for whatever civs build these movie and musical advances.

15. I want a "naval bomber" unit for use off carriers. It would be cheaper than normal bombers.

16. STOP the land-grabbing AI settlers that wander around your territory and build cities on any open piece of land. They also build on deserts and tundra! THIS MUST STOP. Also, if they build close enough to encroach on your borders it constitutes an act of war.

17. Any rival's city built close enough to a colony of yours to eliminate the colony is committing an act of war against you.

18. We need an easy way to check the status of alliances with other civ's while discussing peace with the hostile civ. We also need the capability of making a joint peace with our ally.

19. We should be able to move AS A GROUP a bunch of individual units. Example: a force of, say, fifteen offensive units attacking an enemy's territory could be moved TOGETHER - thus saving me a lot of tedious work.

20. Units from DIFFERENT AGES should get a combat bonus against those from an earlier age. Therefore, we will be less likely to see longbowmen destroy cavalry, for instance. Say a 25% bonus per age.

21. I want more HISTORICALLY ACCURATE unit values. For instance. . .longbowmen should by English-specific and have a strong defensive value against knights. War Elephants should have a weak defensive value. Neither should have "airlift" capability!

22. Why is the AI so stupid it has a civilization being conquered by another start making Wonders instead of more troops??

23. Nothing left to explore by the time we get to caravels.

24. AI land-grabbing settlers.

25. Wandering workers who won't leave.

26. AI trade deals can be very dumb.

27. AI building happiness Wonders while being invaded. Other dumb decisions, also.

28. Civs not trading resources even with a 3:1 advantage in a deal. Crazy.

29. Same hills for grassland, desert, or jungle. They should NOT produce the same.

30. Flood plain tiles look like desert tiles.

31. Unit activation sequence jerky and stupid: you try to move units from one tile but get jerked around the map.

32. Fighters cannot escort bombers.

33. The tech tree is more limiting in choices than in Civ II. You can't beeline for a needed tech.

34. A stubborn almost suicidal AI Diplomatic Advisor that won't make peace - until almost exterminated.

35. Too much ugly yellow in the map requiring us to downloand new greener graphics files.

36. Strategic resources are not only much too rare they are too hard to see, such as coal. (This was corrected in the already mentioned LWC mod).

And on and on and on. . .

Some of these can be corrected in the Editor, or with better mods, but too much cannot be corrected, at least not by us. And where is the next patch, Firaxis???

No doubt Firaxis can't wait to grab more of our money selling Scenario disks, since it is impossible to make scenarios in Civ III.
 
Top Bottom