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.
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.