Originally posted by Squirrel
Why has this become the big whining forum?
Personally I love Civ III. I am never gonna play Civ or Civ II (I think Civ is the better of those to, btw) again because I think Civ III is SO much better. If you do not like Civ III, that's fine, but do you have to bother the rest of us with that?
I could answer : if you like Civ III, that's fine, but do you have to bother the rest of us with that ?
Though I won't do it, 'cause first I like Civ3, and second I don't want to become a whiner about whining people that whine about whiners. I suppose that then one can whine I whine about whiner that whine about whiners.
Hu... :crazyeyes:
I feel the desire to comment on some of the most common complaints to the game:
1. "Corruption is too high"
Yes, corruption is high when your regime gets too much spread out. In Civ and Civ II more cities was always better than less. Therefore you would always build/capture as many cities as possible, and that is not an interesting choice, is it? In Civ III there will be both positive and negative aspects to evaluate when considering to found/capture a new city. On the negative side there may be high corruption levels and resistance. On the positive side there may be strategic considerations (access to recourses for instance). That makes it an interesting choice. It may not be an easy choice, but that is exactly what makes it interesting.
And btw. if you don't like it, you CAN change it!
A city with millions inhabitants and top-notch city improvements that produce nothing is an abherration, period.
The patch hopefully changed that, so this point is gone anyway. Period ².
2. "Unrealistic combat results"
The most unrealistic result I've had in three games, two of them with a lot of combat, is a veteran cavalry beating a conscript mech inf. The cavalry was mine
It *can* happen that a swordsman beats a tank, but people who say that this happens often are either lying or have downloaded a ****ed up mod.
I'm happy for you. I personnally saw MUCH MORE strange combat result. To be frank, they were not very common. But still, too much for my tolerance about non-realistic fight result.
I can say that people saying that strange results are not happening often are either lying or have downloaded a ****ed up mod. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, not calling you a liard, and I don't think you'd download a mod. So I end up finding you're a blind idiot
(sorry, no flames intented, but I could just not resist
)
3. "Bombers can't sink ships"
True, that's unrealistic. But this was implemented to force players to have a navy. If planes could sink ships, you could just use planes to defend your coasts and would need no navy. And a strong civilization with no navy is not very realistic either, is it?
Let's see...
Native americans. Aztecs. Egyptians. Persia. Ancient China (due to political reasons). Zululand.
All these civ from the game did not have a powerful navy. Some of them did not had a navy at all.
So far for realism.
Then we'll play a little game. There is a plane. There is a ship. You give the plane the ability to sink the ship. You give the ship the ability to shot down the plane. Now, you give the ship a 95 % of chances to shot the plane, and the plane a 5 % of chances to touch the ship. Now you try to defend yourself against my navy using only planes.
Cool, I see the first flame of understanding starting to light in the deepness of your eyes.
Of course my example was exagerrated, just to show that you had a perfectly stupid statement. The thing is not the make ship unsinkable or not by bombardement, it's just to balance to not end with unstoppable air power.
There are lots of more complaints to comment, but I'll stop here. In general most complaints seem to address the fact that winning a game of Civ III is not as easy as winning a game of Civ II. People complain because they don't win every time like they used to. Playing is about winning and losing. If you learn from your losses, you will in the long run, win more than you lose.
If people complain that they can't win easily, it just shows that the easier level is not easy enough. I personnally barely see the difference of difficulty between Chieftain and Regent except about AI production. I expected that Firaxis would limit the AI in lower level by making it slower and less fighting. So far, the only difference I see in difficulty level are the cheating (either for or against the player).
And well in fact, most of the complains comes from frustration. Which CAN be triggered by trouble to win, but by hundred of other things (bad fighting system, step back in interface, diplomacy and finishing touch compared to AC, things that people feel they just can't do nothing about, etc...).
3) new people come around here and see only whining: they never even try the game and don't buy it. There's not just bad stuff and the good stuff has to be told too! <----- probably the most important reason, ties in with #1
Guess what ???
If there is THAT MUCH whining, PERHAPS that it's because there is REAL ISSUES ?????????????????????????????????
No, that just can't be ! I like this game, HOW THE HELL can people found flaws I did not or like things I do not ???? That's just insane !
Seeing "whine" can make people think twice before buying the game, and then look a little further to see the flaws talked about. Then it's up to them to decide if the flaws are gamekiller for them or not, as everyone like different things.
For me the biggest flaw is the lack of modding possibilities, and particularly when it comes to the fight system. Considering the amount of publicity Firaxis made about how they would support the mod communauty, I would not even IMAGINE that they would not include a scenario editor in the game. They did. Guess what ? Without the "whines" here, I would not have found it before buying the game.
(now, I still got it, but that could have been a gamekiller, rather than just a huge nuisance, and again without seeing people "whining" about, I could not be aware about this before buying).
