-sigh-
After a recent Civ I divertissement on a 386 machine lacking Windows, I have rediscovered the value of simplicity. Let's face it: the game was near perfection, plagued by only a handful of problems:
---
The fact that war was too economical and the all-or-nothing combat model made world conquest before Christ too expedient.
Women's Suffrage made the republic unstoppable.
Pollution proliferation was demented.
Almost non-existent diplomacy culminated a terrible AI's shortcomings.
Space ships could run with a 0% success rate, roads could be built on water, etc.
Stupid events, i.e. volcanoes that could be shunned by temples.
---
If just the AI was improved, I would accept Civ I as the best game ever outlined. Nevertheless, improvements to the simulation that have followed, i.e. advanced supply/demand trade, advanced parlays with envoys, isometric/3D views, scenario add-ons, etc., have been fun, but, upon researching Civ III's archetype, I am convinced that they have abandoned Civilization's core simplicity.
Yes, BlueMonday, you are right. I, like many, have already been swindled by those marketing devils at Activision; I actually purchased an disorganized, incomplete prototype of a very complicated Civilization-like model (Call to Power). It won't happen again; I'm making sure that Civilization III is of good quality before I buy, as I can already sense swindling marketing techniques by the game's peddlers and a number of faults from the Firaxis team .
The lesson: less is more. A simple, challenging game will satisfy me.
PS: I pray that I'm not being rendered "docile"
