Does Civ III work properly yet?

[MrLeN]

For "years" Civ (I and II) was my favorite game. Since the Amiga 500. If I added up all the time I've spent playing it, it would probably account for a year of my life (or more). I couldn't wait for Civ III. I was sweating..

I didn't bother playing Civ III much until a multiplayer version was available. When I got home one day and unpacked Play the World from the other box, I was shattered soon afterwards. No matter what I did, how many forums I visited, what EVER I asked or where I looked for help, I couldn't get it to work. Neither could the regular Civ partners that I had been playing Civ II with over the years.

I was almost prepared to keep trying, until I found that heaps of other people were having the same problem. During this time I had been learning how to play it (Civ III) via the tutorial, but never did get very good at it. My "Civ Friends all gave up and now they wont even TRY to get it going with me when I ask).

So, before I spend one second looking ANYWHERE, please tell me:

Does it work yet? Have problems been resolved? Are there still thousands of people scratching their heads?

I know that some people may reply: "Well, depends what the problems were - duh" etc.. But the way I see it, if I buy a game, I want to bring it home, install it and it should JUST WORK, like every other game I have.

Just one other thing while I am here. I am not overly impressed with the game anyway. Sure, it's MUCH better looking. It has better dimplomacy, granted. Bigger maps, big thumbs up. More Civs, yay. But it's nothing like Civ and Civ II. It's more like Call to Power imho), but the true pirit of Civ is lost. The gameplay and enjoyability can't be compared.

Why on earth are there workers now? That's one thing that really annoys me.

I TRULY and sincerely wish Civ wasn't totally re-written. I wish that Civ II was just expanded to have better diplomacy (even if it was rewritten, not reinvented), "BORDERS", nicer graphics, more civs and bigger maps, and I would have been the happiest man in the world.

For the above reasons, I still play Civ II. I thought about making a website to try and drum up support for Civ 2.5 (considering that Civ III has already been done). But I decided that Sid would never take the site seriously.

I guess I'm just ranting now. All I want to know is: Does it work yet.? Please don't get into big debates. It either works or it doesn't. Are there any patches?

I think I'll be still upset in 5 years from now. I was MR CIV "himself" and I miss it. I REALLY miss civ, and I feel depressed being stuck in an older version because the newest one isn't good enough. Civ was my life:

MrLeN

 

[YNCS]

As far as I'm concerned, Civ III (Vanilla), PTW and C3C all work quite well. However, I don't play MP.

Why on earth are there workers now? That's one thing that really annoys me.

There were workers in Civ II. The settlers and engineers worked the tiles. The major difference with workers between Civ II and Civ III is that in Civ III, instead of having a combined worker/settler unit, there are two different units, workers and settlers. I don't know why that's a source of annoyance.

 

[MrLeN]

As far as I'm concerned, Civ III (Vanilla), PTW and C3C all work quite well. However, I don't play MP.

I don't play the AI.

There were workers in Civ II. The settlers and engineers worked the tiles. The major difference with workers between Civ II and Civ III is that in Civ III, instead of having a combined worker/settler unit, there are two different units, workers and settlers. I don't know why that's a source of annoyance.

I know how it works. I hate it. I just want settlers like they used to be.

MrLeN

 

[MrLeN]

Hey I just saw that Civ IV is on its way and it comes with built in MP

Ok, I'm seeing some light..

Maybe everything will work out ok afterall!

MrLeN

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

MP works somewhat fine in C3C; you're absolutely correct that it didn't work at all for vanilla, and badly for PtW.
The by far biggest difference between Civ2 and 3 is the introduction of what is widely considered the best AI available. If you do not play anything but MP, there is indeed not that much better than Civ2 (resources and borders mainly).
So, your rant is absolutely justified, and completey unjustified at once . Your observations are correct, but you were also picking the wrong game for your taste.
Civ4 is supposed to have MP implemented from the very beginning. I'm just curious if that also means SP is less satisfiying.

 

[bkwrm79]

MP works somewhat fine in C3C; you're absolutely correct that it didn't work at all for vanilla, and badly for PtW.
The by far biggest difference between Civ2 and 3 is the introduction of what is widely considered the best AI available. If you do not play anything but MP, there is indeed not that much better than Civ2 (resources and borders mainly).
So, your rant is absolutely justified, and completey unjustified at once . Your observations are correct, but you were also picking the wrong game for your taste.
Civ4 is supposed to have MP implemented from the very beginning. I'm just curious if that also means SP is less satisfiying.

A very interesting question. I hope they aren't neglecting single player; I want to sit down and play, and quit when I feel like doing something else, and not worry about other people when I'm sitting in my home playing computer games.

 

[MrLeN]

MP works somewhat fine in C3C; you're absolutely correct that it didn't work at all for vanilla, and badly for PtW.
The by far biggest difference between Civ2 and 3 is the introduction of what is widely considered the best AI available. If you do not play anything but MP, there is indeed not that much better than Civ2 (resources and borders mainly).
So, your rant is absolutely justified, and completey unjustified at once . Your observations are correct, but you were also picking the wrong game for your taste.
Civ4 is supposed to have MP implemented from the very beginning. I'm just curious if that also means SP is less satisfiying.

I am not picking the wrong game. Civ II is the "very {{{REASON}}}" I purchased a PC after the Amiga. Yes, I went out and purchased a PC merely so that I could play Civ II MP, which is something I had been dreaming of for years. I absolutely loved Civ II (and still do). I was eagerly anticipating Civ III, but when it was released I was became upset. Not at first. I gave it a go, but after all the MP problems and finding out that the game had been totally reinvented and many of the original Civ options were *GONE*, I was shattered.

All I want to know is: does Civ III work yet?

ie: Are people now playing MP without hassle? ie: Via a patch? ..patches? Or are there still thousands of people floating around saying: "But I can't get it working, I've tried everything".

Also, there's nothing wrong with my computer or my internet connection. EVERYTHING else I do and have works fine. I have cable and a very fast computer with heaps of ram and a fast CPU. All brand new. I upgrade very often.

MrLeN

 

[kundor]

You know, if you want an experience that's a lot more like Civ2, but with better AI, better diplomacy, borders, and suchlike, you should try Alpha Centauri. Multiplayer works awesome in that, I can assure you.

Also, if you're really interested in creating a "Civ 2.5", you should check out the freeciv and civ-evo projects, both of which are creating civ 2 clones.

 

[Oddible]

I'm still trying to figure out if this post is merely flamebait - despite some great replies by oldersters in the forums.

In answer to your question YES. I played MP PTW from the beginning and as you know, it was rough. By the last patch of PTW things were working pretty smoothly for me. Now I have C3C and have never had an issue with MP. The other good thing about C3C MP vs Alpha Centauri is that the GameSpy room for Civ is almost always packed with folks to play - so you will easily find a game. Do a Google search for "Civ3players" if you want a good ladder to play in.

That said, if you have WinXP firewall turned on or some screwed up router or some lame ISP then your logic about "if I buy a game, I want to bring it home, install it and it should JUST WORK, like every other game I have" is just bunk.

The single player in Civ3 rules too - you should reconsider.

 

[klopolov]

I play LAN with my friend on two laptops (I have PTW) and we use silmuntenious turns. The only complains I have is that attacking is confusing, since he can kill my offencive units before I can even attack with them, but that is fixable by taking some defencive units along. Another annoying thing is that whenever I move a unit more than two tiles, another unit is selected for me to give orders to even if the first unit still has movement points left. I don't know if those are the problems people are talking about, but if that's the case, I don't see what could be so bad as to offset the fun of the game and make it so unbearable?

 

[Oddible]

@klopolov - PTW used to be terribly bugged - lots of lost connections in the middle of games. Whole civs would die and everyone would have to go back and meet in the lobby and restart the game from the last save - it was horrible.

As far as your movement issues - be sure to make ample use of the (new) multi-unit movement keys. 'J' to move an entire stack and 'CTRL-J' to move units of one particular type. Simultaneous is great fun because battles get so crazy - move pikes and knights up to your enemy, select a knight and CTRL-J all knights into his city - makes sure all your units move before the turn timer ends.

 

[klopolov]

Yeah, I use the multi movements, but even if I move the whole stack more than one tile, I am redirected to the next unit, even with the RR...

 

[HAND]

I kind of empathise with your objections MrLen. I was put off buying PTW until the dust had settled abit with new patches coming out. The old civ2 vs civ3 debate will run on forever i think. When i did get into civ3 i was happy with it and played it to death. Its different to civ2 ..its more of a civ2-smac hybrid.

 

[MrLeN]

Honestly, I didn't know about "The old civ2 vs civ3 debate" because since Civ III came out and after my experiences and what I observed of others experiences, I kinda just dropped out of the scene. But it makes sense that there would be an "old civ2 vs civ3 debate" because yes, "It's different to civ2".

I don't agree with Civ having being reinvented. Sid can make all the games he wants. Maybe he should have made Civ III and called it something else, leaving the option open to just "expand" Civ II even if it was re-written, but with the same principles (and expanded, ie: borders, better diplomacy, animated graphics etc).

Civ II is MUCH better game IMHO. I am quite emphatic about my observations not being about me being "TOO" used to Civ II. I liked Civ II better than Civ [the original] and I played Civ [the original] more than I had ever played any game ever.

Oddible,

I'm still trying to figure out if this post is merely flamebait - despite some great replies by oldersters in the forums.

You can view my post in any manner you wish, but I have better things to do than to just plain out come to a forum I've barely visited in years to make such a post unless I was sincerely interested.

Still, no one has informed me of any latest patches and/or let me know if such problems have been fixed.

Anyone?

MrLeN

 

[gunkulator]

I don't agree with Civ having being reinvented. Sid can make all the games he wants. Maybe he should have made Civ III and called it something else, leaving the option open to just "expand" Civ II even if it was re-written, but with the same principles (and expanded, ie: borders, better diplomacy, animated graphics etc).

Civ II is MUCH better game IMHO. I am quite emphatic about my observations not being about me being "TOO" used to Civ II. I liked Civ II better than Civ [the original] and I played Civ [the original] more than I had ever played any game ever.

As an SP only player, I somewhat take issue with your saying CivIII should not have been called civ. Civ is first and foremost a single player game. Always has been. Yes, I, II and III all eventually supported MP but that still doesn't take away the fundamental turned-based single player style.

For us old SP CivII vets, CivIII is a godsend. Far superior AI while at the same time fixing all the silly cheats and exploits that made CivII a cakewalk. CivIII is a great evolutionary step forward and I for one don't want to look back. Contrary to your opinion, I would have prefered that the MP versions of the game were not called Civ. At least CivI called it Civnet. If CivIV is nothing but a bunch of whiz-bang fixes for MP, I'll be very disapointed.

Just my $0.02

 

[MrLeN]

So you don't use or need the MP features. Then your opinion is rendered totally useless and unhelpful towards helping me with my troubles.

MrLeN

 

[Madroc]

For us old SP CivII vets, CivIII is a godsend. Far superior AI while at the same time fixing all the silly cheats and exploits that made CivII a cakewalk. CivIII is a great evolutionary step forward and I for one don't want to look back. Contrary to your opinion, I would have prefered that the MP versions of the game were not called Civ. At least CivI called it Civnet. If CivIV is nothing but a bunch of whiz-bang fixes for MP, I'll be very disapointed.

Just my $0.02

Amen. I just switched in the last 6 months and I love CivIII. Civ II was/is a great game, but with a Peaceful Expansionist Builder style it tended to bog down into "churn out settlers/caravans" until the spaceship arrived. Civ III is a LOT more replayable, IMHO.
To the OP: As another poster suggested, SMAC may be the game you're looking for if you want "Civ 2.5". Failing that, there is still a thriving Civ II community out there. And you really oughta try SP sometime ;-)

 

[sausnebb]

What is MP?
EDIT: Ahh.. Multi Player it is, I guess.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

As an SP only player, I somewhat take issue with your saying CivIII should not have been called civ. Civ is first and foremost a single player game. Always has been. Yes, I, II and III all eventually supported MP but that still doesn't take away the fundamental turned-based single player style.

For us old SP CivII vets, CivIII is a godsend. Far superior AI while at the same time fixing all the silly cheats and exploits that made CivII a cakewalk. CivIII is a great evolutionary step forward and I for one don't want to look back. Contrary to your opinion, I would have prefered that the MP versions of the game were not called Civ. At least CivI called it Civnet. If CivIV is nothing but a bunch of whiz-bang fixes for MP, I'll be very disapointed.

Just my $0.02

I've rarely seen a post on that topic I'd agreed more on.
Exactly my 0.02€.

Mr.Len: To be constructive, you should ask and look on the MP forum. I am not aware of anything needed for satisfying MP than the 1.22 patch for C3C you need anyway. There are some procedures to handle Civ3 MP, and that is something the MP minority can and will tell you.

 

[Admiral8Q]

I've rarely seen a post on that topic I'd agreed more on.
Exactly my 0.02€.

I'd have to agree. Although Civ3 "generic" (I guess that's what everyone calls "Vanilla") had alot of flaws, PTW is just about perfect for my taste.

I'll get C3C some day when I get bored with Civ3PTW, but that could be a long time since I've enjoyed PTW since it came out. How many years would that be now? 3?

Cheers!