Hot news!Multiplayer will come with in an official add on!

[Graeme the mad]

If this is true then I think we need a forum for suggestions for the X-pack which we can give to FIraxis - and hopefully they will listen (yeah im sceptical too but you can but try)

I think scenario editor + Macro language is a must - if this is just Mp there is no way i will buy it.

I also suggest increasing ship rates (yeah ive done it with the ed but everyone should be able to enjoy it)

Make it possibloe to add more civs

Give us at least 6 new civs - another 16 would be great though

Improve damn diplo victory

Reduce corruption some more on larger maps

Make arms dealing a diplomatic option

Make i9t possible to demand an enemy sign a peace treaty with someone (I really want this - its so annoying when your two best friend civs go to war with one another and you have to join a side)

Make it so that if you have MP pacts with two warring powers you can decide whihc to support

Let spyts plant nukes

Anyone got ne more?

 

[The_Newbie]

I am annoyed that Firaxis released Civ3 early despite it being unfinished. Take Empire Earth. It was released 2 months later than ecpected but it came with all the features promised and no major bugs. Now, which company seems more trustworthy to spend money on in the future?

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by RogueNine
Civ 2 wasn't launched with multiplayer. It came out well after the game was released.

Originally posted by OneInTen
But that was patched and now it works, rather like if you go into Hungry Jacks (Australian version of Burger King) and your burger is cold, you can go up to the front counter and they'll make you a replacement one.[/B]

Thanks for providing these pertinant facts.

 

[Cav]

Yeah. It was patched, but it is a bit screwed that it wasn't right to begin with. Just as your burger being cold isn't right.

/me points accusingly at those front counter people

Cav's Suggested Expansion Pack List:
- Multiplayer, in any form. So long as we get it, I don't really care. One less thing for people to ***** about.
- Proper scenario type stuff. Macros, completely changable turn times, more rules editing options (I had a list, no idea where I've put it). Make sure its perfect, because more people will use this then they will multiplayer.
- New scenarios. I think we were all terribly inspired by the two world maps included with Civ3. Or not.
- At least 2 new governments. This is probly my biggest dissappointment with Civ3 after the air sup bug. I have no idea what to compare them too, mainly because of the current governments in Civ3
- A minor reduction of corruption in larger map sizes. I don't usually mind corruption too much, my outlying cities are used for culture bombing.
- AI improvements. I would rather not be gang-banged just because I won't give them some silly tech like Music Theory. Especially just because I don't have six million spearmen. My mobile infantry will own your spearmen to hell and back. Even if the spearmen dodges the bullets, knocks on the vehicles hatch and kills the crew as they come out.
- Science improvements. At least 2 new research options each age. Better balancing between beginning and end game research times.
- Diplomacy. A new "force peace treaty" option would be very nice. Allowing the enemy to trade cities would also be good. Allowing the transfer of units would be even better.
- New wonders. I'm thinking way more than 2. More like at least 6-8 major and 1-2 minor.
- New units. Theres really bugger all in Civ3 atm. Modern warfare needs more units. I tire of the "own everything with modern armour" approach. I was a unitmaker for TA for a while, I was spoiled with several hundred units that I didn't make myself
- Fix the diplo advisor screen. It's a pain.
- A little more usefulness for aircraft. Maybe so they could destroy units?
- Finish the city screens. It has been proven to my satisfaction that only half a job was done with them.
- Actually have all these features working when the mission pack is RELEASED.

Cav's Ultimate Expansion Pack List:
Make the game perfect in my mind. And not through brainwashing either

 

[Charles]

Originally posted by OneInTen
I appreciate it's been a letdown for some, and I wish everyone could be happy with the game. But I think it's mostly due to false expectations. Don't get your hopes up before a game is released that it's going to be the greatest game ever. I did that before quake came out, after playing doom and reading all the stuff said about quake on the net I thought the game would be absolutely brilliant. Of course it came out and it had a stupid, inconsistent single player game, it ran fairly poorly on machines of that time, and the promised internet multiplayer was laggy as hell over a modem (all these issues were fixed over time - some by mods, and some by id).

So you live and learn and take games on their merits rather than on what you expect from the pre-game hype.

The truth of the matter is I'm a big fan of this game, and when I first heard that Civ3 was on approach I did get very excited. And so I read the reviews, talked to my retail outlets etc etc. And the more information I gathered about Civ3 the more excited I got. And when I finally got my first copy and played it, I realized that the game was not only exagerated but it was missing so many great features that existed in Civ2. And what really fumes me the most is that the very same "features" that they left out, are now going to be available but for another $20-$40 in the expansion. It's kind of like buying a hamburger, and then you realize they forgot to put the patty on, and when you go back to ask them for your "proper order" they say "okay, that'll be an extra $2.95 for the meat" when you know that the meat should have been included with the hamburger in the first place, and it's a complete ripoff. This is only an opinion-related analagy ofcoarse. But you are right, we shouldn't "trust" a word they say until we actually play the game for ourselves. It's just sad that it has to be that way.

Charles.

 

[dutch-legionary]

IMO, with MP, they have to tone done Industious.
I played a game on Regent level with the Romans (my favourite) and had difficulties on getting enough landmass.
So I conquered with my legions a large enough chunk to establish a significant empire. But it took until Industrious Age to become dominant. However, a very satisfying game.
Recently, I started a Regent level game as the Chinese (Industrious and Militaristic)
Because of my high shield production and hard-labouring Workers I got the biggest landmass already in Ancient time. I have now the highest culture without much effort.
I don´t even need the Militaristic bonus yet, (maybe later)
(The only downside is my high corruption, I´m still building the FP.)
This felt too easy!
What do you think?

 

[ukrneal]

It seems to me that many people in this forum have missed the point.

The game is not about honor, love of this forum, love of its clients, being fair, being nice, making the best product possible, etc.

Civilization III is about money - about making the most money for the least expense. That's called business. Firaxis made a calculation and figured out how much money they could make. That's all this decision is about. You can get as emotional and upset as you like, they probably don't care.

That's the fact jack.

 

[Charles]

Originally posted by ukrneal
It seems to me that many people in this forum have missed the point.

The game is not about honor, love of this forum, love of its clients, being fair, being nice, making the best product possible, etc.

Civilization III is about money - about making the most money for the least expense. That's called business. Firaxis made a calculation and figured out how much money they could make. That's all this decision is about. You can get as emotional and upset as you like, they probably don't care.

That's the fact jack.

Right from the horses mouth. You heard 'em people. Firaxis doesn't care, they're only in it for the money. Well they've been warned about how dangerous it is to piss off the consumers, and in business that can mean only one thing, bankcruptsy and boycotting. I'll get the popcorn...

Charles.

 

[barefootbadass]

Folks, you all here who are bashing Firaxis do know that it isn't Firaxis' fault that the game was released so buggy and without MP, don't you? Infogrames is their publisher, and they made Firaxis release it early. The civ3 website indicated that there would be multiplayer, and that was what they were going to do until Infogrames saw an opportunity to rip off(and disrespect) legions if civ'ers, and Firaxis could do nothing about it.

I would love MP although I won't be getting it until I actually finish some games in decent time. I'm never going to play with more than 8 civs again. I've got a monarch game with 12 civs that I've been playing for like 2 months. For all the governors and stuff to attempt to reduce micromanagement, its as bad or worse than ever, especially that annoying domestic advisor that asks you are you SURE you want to do this every time you override the governor's placement of citizens(and then turn the governor back on if necessary), try to replace a terrain improvement, or wait too long to build your aqueduct or hospital.

 

[Charles]

Originally posted by Zachriel
A consumer comes in to Burger King expecting filet mignon, but gets a whopper instead, and throws a fit. Who is at fault? Did Burger King make a promise it did not keep? Did the cook not do his job? No, rather the consumer had unrealistic expectations and not only suffers personally, but makes everyone around him suffer too. (Everyone in retail has had customers like that.)

Unrealistic expectations? So the fact that a game company used shrewd marketing tactics and inflated exgeration to trick the consumers into buying up the products before they realized what they were getting, has nothing to do with it? Bogus, they knew exactly what they were doing. Fact is, they played us.

I'm not partial to cricket, but I don't spend my time on the cricket forum trying to make everybody miserable because cricket isn't the game I think it should be.

No one is trying to make anyone miserable. This is a text-based forum with an in-personal atmosphere. Since when did an email from someone half-way across the world, whom which you don't know from a whole in the ground ever hurt? This is a place where we discuss Civ-related topics whether it's good or bad. It's a discussion forum, get over it.

In any case, the premise is wrong, that the consumer is getting ripped off. I love the game, play it everyday, and wish I could buy the add-on now, instead of having to wait.

Your completely missing the point, Firaxis used very shrewed marketing tactics, and over-exagerated reviews/advertising to get everyone's hopes up. And everyone "assumed" that when Firaxis hypes or exagerates something that means its going to be excellent! Why shouldn't we trust them, they were never wrong before. Or so I thought. And for trusting them we got burned.

That's nice that you love the game the way it is. Good for you, does that mean we should all shut-up now and neglect our own preferences because it bothers YOU ? I don't think so. I paid for the game, I'll say what I feel like saying.

Charles.

 

[Graeme the mad]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

SHUT UP STUPID FREAKY PEOPLE

STOP BITHCIN BOUT FIRAXIS - IT DONT MAKE A DIFFERENCE - LETS JUST DISCUSS WHAT WE WANT IN AN EX PACK

I have some more definite needs for an x-pack in addition to the list above

Diplo screen with 16y civs on - i really hate not knowing if such and such is trading with such and such just because i met them last

Diplomatic agreements screen which would let you see what arrangments/trades you have with civs and if you have spies what agreements/trades other civs have and HOW LONG THEY LAST FOR

Fascism as a government type - im sure firaxis could make a much better fascism than we could with that crummy editor

Make the units/improvments depedent on gov type be disbanded/not work on swithc of government - when I tried making some if found there was no point because of this.

Reintroduce firepower, or what the hec, just triple the a/d stats of modern units - no tanks die to legions even if its an army

Better AI in mod times - now here I dont like to criticise because the AI is very, very good, but I would like it to be a teeny bit harder in mod times.

More AI prposasls to player - the Ai trade so presumably they must approach each other, have you ever been asked for a trade agreement by a comp player?


Come on, what I've said aint too hard really, is it?

 

[Lucky]

Great!
Another "come on, flame each other!" thread.:flamedevi

Somehow every thread with a bit of news, which Thunderfall puts up on the main page, gets turned into this kind of thread. And here everybody states his opinion again and again and again... oh and flames every different opinion.
Just about 5-6 posts with real news and/or suggestions.
Really great and fun to read!

Why don´t you guys just play the game, or if you dislike it don´t play it and do something else!
It seems most of you invest a lot more time in posting useless stuff than actually playing the game!

Enough for me today, back to GOTM3!

 

[Charles]

Originally posted by barefootbadass
Folks, you all here who are bashing Firaxis do know that it isn't Firaxis' fault that the game was released so buggy and without MP, don't you? Infogrames is their publisher, and they made Firaxis release it early. The civ3 website indicated that there would be multiplayer, and that was what they were going to do until Infogrames saw an opportunity to rip off(and disrespect) legions if civ'ers, and Firaxis could do nothing about it.

Bogus, they knew exactly what they were doing. Firaxis had five years to come up with some really good concepts and designs with the help of the thousands of fans sending them ideas. And then they had a two year contract with Infogrames to prepare the overall plan. If 35 professional programmers and designers can't prepare ONE game-product worthy of the market in two years than something is seriously wrong with them. Not only did they have plenty of time, but Infogrames is one of the largest software publishers in America, they could have negotiated an extension in order to maintain the Sid Meier quality and standards by presenting a full and complete sequal equipped with features. If they would have done so, at least 60% of the hate-mail wouldn't exist. They're not children they are proffesionals, and game quality is their responsability. Why should we completely shift focus and blame the publisher, they didn't make the game! However this isn't to say that Infogrames is completely innocent, I'm sure they played a role in all of this.

Charles.

 

[Charles]

Originally posted by Lucky
Why don´t you guys just play the game, or if you dislike it don´t play it and do something else!
It seems most of you invest a lot more time in posting useless stuff than actually playing the game!

Because, obviously we aren't happy with Civ3. And you wanna know the worst of it? We actually paid for it. I get more excitement from the forums than cartoon-like graphics, un-realistic artificial intelligence and bad micromanagement. If you catch my drift.

Charles.

 

[VoodooAce]

I like people complaining. Get our gripes out there. The more something is griped about, the more priority it will get from the manufacturer when they clean this mess up.

What I like as much as the complaining, though, is to see how those that complain about all the criticism try to make it seem like THEIR complainning is any different than anybody elses.

Lucky, mayby YOU should just bust out your copy of civ3 and play it, huh? Since you like it so much. Personally, I can NOT play the freakin' game anymore until I can get some human competition.

What I'd like to see improved, as mentioned by Grame when he got through complaining himself, is the AI.

The AI needs to stop building spearmen and longbowmen while I'm pumping out the modern armor.

Arms dealing would be cool. In ToT you could do this.

I'd also like to see at least a little bit of loyalty built into the AI, as well. The AI has absolutely NO sentimentality and will attack their ally of thousands of years out of the blue. We all know it happens, so we deal with it, but relations between human and ai civs should increase and decrease with a little more....smoothness.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by VoodooAce
I'd also like to see at least a little bit of loyalty built into the AI,

Interesting. How many humans betray the computer I wonder? Would you deny a possibly winning strategy to the computer? It is a valid strategy you know, gain someone's confidence, then take them to the cleaner.

 

[Charles]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Interesting. How many humans betray the computer I wonder? Would you deny a possibly winning strategy to the computer? It is a valid strategy you know, gain someone's confidence, then take them to the cleaner.

It's NOT a strategy it's a design flaw! The AI never holds treaties. So what is the point to having "treaties" again?

Charles.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Charles


It's NOT a strategy it's a design flaw! The AI never holds treaties. So what is the point to having "treaties" again?

Charles.

The AI generally holds to any treaty that benefits it. Usually this occurs when you are the stronger civ in a MPP. Also, if you are the source of strategic resources the AI civ needs, and you are stronger, that civ will almost never go to war with you unless it gets caught in an MPP. I do agree it would be nice if stronger civs treated a smaller trading partner with more respect, but this is not always true in history either. The way the AI treats treaties is just one more reason to keep a large standing army.

 

[Graeme the mad]

I have to disagree with Charles's last point - the computer does not always break treatys even on the highest difficulty level, i have spent many games where it has not attacked, have you considered it is responding to your playing style (tiny little country possibly or maybe you break deals yourself)

I am mostly impressed with the AI, except for modern armies (does it ever upgrade) and approachingg you about deals (i have mentioned this before) - also it always enters your territory even after you ask it to leave and this does not allow you to declare war legit

Come on everybody suggestions please - i think we could get all teh suggestions for the x-pack together and make a big list (not a convulted thread like this) and tehn give it to firaxis adn hopefully make them listen

I have another three -
Firstly, as I said above, moving troops through country when they have benn told to leave should allow player to declare war legit (same applies for the other way round of course)

and units should be allowed to upgrade to SU - My fix of making the civs being able to build the equiv of their unit is not exactly satisfactory for obvious reasons - possibly their should be two things each unit can upgrade into, and if you were, say the russians the unit would auto upgrade to cossack cos it couldnt upgrade to cavalry (make sense? if not read it again and wonder)

Also I think that cavalry should be allowed to upgrade into tanks (now I know that is very small and piddling and so easily changed with the editor but if we are gonna have a multi player I'd like a standardised game)

 

[Eliezar]

Fayadi, my above mentioned idea for military police would be a unit with marginal ability maybe 6attack 8defense but 2x the ability to stop resisters and counts as 2 military units if the number of your defenders modifies your happiness.

Eliezar