Is this the most tedious, boring game ever?

[spite]

It's a lot of *work* to play this game.

Building settlements (especially later in the game, when default units are expensive) is very time-consuming and unrewarding.

Strategic resources are the biggest PITA ever. I mean, what farmer didn't have a horse dating back to pre-historic times? And yet my armies can't have one if there isn't a horse square nearby? Same goes for iron, coal, oil and most other strategic resources. The trading model is, again... tedious. It would work fine if there were one hundred civs playing at a time and through the magic of capitalism, everyone got at least some of what they wanted... but with 2-16 civs, those resources are way too precious.

This is also the first civ game ever where not only I have not been able to outpace the historical technological development, I'm behind it, as is the rest of the competition (unless I'm playing at a difficulty level where the AI starts cheating.)

The AI, once it declares war even if it's vastly out-matched, will not make a fair peace no matter how many of its units shatter themselves on my cities' walls... I have to go hunt them down, often halfway across the map.

I'm really hating this game because it is so much work and tedium... and I'm wondering if I'm approaching it wrong. Anyone else have a similar experience and found a strategy or approach that made it not suck?

 

[JoseM]

what?

 

[spite]

Hey, did I throw insults your way?

Do I tell you that your posts are meaningless?

No.

I just want to know if I'm missing something about Civ3, if I'm doing something wrong... that after two weeks of trying to really like it, I'm getting frustrated at my inability to succeed in the game, nevermind succeed in liking it. I've loved the previous two installations of the series and would like to feel the same way about this one.

So please say something constructive next time.

 

[philippe]

well if you say civ3 is stupid you dont play it.
and dont ask uss how to play the game because you can see we have tons of threads about this.
this is another boring stupid thread with questions already answered

 

[spite]

Why do I feel as if I'm talking to a bunch of Quake fanboys and accidentally insulted their favorite mod, not mature Civ fans?

It's too bad that the civ newsgroups have gone downhill so much over the past 5 years.

My point is:

1. Hi, I'm a fan of Civ games.
2. For some reason I find I'm not enjoying Civ 3.
3. I find aspects of the game tedious.
4. I see a large community of fans of the game.
5. I'm wondering if any of you felt the same way, and how you got past it.

Or

5A. If you never felt the way I did, how do you feel about my points, can you shed a new light on them?

That's it.

If you want to be a bunch of useless, self-righteous pricks... go ahead. If you want to take my comments about Civ 3 personally, get huffy and defensive instead of saying something intelligent about the matter... go right ahead. No skin off my back, just $40 out of my pocket. I just decided to give this place a shot, my mistake.

 

[JoseM]

what do you mean?

 

[spite]

Maybe I phrased things wrong. I never stated this game sucks. Even look at my topic - it's in the form of a question. It's designed to provoke, I agree... but to provoke an intelligent response, a rebuttal.

Nowhere did I state that the game sucks. I stated MY qualms with it, but I always make it clear that this is just my opinion (one which I'm trying to change, if you haven't noticed.)

I didn't come in here saying "This game sucks, you guys are losers for playing it, why waste your time on this crap, go back to Civ 2 or Civ 1", did I?

It was more like "I really don't like this and this and this, and I find they interfere with my enjoyment of the game." ... and then I was expecting your take on it.

 

[-proletarian-]

Spite, I apologize for the crap you're getting from some members of this board. I guess it just goes to show that no matter how sophisticated a game may be, you'll still get the usual knee-jerk reactionary fanboys as a part of it's fanbase.

Now, as for your problem, I suggest that you concentrate less on "beating" the game and put more emphasis into trying to have an interesting game, given the circumstances. Got no horses? Build up a mighty legion of archers to crush your opponents with. No coal? Send a wave of cavalry, supported by your glorious cannons, into the enemy heartland and carve out their coal-rich provinces for yourself!

The same goes for the land itself. Whether it be starting on a small isolated island, a snow-covered northern plain, or in the heart of a jungle, play the game out, and see how far you can take your civ from such humble, and hostile, roots.

Bottom line, don't play to win, play to have fun. Experiment. Tinker with your usual playing style and see what new strategies you can come up with for CivIII, ones that may not have worked in the past but are now valuable means to ultimate victory.

And oh yeah, don't listen to the fanboys.

 

[Zouave]

Nothing better shows the mindlessness of the Firaxis fanboys than this thread and their inability to respond constructively and to the point of Spite's complaints - complaints which are neither new nor unique to him.

 

[cegman]

Ok now to help yea it can be tedious at times but hey you have got to try and create new stuff for it and then it is less and if they get a new editor I know you will enjoy it more. I enjoy but it is boring if you don't have something to help you through some of the waits so just fight wars when bored and worry about stuff when it comes up. That is what I do relax and enjoy. You should also try and mess with the editor and see if you can find something cool to do

 

[Bamspeedy]

I hope this is the type of response your looking for spite.

Civ3 does require strategy in more areas than other games. You can't just get the newest tech, build the newest unit and steamroll over the AI. You must have the proper resources for them, so you need to make sure you get the resources. A civ could be of gigantic size, but if it does not have iron for example, it can be easily taken down. In older strategy games, all you needed was to build cities, and with each new city, you simply got that much more powerful. With this system, it helps to go after territory that will give you those resources, instead of just taking up space.

With stategic and luxury resources, you may have to trade with other civs to get them. This promotes people using diplomacy and encourage you to want to keep a good reputation, rather than being the bad-ass warmongerer to everyone in EVERY single game.

It adds variety.

There usually isn't an overabundance of resources, because otherwise what would be the point of having them? Without wanting or needing a resource there often would be no need for war. Think about the diplomatic situation in today's world for countries (like the U.S.), that depend on, for the most part, oil from other countries (middle eastern countries).

In civ3 you usually have to have a good balance of diplomacy, military, science, economy, culture, etc. to have a good game. With so many options you can of course emphasize one area more than others depending on your play style. But if you totally ignore one aspect, it usually comes back to haunt you later on. Civ3 is better at keeping BOTH warmongers and peaceful builders happy.

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by spite
Why do I feel as if I'm talking to a bunch of Quake fanboys and accidentally insulted their favorite mod, not mature Civ fans?

It's too bad that the civ newsgroups have gone downhill so much over the past 5 years.

My point is:

1. Hi, I'm a fan of Civ games.
2. For some reason I find I'm not enjoying Civ 3.
3. I find aspects of the game tedious.
4. I see a large community of fans of the game.
5. I'm wondering if any of you felt the same way, and how you got past it.

Or

5A. If you never felt the way I did, how do you feel about my points, can you shed a new light on them?

That's it.

If you want to be a bunch of useless, self-righteous pricks... go ahead. If you want to take my comments about Civ 3 personally, get huffy and defensive instead of saying something intelligent about the matter... go right ahead. No skin off my back, just $40 out of my pocket. I just decided to give this place a shot, my mistake.

Spite, not everyone here is a Civ3 fanboy, firaxis can do no wrong type. I've had the game since it came out and did get a lot of enjoyment out of it. That being said, Civ3 is not as much fun as the previous civ games. I really haven't been able to figure out what made the game less fun. Perhaps it's that Firaxis have been too proactive with patches in that they try to "fix" exploits that players use to beat their AI. It could be some of the extra features of the game like culture flipping and resources (although I do like the concept of resources). Not too sure.

I was able to play the game for a few months, and then for a week or two after each patch came out. Other than that I don't play the game. Sure, the latest patch was an improvement, but it didn't fix the game in my mind in that it still isn't the fun, immersive experience I've come to expect from Sid. Proletarian had some good suggestions on how to extract more enjoyment out of the game. Try those, and also try to set some goals for yourself at the outset of the game. For instance, limit yourself to a certain number of cities, or play to get a really early spaceship launch or domination victory. That should extend the length of time you're still able to enjoy the game. Hopefully a decent editor will be released before you give up on the game completely.

 

[Stuka]

As the subject sayeth:

To each his own.

Some love it, some don't like it, some may even hate it. Slow turns, micromanagement, and frustration are a part of life for Civ3 players. Some of us LIKE it. I for one am THRILLED that my "workers" clean up pollution on their own, etc... It's a big step in the right direction, and it's getting better.

My only beef:

We can't make SCENARIOS yet. Not REALLY.

 

[JoseM]

Stuka, is there a war going on in your signature?

 

[Ozz]

spite

I agree with you, Civ 3 1.21 is not Civ 2 or Civ 1
enhanced, it is it's own game, with the same name.
And frankly I only play it after a new patch comes
out any more, to see if they've fixed it.

To me it's like the new coke vs coke classic. The
producers will be a long time going back to the
original winning formula.

 

[Stuka]

Originally posted by JoseM
Stuka, is there a war going on in your signature?

I guess I do have a war going on in my signature.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by spite
It's a lot of *work* to play this game.

My 2-cents.

Play a reasonable level for your experience. Quit when the game gets boring and start another one. I rarely finish games, but almost always have fun. A lot of times, I just play the ancient age, have a good war, try a few new strategies, win or lose, then quit.

Concerning specific gameplay. You must expand quickly in the beginning. If you are successful in this, the rest of the game is usually much easier.

Oh, and there are many great posts on this forum (despite your initial experience). Try the search feature. There is more than one good strategy, and everyone has their own style. Or just keep asking questions.

 

[dowski]

My reply echos the sentiments of some of the others, but I will include it none the less.

Despite the fact that this is a "game" with built in objectives, when I am playing it is usually not a matter of winning or losing that keeps my interest. It is the little details of empire management, foreign relations, resource allocation, etc, that seems to add to the game.

...I am researching Steam Engine...will I have coal in my terrirtory when the technology is available?...who of my "neighbors" should I consider trading with for it if I don't?...

Or...as in my current game: I don't have *any* strategic resources (well, just horses and iron)...how can I survive in the middle/industrial ages without saltpeter and coal? Should I attack the Persians or trade with them for their abundant resources? In this game, I aquired the resources I needed by trading to have access to the resource for 20 turns and spending part of my large treasury on upgrading my military. If the Persians decide to deny access to resources, my recently upgraded 35+ Cavalry, 20+ Riflemen, and 10 Cannon should now allow me to make a dent far enough into their empire to secure my *own* saltpeter to fuel the onslaught.

Play the game different ways and see what happens...try stupid things...provoke big civs and see how long you can hold out against their forces (you'll probably laugh at their poor attack "strategies")...Build a city deep in your neighbor's territory just to spite those AIs who have done it so many times to you!...play with a "weak" Civ, and see how you can best utilize their abilities...

I may be weird, but I think of Civ as a sort of world "test tube" where you can experiment with all sorts of normal/wacky strategies and ideas. Kind of reminds me of playing with Legos as a kid...

Ok, that's enough. Hope this helps.

-dowski

 

[JoseM]

bravo dowski!!! u explained perfectly how the game should be play... it isnt a matter of win or loss, it is a matter of having fun to play it

 

[Richard III]

Me, I'm just baffled at why Spite was so defensive. I'm re-reading this thread, and frankly the "hysterical fanboy" response is nowhere to be seen. I'm at a loss as to what's so wrong or hostile or mindless about asking "what?" as Josem did. If anything, the response from the civ critics seems to be the hysterical one.

Personally, I have to agree that it's sort of an odd conversation for a "civfanatic" to start, since all three Civ games always took "alot of work." All of the things you're complaining of have, frankly, been characteristics of the Civ family and its cousins from conception; it's the nature of the beast.

And what a fine beast it is.

R.III