Newbie/Oldie

[Zoolook]

Hi all,

I am a newbie in this forum, but an oldie on Civ. I've been playing it since it was released on the Atari ST more or less 10 years ago. Civ III is excellent, but there are some annoyances which have been there since the 1st game that have still not been addressed. I'm sure they've all be discussed on here before, but what do you think of the folloiwng;

- AI civs planting cities right next to yours, just because there is one square of unclaimed territory
- AI civs having hundreds of obsolete units aimlessly wandering around doing nothing.
- Civs always asking for more than is fair - we'll exchange horseback riding for Code of Laws, 300 gold, your world map and gems (new to Civ III of course)
- Units from the 20th century often loosing battles against archers and spearmen???
- Finally, the game is still very biased to the SIZE of your empire. A Civ with 15 crap cities will get more benefits than one with 5 very large well developed cities, espcially for Science.

Anyway - this forum is great, and I think I'll be here for a while - so Greetings from the UK!!

 

[Gruntboy]

Hey Zoolook, another Old Newbie here. (from the UK too).

Played Civ1 way back in 1990 or something on my Amiga. Couldn't tear me away from Civ2 until a friend borrowed it and I never got it back. Now finding out about Civ3 amongst other things.

 

[Zoolook]

Amiga?? Booo!! Atari ST ruled -

So you're a Geordie in London. I'm from Leicester and lived in London for 5 years, then gave up and moved to Colchester. The commute is hell though.

 

[Gruntboy]

LMAO! Used to have a mate say that to me all the time.

Been here 8 years, plan to stick it out for 2 more then I'm out. I can't stand it now. I know a few people out that way - Brightlinsea?

For some reason I used to see better games on the ST but always managed to convince myself the Amiga was better. :crazyeyes

 

[Zoolook]

I think the Atari ST started out much stronger, and was always better for MIDI (stuff like Cubase) but by 91, 92 the Amiga had overtaken it. A few years later the PC woke up, and the Playstation came out, and everyone had forgotten 16-bit computers sniff.

I need a new laptop, cos my old one won't play Civ III.... it'd be great to play on those 1 hour trips to London every morning.

 

[Julien]

- Units from the 20th century often loosing battles against archers and spearmen???
- Finally, the game is still very biased to the SIZE of your empire. A Civ with 15 crap cities will get more benefits than one with 5 very large well developed cities, espcially for Science.

This is really terrible to see that these programmers can't even solve an important problem like this one after 10 years of Civ !!
I don't have Civ3 yet, but I am not going to buy it until all these bugs are fixed. There is already the v1.16 patch. When come the next one ? How many will we have to wait before the game will at last be like it should be !

 

[xane]

Your last point bugs the hell out of me, being a "defensive" player I can build up a smallish empire with less cities, but each city being huge, yet I am not considered a major player without land.

I had to answer because I am from London and fed up with all these northerners invading the city, worse than Raging Barbarians some of them (j/k)

 

[Zoolook]

Julien, to be fair, Civ III is still very good - most of the "bugs" as you call them are there to "help" the AI. I get annoyed at games where the AI cheats in order to even things up against the player - Command and Conquer does this as well as many other strategy games. Shame though.

 

[Gruntboy]

LOL Xane. We're waging (and winning) a cultural victory over you suv-nas!

Our Civilization will rule!

 

[Zoolook]

That should be "sav-nas".

I take it from you're sig, that you're also a Star Wars fan? Have you seen the Episode II clips? Looks great c'est nes pas?

 

[Gruntboy]

Mais oui. I'm not a die-hard fan, I grew up with the first 3 so no-one will ever convince me otherwise. Whilst TPM was corny, I enjoyed it. EP2 looks cool (though I heard "love story" horror stories).

Besides, its the answers to all the questions we wanted to know as kids. Why does Vader breathe like that? What are Mandalorian Super Commandoes?

 

[Zoolook]

...and how did that gimp get his end away with Natalie Portman???

 

[SvenSlayer]

I'm a Star Wars fan too. Too bad we'll have to wait until May 2002 before we can watch Episode II.

I've always believed that in Civ the best way to get a high science output and lots o' money is to have 50 rubbish cities instead of 10 brilliant ones. That's why I can't see how anyone can survive in Civ with a Republican or Democratic government. It's Monarchy and then Communism for me!

( Actually I have 50 wonderful cities. )

 

[Jezner]

AI civs planting cities right next to yours, just because there is one square of unclaimed territory

Civs expand quite aggressively in this game. Personally, I like it because it makes for great land grab situations. The trick to do is build cities around your opposing Civ like a chain. If they violate your space, threaten them with war and only after you have populated all your space, open a rite of passage. I'm always builiding setters

- AI civs having hundreds of obsolete units aimlessly wandering around doing nothing.

Usually when I see lots of my neighboring Civ's moving units around that starts ringing bells for an impending attack. And usually I'm right. Trick to do is to attack them first.

I rarely see units move back and forth for no reason whatsoever.

- Civs always asking for more than is fair - we'll exchange horseback riding for Code of Laws, 300 gold, your world map and gems (new to Civ III of course)

That's the nature of diplomacy. There will rarely be a fair trade and if your neighbor wants a fair trade, it means you can probably exhort some from him/her. This was a deliberate. The weaker you are, the more enemy civs will take advantage. Of course, the stronger you are, the more you'll be able to exhort. It's neat and its fun to make your enemies grovel.

- Units from the 20th century often loosing battles against archers and spearmen???

There's a gazillion threads going on about this one. This is an argument which has been going on since the days of Civ1 when spearmen and settlers could take out your battleship. Personally, I don't think its that bad. The trick is to have a good back up plan and if you lose a really embarassing conflict, strike back twice as hard. Use mixed arms like having spearmen and swordsmen move together so block counter-attacks and don't be too proud to ask for a cease fire when you are really losing ground. of course, all bets are off when you get the nukes.

]- Finally, the game is still very biased to the SIZE of your empire. A Civ with 15 crap cities will get more benefits than one with 5 very large well developed cities, espcially for Science.

That's true. You could technically have a smaller empire, but have it be a powerhouse like England or such. I guess I'm opinionless on this one. By nature, I'm a greedy expansionist so I don't worry having a small group of cities. I mean, the AI is always building so you should be too.

Just my two pennies.

 

[Zoolook]

Hey Jenzer - thanks for the reply.

I agree with all your points, and yeah the "aimless wandering around" usually means trouble. I think I'm right about the AI using loads of out of date units, even on the harder levels.

The expansionist nature of the AI does sometimes go too far. If there is one unexploited desert square in the middle of no where, you can bet the English or the Russians will grab it, even though it may cost them in the long run.

I like your philosophy - rather cool, very American!

 

[scavenger]

allow me to destroy people who argue that in the "Days of Civ 1 battleships could loose to settlers"

this is true, but in Civ 1, a game which came out about 10 years ago, the combat system didn't even have hit points. the game rolled, and you either won, or you lost your unit, there was no "damage" you simply lived or died. I don't ever, ever, remember this problem in Civ II

so would people who keep saying, "This problem has been going on since Civ 1" please stop saying that? It's starting to bug me.

Especially because in Civ 1, when it happened, it was a MAJOR shock, not a "oh, not again"

 

[Bugg]

- AI civs planting cities right next to yours, just because there is one square of unclaimed territory
I don't worry about them unless they are stealing a strategic resources, they will get assimilated anyway.

- AI civs having hundreds of obsolete units aimlessly wandering around doing nothing.
I don't see this problem, units cost money.
- Civs always asking for more than is fair - we'll exchange horseback riding for Code of Laws, 300 gold, your world map and gems (new to Civ III of course)
The A.I. programmer said that the A.I. learns from trades. If it gets Masonry and Bronze Working and 20 gold for the Alphabet, it won't trade it for less. So if you aren't the first recipient of the trade you pay more.
- Units from the 20th century often loosing battles against archers and spearmen???
Gameplayer bias- Nobody ever says my tank beat warrior with one bar left. Happens so much you don't remember. This is a game design though, not a bug so you will have to live with this one or edit it

- Finally, the game is still very biased to the SIZE of your empire. A Civ with 15 crap cities will get more benefits than one with 5 very large well developed cities, espcially for Science
Very true.



I lived at Lakenheath 78-81 , used to go to London to get AD$D stuff.