Meteor Man
Cylindropuntia imbricata
Yeah, Civ 3's graphics are actually dang good, it was released over 5 years ago! This is especially so now that the civ3 modders have gotten to be experts at manipulating in-game .pcx's.
Oh, Civ3.
- Thread starter sav
- Start date
Quintillus, I agree 2D model is the best option for Civ games. When I talked about a Civ III with modern graphics I was thinking of a game on 2D style, not 3D, but with units and other things - like resources, seas, trees, etc. - looking better.
We really should start a petition for a "modern" Civ III and send it to Firaxis after having 10.000 signatures, maybe after one or two years. It could start here in this forum.
Let Firaxis know that the world wants Civ III again.
We really should start a petition for a "modern" Civ III and send it to Firaxis after having 10.000 signatures, maybe after one or two years. It could start here in this forum.
Let Firaxis know that the world wants Civ III again.
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
There are things I like about Civ IV. There are things I like about Civ III.
There are enormously MORE things to do with Civ IV - there are more strategies, more ways to approach the game, more civs, better balance to the civs - just more.
Civ III, however - there are more games in Civ III that I read and go "man, what a game" than in Civ IV.
There are enormously MORE things to do with Civ IV - there are more strategies, more ways to approach the game, more civs, better balance to the civs - just more.
Civ III, however - there are more games in Civ III that I read and go "man, what a game" than in Civ IV.
Meteor Man
Cylindropuntia imbricata
Not when you play some of the Civ3 mods...
madviking
north american scum
Civ3 is one patch away from being the greatest. There are just a few bugs that make it annoying and/or troublesome to play. Quick summary of my thoughts:
- graphics - Civ is supposed to be played like a board game; 2D terrain is great.
- combat - Civ3 combat is definitely based greater on quality rather than quantity; whoever got cavalry first could leverage that advantage with awesome ends. Civ4 is a lot more rock-paper-scissors making newer units not necessarily better than everything else. Additionally, warfare in Civ4 was a lot slower since, most times, you had to siege every city to gain any offensive capability...which I really dislike.
- AI - the AI in Civ3 had greater parity, especially in tech trading. In Civ4, the local AI influence the strength of the start; e.g. having Gandhi or Mansa Musa as a neighbor as opposed to Ragnar or Shaka. For the most part, each AI operates similarly, except, obviously, for their aggressiveness.
- diplomacy - Civ4 had better (read: more complex) diplomacy, which, on one hand, made things more dynamic but also made things harder to keep track of. Civ3's was a lot more of just "OK what techs/gold can I get this turn?" while Civ4's was "OK how do I keep Shaka off my back?". As someone mentioned earlier, the techs for gpt deals are great for the human players to gain awesome sums of wealth. But the AI in Civ4 can't give you large sums of money (in the form of gpt).
- units - upgrades are a pain in Civ4. 80-some bucks for an axeman upgrade? No thanks. Sun Tzu's and Leonardo's for me.
- nostalgia - I remember playing Civ3 for the longest time, so it almost became part of my childhood...
- graphics - Civ is supposed to be played like a board game; 2D terrain is great.
- combat - Civ3 combat is definitely based greater on quality rather than quantity; whoever got cavalry first could leverage that advantage with awesome ends. Civ4 is a lot more rock-paper-scissors making newer units not necessarily better than everything else. Additionally, warfare in Civ4 was a lot slower since, most times, you had to siege every city to gain any offensive capability...which I really dislike.
- AI - the AI in Civ3 had greater parity, especially in tech trading. In Civ4, the local AI influence the strength of the start; e.g. having Gandhi or Mansa Musa as a neighbor as opposed to Ragnar or Shaka. For the most part, each AI operates similarly, except, obviously, for their aggressiveness.
- diplomacy - Civ4 had better (read: more complex) diplomacy, which, on one hand, made things more dynamic but also made things harder to keep track of. Civ3's was a lot more of just "OK what techs/gold can I get this turn?" while Civ4's was "OK how do I keep Shaka off my back?". As someone mentioned earlier, the techs for gpt deals are great for the human players to gain awesome sums of wealth. But the AI in Civ4 can't give you large sums of money (in the form of gpt).
- units - upgrades are a pain in Civ4. 80-some bucks for an axeman upgrade? No thanks. Sun Tzu's and Leonardo's for me.
- nostalgia - I remember playing Civ3 for the longest time, so it almost became part of my childhood...
I'd sign the petition!!!!
I agree with madviking, Civ3 is much better than civ4. I've been pretty active in the ideas and suggestions forums, and there are WAY too many civ4 (and now civ5) advocates. I think I'm going to go and create a new thread in that section for a new Civ3. I will use madviking's points as a helper. Thanks!
I agree with madviking, Civ3 is much better than civ4. I've been pretty active in the ideas and suggestions forums, and there are WAY too many civ4 (and now civ5) advocates. I think I'm going to go and create a new thread in that section for a new Civ3. I will use madviking's points as a helper. Thanks!
Show this thread to Sid! lol.
Ive been playing CivIII for 4 years now and still love it! I played Civ IV several times but it never caught my attention in a way CivIII did.
IMO, Civ4 leaders look too cartoonish as well as it's graphics and combat is too complex that it takes the fun out of just smashing two armies against each other.
Im way to go for a CivIII-style CivVI! *crossfingers
Ive been playing CivIII for 4 years now and still love it! I played Civ IV several times but it never caught my attention in a way CivIII did.
IMO, Civ4 leaders look too cartoonish as well as it's graphics and combat is too complex that it takes the fun out of just smashing two armies against each other.
Im way to go for a CivIII-style CivVI! *crossfingers
Go ahead, Argetnyx. Start the thread and then we could discuss the details of the petition to Firaxis.
I have no doubt it will have the support from thousands and thousands Civ III players around the world.
Talking about the marketing approach, maybe Firaxis could release a new Civ III not as a competitor to V, but a tribute to and old classic, from which they could gain extra money. Is it an absurd idea, what do you think?
I have no doubt it will have the support from thousands and thousands Civ III players around the world.
Talking about the marketing approach, maybe Firaxis could release a new Civ III not as a competitor to V, but a tribute to and old classic, from which they could gain extra money. Is it an absurd idea, what do you think?
Meteor Man
Cylindropuntia imbricata
Wait, a petition for what? Newer graphics for the Civ3 engine? I doubt Firaxis will go for that. They've moved on. If you start a thread though, I'll happily sign.
TheOverseer714
Overseer
Better yet, make the code open source and let our modders have at it.
Meteor Man
Cylindropuntia imbricata
Oh yes! Imagine all the crazy things these guys will come up with. We won't need Civ5.
Moosezilla
Grognard Warlord
I would sign on for Civ 3-2.0. And yes an editor w/source code access. More importantly I would buy it.
I'm amazed at how fast my thread has been shot down...
I don't think that adding new graphics to civ3 is what is needed, the graphics are already better than the 3d ones. Just give us a new version with more reality added and actual STRATEGY, something that civ4 and 5 have abandoned.
I don't think that adding new graphics to civ3 is what is needed, the graphics are already better than the 3d ones. Just give us a new version with more reality added and actual STRATEGY, something that civ4 and 5 have abandoned.
Meteor Man
Cylindropuntia imbricata
Civ 3 already has strategy: throw as many units at a city as you can, then throw the rest at the next city. Repeat until victory. One thing I wish they would include though would be flank attack bonuses. That would be cool. Reenacting famous campaigns like the Schefflin plan that actually flanked the French would be so interesting.
Meteor Man
Cylindropuntia imbricata
They'll probably tell you to bug off and buy Civ5.
What were the arguments?
What were the arguments?
Nergal
Prince
I do enjpy Civ3 as it is. Given the option I'd change some parts of the AI programming and get rid of some of the pop ups and make a few tweaks to combat. In general its fine. I find Civ4 too gimmicky although its pretty its boring by comparision. Civ5 demo bombs out on my machine and having read the support threads I wont be buying it until they sort out the numerous bugs. Firaxis wont produce a new Civ3 as they are too focussed on 5.
Elephantium
Trampling the AI
Civ3 supports this to some extent (surround an enemy cav in order to attack it with infantry so that it can't retreat), but aside from that, I read your comment and thought to my self "What this poster really wants is a tactical wargame!"
Skullsplitter
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2010
- Messages
- 108
One of the biggest problems WRT both realism and gameplay is the market. From the realism POV, luxuries function like any other good -- the law of diminishing returns holds. The market should not be giving huge bonuses for the 7th and 8th luxuries, but rather for the 1st and 2nd.
From the gameplay POV, markets make it even more worthwhile to take over a city that gives you another luxury. Not only does the new city give you more production, it reduces your opponent's production. Win-win, to be sure. Then the uber-sweetness, the new luxury makes 3-4 MORE people happy in ALL your metros? What were they thinking? A far better marketplace would probably make each lux give two happy faces, or maybe even the first lux gives 4 happys, lux 2 & 3 give three happy faces each, lux 4-6 give two happys each, lux 7-8 just get the one happy each, i.e., the last two treated as if there were no market at all. The marketplace would still be a good thing, and luxuries would still be a good thing, but not worth destroying another civ just to get access to the last couple lux. Helps out the AI, too, since at present, you'd have to be nuts to give the AI the last couple lux on which you have a monopoly, but under a diminishing returns model, there's no huge benefit to withhold trading. Further, the reduction in happies makes things like the colosseum and temples more worthwhile, even if you are doing conquest.
I don't mind the corruption model, though I think I'd have done something along the lines of making the courthouse and police station increasing the amount of useful production, not simply reducing the percent waste, only to have that completely overwhelmed anyway. There are few enough places where CH and PS are worth building, and after you add enough cities, waste/corruption means they are total waste in some of what used to be 'tweeners, too. IMO, the CH/PS are even more worthless than the colosseum, and that takes some doing. But a building that's simply a waste of good coding is better than a building that offends gameplay.
From the gameplay POV, markets make it even more worthwhile to take over a city that gives you another luxury. Not only does the new city give you more production, it reduces your opponent's production. Win-win, to be sure. Then the uber-sweetness, the new luxury makes 3-4 MORE people happy in ALL your metros? What were they thinking? A far better marketplace would probably make each lux give two happy faces, or maybe even the first lux gives 4 happys, lux 2 & 3 give three happy faces each, lux 4-6 give two happys each, lux 7-8 just get the one happy each, i.e., the last two treated as if there were no market at all. The marketplace would still be a good thing, and luxuries would still be a good thing, but not worth destroying another civ just to get access to the last couple lux. Helps out the AI, too, since at present, you'd have to be nuts to give the AI the last couple lux on which you have a monopoly, but under a diminishing returns model, there's no huge benefit to withhold trading. Further, the reduction in happies makes things like the colosseum and temples more worthwhile, even if you are doing conquest.
I don't mind the corruption model, though I think I'd have done something along the lines of making the courthouse and police station increasing the amount of useful production, not simply reducing the percent waste, only to have that completely overwhelmed anyway. There are few enough places where CH and PS are worth building, and after you add enough cities, waste/corruption means they are total waste in some of what used to be 'tweeners, too. IMO, the CH/PS are even more worthless than the colosseum, and that takes some doing. But a building that's simply a waste of good coding is better than a building that offends gameplay.
Similar threads
