Late in the game, the AI doesn't know it already traded maps with varying degrees of exploitability.
Patch Information & Plans
- Thread starter Tavis
- Start date
Aggie
Deity
I have read on several sites that there won't be a new patch. Why? 
I'm curious too. First I've heard of it. Surely 1.22 can't be the final patch.... there's still things to fix!
Edit: Rather, first I heard of it was a thread here today....
Edit: Rather, first I heard of it was a thread here today....
Aggie said:I have read on several sites that there won't be a new patch. Why?
Did any of these sites profess informed information or just rumor mongoring?
Well, Padma said in this thread for Hygro not to expect another patch. He could have meant to fix the city view.... but that's not the vibe I got.
Aggie
Deity
watorrey said:
No, this isn't a rumour. But other people on this site should be able to inform us if they are willing.
EDIT: I got the information from CDZ.
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
I don't know one way or the other on whether there will be a patch. I kinda doubt it though. The people most qualified to make a patch (which, from a business perspective costs money - thousands of dollars a week - to little gain, unless a game is still selling well) are working on Civ4 (which, should bring in money in the future).
Firaxis has surprised me in the past though, putting out patches to games that haven't sold in years (Gettysburg, for example).
Firaxis has surprised me in the past though, putting out patches to games that haven't sold in years (Gettysburg, for example).
Not fixing a broken product won't do thier reputation much good. I would think that alone would be worth some investment.
player1 fanatic
Fanatic
Aggie said:
If not rumor then link please.
Otherwise it *is* rumor.
Aggie
Deity
: warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
watorrey said:
You would think that. However, most players do not patch their games at all (unless it is automatic). What comes in the box is what makes the impression of the developer's reputation, not how well they patch it in the end.
player1 fanatic
Fanatic
Oh no, that's very bad.
Although it does seam that it can happen later.
(maybe with that Civ3:Complete)
I would have no problem with minor bugs like the sub-bug.
But things like barb behavior and AI non-use of armies are major.
I don't want that in next few years Civ3 barbarians get remembered by "don't step on NW-SE axis" tactics.
Kinda ruins Civ3 name.
Although it does seam that it can happen later.
(maybe with that Civ3:Complete)
I would have no problem with minor bugs like the sub-bug.
But things like barb behavior and AI non-use of armies are major.
I don't want that in next few years Civ3 barbarians get remembered by "don't step on NW-SE axis" tactics.
Kinda ruins Civ3 name.
player1 fanatic said:
It must be different bugs bug different folks. I consider the invisible unit bug to be major and the barb behavior minor.
Fixing the AI use of armies is probably something that broke the conquests. They were obviously designed around the fact that the AI didn't use them. Probably unintentionally.
Aggie
Deity
Well, I have never had a problem with the submarine bug, but I hate AI's use of armies (almost never builds them), reaction on armies (not attacked), the lack of a scientific golden age and barb behaviour. It is really unbelievable to then read that CIV3 is 'Complete'
What makes it even more upsetting is that unlike, say a multiplayer game, where the single player is icing and at best complementor, Civ3 is almost entirely a solitary game. Epic games are also probably the most played.
Broken AI directly affects how we enjoy our games. I hope they make one more patch.
Broken AI directly affects how we enjoy our games. I hope they make one more patch.
if they don't fix the remaining bugs then they (Firaxis) will get a very bad rep. hit..........................that will last for years to come.......lol!!!!!!!! i'm just joking , i guess i've been playing too much conquests lately...... but besides the joke , i think they should fix the remaining bugs and put back the arial city view in custom scenarios and conquests after all it's not that hard to implement 4 new great wonders , as for the armies bug maybe the ai shouldn't be able to rush great wonders like the human player too and instead using them to build armies .it's just a thought .
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
watorrey said:
No, they were supposed to and for much of the beta testing I remember them using them to good effect. It's just a bug.
player1 fanatic
Fanatic
Hmm...
Were scientific leaders got introduces before or after beta testing?
Were scientific leaders got introduces before or after beta testing?
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
At one point I remember them working too. I never thought they were worth it though. It was much better to use them for a rush build in nearly every case that I can think.
Similar threads
