So, I´ve played for ages. After hours of thinking here are my thoughts on the game!

Rushton

Mr 700 minutes
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
95
Location
Cologne, Germany
So, I´ve been playing now for several months and I played Civ2 for years. I now feel that I am in a position to make some informed comments on the game.

The takehome is that it is a great game, not least because the replayability and “just one more turn“ are still there. However for me it is not the masterpiece that civ2 was for a number of reasons and unfortunately pretty much all of these were truly avoidable.

OK, so first the good new things that make the game exciting and addictive: [dance]

1) Culture. This is a superb idea and makes peaceful gaming really fun. It adds a whole new layer of things that mark Civ 3 out as being more interesting than any other similar game.
2) The resources. I like the idea that they need to be controlled by you and connected by road. Great.
3) The film of the game at the end. Not new but it is fun.
4) Thr trading is good (up to but not including the last patch)
5) The civ specific abilities and special units are fun
6) Great Leaders. Another great idea. :)

Now the bad things. :mad:

1) The graphics aren´t very good (the sea for example is a horrid set of blue colours). CTPII is much better.
2) There are no wonder movies or explanation of what the wonder does. This is an inexcusable omission. Even Civ 2 had these.
3) There are no nice movies when you win. This is also inexcusable. The last game I played took me 2 weeks and then all I got was “You have won a domination vicotry“! PATHETIC [punch]
4) The balance of the game play wasn´t right when released (corruption, tree chopping etc). Now no one can say that it was when we have had 3 patches in as many months! The last one fixed a number of problems but messed up the tech part of the game completely so that it is little better than at the beginning.
5) The game skips about apparently randomly which is very irritating when you are trying to do something specific. This is addressed in the latest patch but as this patch screws up the tech part of the game it doesn´t help
6) No unit stacked movement till the latest patch made for a very tedious late game.
7) Too few government types.
8) No tech poster AN AWFUL CRIME – I can´t plan strategies out over a beer anymore! :beer:
9) Several game crash bugs – I´ve had 2 different but well known ones and had to re-install the game once.
10) Aircraft and bombarding units (artillery etc) are A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME! I mean a whole squadron of stealth bombers can´t kill a warrior. I never build either type of unit as it is a waste of shields. Horsemen, cavalry or tanks are worth producing but little else. Civ 2 was better in this respect.
11) Can transport settlers by air - Eh?

I have probably forgotten a few things and may add them later.

So the take home – well I can´t stop playing the game but it is far from perfect.

Score:

Original: 7 out of ten
Second patch: 8 and a half out of ten
Third patch: Six out of ten

There is a 9 and a half possible I reckon

Paul

P.S Feel free to tell me that I am talking rubbish! :sheep: :aargh:
 
I had added some new units, which upgraded through the ages. In ancient, middle, and industrial ages my units were all well balanced and added a new strategic dimension without overwhelming. Then, when I hit modern, things went very, very wrong. The unit I created was too powerful -- nothing could stop these things! I had an overwhelming advantage to begin with, so I was in no real danger, and two AI players fought to a stalemate.

My real point is this -- it took over three weeks of gameplay to get to that point! At least 40 hours were spent on this one game. Now consider that I failed, and I'd have to spend another 40 hours retesting, it becomes a little more clear as to why gameplay lags late into the game (AI runs into trouble, etc.)

I'm not making excuses -- Fixaxis knew what they were getting into, and this stuff should have been tested a lot more than it was. But one has to admit that this is a very large task!

Cheers,
Shawn
 
My two-cents:
It would also be nice to be able to "exit" out of the diplomatic screen (when another rival leader interupts you with an offer), so you can check out the map, perhaps see what the funky names of their cities are (that you may be interested in trading in the deal or something), and then return to finish negotiating.
 
Just hit enter to leave the diplomacy screen. When you come back after looking at your map or whatever, the current trade will still be intact.
 
you forgot the lack of a real editor, which would solve several of your problems...
 
Rushton,


The answer to No. 2 of your complaints is simple. Whenever the popup comes up telling you completed a wonder just click on the picture of the wonder. You will then get the Civilopedias explanation of the wonder. Hope this helps......

I am just as addicted to this game as you are but somehow something is missing from Civ3 that was there with Civ2. After 1.17f patch I feel like it's me vs. the world instead me as part of a world communtiy. The AI really hates you and will always war with you until the end. On the mucking up of the tech system after 1.17f I agree with you here too.
 
Allow me to make a few comments Rushton on you generally fair summation of the game:

Good Points - yep I agree with all of those except 3 - I never really look at it but fine for those who like that. I'd prefer an option to print some sort of history at the end of the game.

Bad Points -
1) Personally, I think the graphics are adequate - and in some cases excessive - purely from the point of view of limiting our chances of creating good looking modpacks. I spent a lot of time working a new leaderhead and decided it really wasn't worth the effort. Maybe that could all be solved if they gave us options to have static GIF/BMP files instead of FLC files (especially since a lot of people turn off animation anyway).

2) Eye-candy - similar comments to 1 - in fact I always turned them off in Civ2 anyway.

3) Yes it would be nice to have some flamboyant screen praising you for winning - but that's just eye-candy really so it doesn't bother me.

4) Yes - but in Firaxis's defence, they are trying to fix these types of problems - unfortunately, often one fix cause a new problem.

5) Yes that's a pain sometimes, I'd like cycle through cities geographically (e.g. start at capital and then work thru nearest cities). It would also be nice to be able to activate units from the F3 screen without it jumping back to the map.

6) We never had stacked movement in Civ2 some I'm wondering why everyone thinks this is such a problem. Agree that the improvement in last patch are a start though.

7) I think the number of govts is best addressed in modpacks anyway - but the editor kind of makes that more difficult than it could be.

8) No big tragedy - there have been several published on this forum.

9) I guess I've been lucky - hardly a single crash (except with the 'bad' version of 1.07 patch).

10) I never had a problem - bombing/bombardment was intended to 'soften up' the opposition - but you still needed land units to finish them off. Anyway - looks like Firaxis are making lethal bombadment an option on next patch.

11) Yep agree with that one.

Ratings are obviously very subjective, but to be honest Civ3 had consumed more of my time over the last 3 months than any game I've ever owned - therefore I have to give it 9.5 out of 10 (and maybe it'll eventually get a 10 when scenarios/modpacks are easier to create, and the obvious AI problems are addressed).
 
Originally posted by Rushton
[BNow the bad things. :mad:

10) Aircraft and bombarding units (artillery etc) are A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME! I mean a whole squadron of stealth bombers can´t kill a warrior. I never build either type of unit as it is a waste of shields. Horsemen, cavalry or tanks are worth producing but little else. Civ 2 was better in this respect.
[/B]

I had a similar opinion of bombardment units when I first played civ 3. My problem was I was attempting to use them like I did in civ 2 which you obviously can't do.

Once I realized they are not only different from civ 2 but an entirely new class of military unit, I began to appretiate what they added to the game.

Think about it. In civ 2 you really have only 2 types of land military units: best offensive unit and best defensive unit. Civ 3 introduced the concept of a bombardment unit. It differs from other military units in 2 important ways: you can attack without receiving any damage and you cannot destroy anything with it.

Adding a piece with unique and useful abilities adds to the depth of the game. Bombardment units add new offensive and defensive strategies to the game that did not exist in civ 2.

Adding a new piece that is both unique and useful is not easy to do. Often the piece is either used in place of the best available offensive or defensive unit and therfore not unique or it's unique ability is not that useful and the unit is not used (who uses paratrooper or marines anyway?).

There are several threads debating the usefull/uselessness of bombardment units so I won't get into specific strategies here. Check them out and try a few.
 
I'm kinda sitting on the fence as regards to bombarbment units.You both make valid points.
What isn't mentioned is the terror factor of bombardment.It doesn't take long for a town under B to get upset.Even with the 1/3? success rate B with Battleships(better for bombers?).And if the AI has no Navy or AirForce.
 
Use of artillery depends on the Age. Any time defense has the advantage, bombard becomes more useful. For instance, during the age of infantry -- WWI style before tanks -- artillery and infantry work great.


InfantryIcon.jpg

http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/Infantry.htm
 
Originally posted by Rushton
. . .11) Can transport settlers by air - Eh?. . .



Check in the Editor. Firaxis slapped together that Mod in such a shabby way they even allowed armor and ELEPHANTS to transport by air, but not leaders! :crazyeye:

That is why a complete re-editing of the Mod was needed to make the game even playable.
 
Thanks for all the useful comments folks. Nice that all the opinions were constructive.

I think I agree that perhaps 9 plus out of ten should be awarded if only for the way in which the game has dominated my life since it came out.

I can understand the arguement about bombardment perhaps being useful when you are up against superior defensive units - but if that is the case you have little chance in a large scale war anyway.

I think my arguement would be:

For the same number of shields that it would cost to produce, say, eight cannons, you could get about five knights (approx.)

Attacking with all these eight cannon, on average, you would reduce an elite warrior to one, have a couple of misses and perhaps destroy a temple or barracks.

The knights would have taken the city, captured a few warriors and be on route to the next city.

I think you all get my point!

Paul

P.S And my point is even more valid with aircraft as that will be addressed in the next patch. :(

So Civ 3 will be properly finished about a year after release - all so avoidable!
 
Wow I cant argue with any of your point all are very thought out except one. Ok the planes being able to kill units is a good thing BECAUSE every time they bomb they have a chance to be intercepted and shot down. But to make them able to kill things you would need to add a ground unit with air interception. Why you ask? Well consider your in enemy territory way outside the range of air supiority of your jets. You would need an ground unit that can move to be an escort to your attacking unit or else if your enemy has 30 bombers your whole attack force will be wiped out! I mean no war will be winnable.

But artilary nits being able to kill is a BAD IDEA! Hears the basic stratergy of every gamer after artilary units can kill. MAke 10 of the best defensive units you can build. Make 20 best artilary units of that era and go crush the enemy. Since theres no way to kill the artilary without first killing the 10 defensive units(wiht planes they can be shot down), your screwed. If you used 1000 shields to make the def/artilary combo it will take your enemy 3000-4000 shields worth to stop it. Balance will be thrown WAY off in the game. Ships shoudlnt be able to kill with bombard for similar reasons but I dont feel like explaining even more.
 
Originally posted by Rushton
I can understand the arguement about bombardment perhaps being useful when you are up against superior defensive units - but if that is the case you have little chance in a large scale war anyway.

Check out the link above with the infantry and artillery warfare. Certainly cavalry is useless against fortified infantry, so that is out of the question. Secondly, it is not a "little chance in a large scale war."

Imagine you are the victim of this assault. You see about 20 artillery and a dozen infantry stacked and approaching. They are destroying your roads and setting up bombardment on a nearby mountain. What are you going to do? It is obvious that you had better have your own artillery, or your case is hopeless. This stack can, albeit slowly, take every city in its path. (The AI doesn't know how to defend against this assault, and for that matter, neither do many players.)

The only other reasonable option is to avoid warfare until the advent of tanks, but like I said, imagine you are the victim.
 
Since October 31st I have commanded many assualts and brokered many treaties. The one and only thing I have to say is: Firaxis please fix the AI's pollution cleanup priorities.. I can't tell you how many times I have seen the AI ignore their pollution. Does the AI even get affected by their own pollution? There should also be some kind reputation hit for pollution that is untaken care of for a certain amount of time. Or what about asking or demanding a Civ to cleanup thier pollution. Pollution affects all civs on the planet and if one disregards their pollution there should be repercusions.
 
Bombarding units in civ3 is a nice idea, but it seems that the designers didn't give it the thought it deserved. I like the new level it gives to warfare tactics, but I do agree that it's stupid that a warrior unit madly rowing their triremed should be unsinkable by the 100000000000 Stealthbomber units sent to destroy it.

Perhaps units should have an extra stat, Air Defence. Units from eras before flight should have a value of zero in this stat and hence be chewed up by death from above like, well, warriors in a trireme facing those stealth bombers. Later units should have some kind of defence. Even the worst equipped Taliban unit has a few Stingers...

just s thought,,,
 
This stack can, albeit slowly, take every city in its path.

This is no doubt true Zachriel. However, in a democracy (we come again to the gouvernment problems) you just don´t have time for that before your civ falls into anarchy. The game forces you into Blitzkrieg and then peace. Fast ground units that can retreat and don´t usually get killed are worth so much more.

Only proviso: You get infantry and artillery long before tanks. So it may at this period be useful in a limited way for a short war.

Paul
 
I have found bombardment units useful on several different occasions. Here are a few:

Ancient times. A larger neighbor has declared war on you and is sending stacks of units across your borders. You are badly outnumbered and will lose a war of attrition. With the use of catapults you can knock the attackers down a few hp before attacking and win the majority of the battles. If you only attack units when you can win and never leave your offensive units exposed you can turn the war in your favor.

Early industrial times. Your cavalry is rampaging through the enemies cities, burning them down and high fiving along the way. All of a sudden they come up against riflemen fortified in a large hill town and the casualties mount. With the use of artillery you can pound their riflemen down to 1 hp and minimize casualties. Not only that, artillery has a range of 2 and can often bombard a city while in your territory and not slow your cavalry down. The artillery/cavalry combination also works against infantry although the casualty rate is about 1 cavalry for each infantry.

After rail. Invasion party lands on your soil or breaches a border. Using your stack of artillery you can instantly mobilize all of them and pound the attackers to 1 hp for the easy kill.

After rail. You are at war with an enemy who has a vastly superior navy. There ships keep darting into your territory and destroying improvements. With the use of artillery, you pound their ships down to 1 hp before your 1 lonely ironclad comes out of port, sinks it and retreats back to the port. In no time their navy dwindles and the nuisance attacks stop.

And there are many more strategies. All of these were not possible without bombardment units.
 
Back
Top Bottom