So what do you think of the game?

[HarryS]

I got my copy of my Civ3 about a week and a half ago and so far I've loved it. I've been playing solidly for the whole time and I'm supposed to be job hunting! Anyone out there looking for an Enironmental Manager?

I'm desparate to get Korn 468's modpack installed but it will not seem to run on the Mac. If any Mac user out there has any advice or has tried it, whether the succeeded or not, I'd love to hear what you think and how you did it. I'd also love to have the Editor but that should come soon I hear.

I agree with the comments that the AI realy gives you a better fight and is a far more strategic opponent.

My present game is at Warlord level and started with eight opponents including me, on a large pangaea. I am the Russians and I love those Cossacks. We're down to six civs now and we all have well defined cohesive civilizations. (having the borders is a superb idea). It's the mid nineteenth century and while I am the most technically advanced having just got airpower, I am far from the largest.

After years of posturing China and I finally went head to head and despite having infantry and artillery to their riflemen and scattering of cannon AND the Cossack as my UU, their cavalry ran rings round me. I had fallen straight back into my entrenched Civ2 tactics. It was only by some fast thinking, creative use of that artillery and remembering to go to a wartime footing that I only lost one city though that was a strategically important one in the heart of the Chinese Civ.

I love the absence of the ZOC, which I always found so restricting, but by God have I been slow in learning to appreciate how it radically changes the way combat works. Given the time span for even the fastest turn it is ridiculous that one unit can trap another for centuries of game time.

The trading screen is very flexible though I get the impression that the AI bargains less from a an urge to get the lowest price possible and more from a willingness to spend anything at all up to the limit of its treasury. Not very realistic.

The graphics are great and I don't even mid the yellow everyone complains about.

 

[Gottesfreunde]

i think the game sucks and is less of an advancement over Civ II then the creators would make out. i argue this on four points.
1.) The game is slow, which would be forgiveable if the other three slights were not so bad...
2.) The ability to create true scenarios is a truncated, even a castrated ability compared with Civilization II. There is NO WAY to create a scenario. You can't choose where you want Civ's to appear on the map or begin a game at any point other than the blind beginning. This means that you can't create WWII scenarios, Alexander the Great Scenarios, etc. There is not even an editor for the Mac yet, but i have seen it on the PC and it is laughable in its complexity as it is in its uselessness.
3.) You can't choose your starting locations. i find it especially annoying that when i play the Egyptians i am in North America battling the Incas or in Australia battlling the Americans right next to me. This is nothing short of ridiculous. In Civ II if you chose the world map you could at least have your civ start at a historically accurate location if you chose the world map and have other civs around you that were historically accurate as well.
4.) i think the politcal screen is useless as well. This has been touted as a great advancement over the previous game. i wish they would have went with the superb screens foun in Alpha Centauri. If it is so powerful and advanced, why is it that a player can't negotiate peace between allies. In addition, why can't i engage in a military alliance without going to war? This game is a ridiculous hasbro version of the original--made for children with gummy hands and empty heads. The game is dumbed down and i hate it. i am sick of reading all the rave reviews about the game written by people who obiously never played the first two versions of it.
5.) In addition to the above, PC games are not able to be played on the Mac.

 

[TimR]

It seems to me that cities flipping should be divided into 2 catagories: Cities flipping during
wartime and cities flipping during peacetime.

During peacetime I can imagine a culturally
impoverished city flipping even with a military presence. This is especially true during the
ancient period...a barbarian city going over to the Romans etc. I feel that if one of your cities is about
to flip there should be some notice that discontent is brewing. This type of flipping should cease once
nationalism is invented except in extreme cases. Doing so in modern times just seems unrealistic. I
can't help but feel that many North Korean cities would have long since flipped otherwise.

During wartime flipping could be a kind of resistance movement. If you have conquered a city of 17 and
fail to garrison it strongly then the 9 resistors should be able to rise up and through out your troops.
Perhaps taking up arms as conscript infantry or riflemen after their success. Right now I'm afraid to leave too many troops in a city for fear that it will flip. I just had a city flip with 3 infantry and 12 or so tanks...

I once had a city flip but had saved the game so I went back to experiment. The city had only one
inhabitant and I had 2 riflemen and 4 tanks in the city. I kept flooding the city with troops but to no
avail..it flipped anyway. I emptied the city of all troops and it didn't. Very odd.

Has anyone noticed the diminishing effectiveness of bombardment as the game progresses? When I first
acquired artillery 5 or 6 would rain down destruction on my foes. Recently I attacked a city of 12 with 28
pieces of artillery and 60% "failed".

TimR

 

[Aoxomoxoa]

Forget artillery....

Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks

and more tanks....

Aoxomoxoa

 

[Rustus Maximus]

Originally posted by TimR
Doing so in modern times just seems unrealistic. I can't help but feel that many North Korean cities would have long since flipped otherwise.

An excellent example, and right on the money as to why culture flipping is such a crock. Maybe "culture flipping" could be better implemented by giving a bonus to population growth in your empire to represent increased immigration to your gleaming, alabaster cities. More and more I'm realizing that CIV 3 is still in beta in many aspects of the game.

Originally posted by TimR
I kept flooding the city with troops but to no
avail..it flipped anyway. I emptied the city of all troops and it didn't. Very odd.

Yes, how very odd indeed. Logic would dictate that the opposite would be true.

Originally posted by Beamup
Civ isn't necessarily meant to accurately simulate the real world. Where convenient, they made it do so, but in any case where realism and gameplay conflicted, they chose gameplay. That's just the philosophy of the product - it's a game, not a simulation.

Not a simulation? That's exactly what this game is supposed to be. A strategy game based on the simulation of mankind's progress through the ages. "Can you do a better job than the legends of history? Can you build a civilization to stand the test of time?" It's a stylized simulation, but a simulation none the less. Now, if you mean that Firaxis has created an inaccurate simulation of history (when it should be), you're right (ex.: Bombers not being able to destroy naval vessels and vice versa). In a simulation/strategy game like CIV 3, if gameplay compromises realism, then you are going to have problems such as the above example and the numerous others which are being discussed in length on this forum. Such as the tech tree and wacko combat results just to name a couple...

In many ways this game is a step back from CIV 2 and SMAC and that's a shame since both of those games contained elements which would have been great were they included in this version of CIV.

 

[Gottesfreunde]

Exactly... it is billed as a simulation. i too think the game is a dramtic step back from Civ II, and this is what makes me so angry. i first started playing this game with Civ I and it was, indeed, the first reason i even purchased a computer to begin with because i so loved the game. What absolutely kills me is that the creators of Civ III took it upon themselves to take out of Civ III advancements in the game of Civ II that added so much to enjoyment of the game... such as the ability to create real world scenarios. Although the graphics are much improved, everything else is completely a setback from Civ II. Then i read all these rave reviews of the game that pawn it off as such a revolutionary game. In Civ II one could pick the map of the earth to play and civs appeared in culturally appropriate locations. The game is billed as a simulation, and even the civs that one plays are from this world, not some other, so why did they only include the map of earth as a scenario rather than built in... and why that extremly annoying misplacement of civs... i detest playing the egyptians right next to good ole abe Lincoln. I don't know, for the life of me, why they did not choose to go with a more robust diplomacy screen... which they could have advanced upon, like that found in SMAC. i mean, it would seem more realistic if i am an ally with one nation that i would not be forced into going to war if i create an alliance with them, but would be able to broker peace between two allies or even a nation i was in peace with. The game does not even give you a choice in going to war if you are allied... it immediately declares war, or if you have a mutual protection pact then you HAVE no choice in the matter. The complete abscene of a scenario editor, which was great in the previous version of the game, is mindboggling to me. The ability to create scenarios and replay world events--which, btw, is how the game is advertised--was one of the things that made this game so darn enjoyable for me. i loved the Civ games and i am truly angered that this one has been billed as Civ III, which indicates an upgrade of sorts, when it is REALLY a DOWNGRADE from the previous version. i am also amazed that in all the game reviews this fact is not mentioned, but instead Firaxis is lauded for having such cool graphics and gummy things in the game, when it has actually been completely DUMMED DOWN. As a loyal fan i feel cheated out of my money, and i feel the creators of the game did not REALLY listen to the fan base that made the game the huge success that it really is. i want the creators to know of this disatisfaction... that it is NOT acceptable, but with all the hype this tendency toward downgrading software and putting it in pretty packaging is still being hailed as so "cool". There is no response area on the Civ site to even send complaints of this sort to... not that it matters, as the rewards and sales surely have given the creators the idea that yet again they have written a successful game... which they have... successfully duped the public that is. oooh i am sooo angry. i have wasted my money only to continue playing Civ II.

 

[Cincinnatus]

Rustus Maximus and Gottesfreunde,
I totally agree with you. As I wrote earlier, Civ III has great AI, graphic and some interesting ideas, but the game itself is not that good. I think that Sid Meier and his crew would have done a better job by merging Civ II and SMAC and adding the improved AI and graphic of Civ III, without changing so much in the game. Merging Civ II and SMAC would have already been a great leap forward.
I acknowledge the great improvement in the technology of the game, highly praised in all the reviews on specialized journals, but the game, as it is now, is not worthy the money I paid for it.
Personally, I think that SMAC is still the top of the line product and I really hope that there will be a Mac OS X upgrade patch.

 

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by Cincinnatus
Personally, I think that SMAC is still the top of the line product and I really hope that there will be a Mac OS X upgrade patch.

There already is - check here:

http://homepage.mac.com/boliver

 

[Cincinnatus]

Thank you Brad. I'll try it ASAP