Some things I find distasteful about Civ3

[Alvin]

Here is some critisims I have to make. I only own PTW and Civ3
1. I don't think that some UUs should be here
2. The battles are purely by chance, I really think there should be a real time battle where you can get it done in 1 battle.
3. The weakness of Artillary and aircrafts are too much, since in the Austrian war of succesion and the various wars of Lious XIV showed that a 1:10 ratio of infratary to arts can devestate a enemy force. At the peak of Austrian war of succession art. caused about 50% of enemy casualties. The Bomber in the real world can destory armies. The American airforce destroyed something like 50% of the Iraqi military in the first Persian Gulf war. While in this game, there are only WW2 bombers that you have to use in a mordern world(since the Stealth bomber is pretty expensive for my tastes.
4. There should be better combat estimates, since a warrior could never possibly destory a tank(that happened to me two times).
5. Some very important units in history are missing from the Civ3 game, such as the portable SAMs.
6. Why couldn't subs and battleships carry cruise missles( my spelling sucks, but I think you got what I mean)? I mean all of the US battleships and fast+slow attack subs carry cruise missels.
7. Tech resarch is kind of slow for my tastes, since in the Renissance, resarch went by alot faster than 11 per tech.
If you have any comments, please post.

 

[Licentia]

Here is some critisims I have to make. I only own PTW and Civ3
1. I don't think that some UUs should be here
2. The battles are purely by chance, I really think there should be a real time battle where you can get it done in 1 battle.
3. The weakness of Artillary and aircrafts are too much, since in the Austrian war of succesion and the various wars of Lious XIV showed that a 1:10 ratio of infratary to arts can devestate a enemy force. At the peak of Austrian war of succession art. caused about 50% of enemy casualties. The Bomber in the real world can destory armies. The American airforce destroyed something like 50% of the Iraqi military in the first Persian Gulf war. While in this game, there are only WW2 bombers that you have to use in a mordern world(since the Stealth bomber is pretty expensive for my tastes.
4. There should be better combat estimates, since a warrior could never possibly destory a tank(that happened to me two times).
5. Some very important units in history are missing from the Civ3 game, such as the portable SAMs.
6. Why couldn't subs and battleships carry cruise missles( my spelling sucks, but I think you got what I mean)? I mean all of the US battleships and fast+slow attack subs carry cruise missels.
7. Tech resarch is kind of slow for my tastes, since in the Renissance, resarch went by alot faster than 11 per tech.
If you have any comments, please post.

What's wrong with the UUs?
The HP system they use makes battles far more realistic than in Civ 1. I personally like them.
Yes, artillery is too weak, except at destroying the cities buildings
In Civ 4 apparently a warrior will never beat a tank, but it happens so rarely now anyway, that I don't think it's worth complaining about. Plus, if you lose a war because of that tank on a warrior, then that tank you lost wouldn't have made the difference anyway.
There could be many more units. But the game is about simple and fun.
Tech research is too fast for my tastes. I wish the games were longer so that you spent more time in each era.

 

[El Justo]

Here is some critisims I have to make. I only own PTW and Civ3
1. I don't think that some UUs should be here
2. The battles are purely by chance, I really think there should be a real time battle where you can get it done in 1 battle.
3. The weakness of Artillary and aircrafts are too much, since in the Austrian war of succesion and the various wars of Lious XIV showed that a 1:10 ratio of infratary to arts can devestate a enemy force. At the peak of Austrian war of succession art. caused about 50% of enemy casualties. The Bomber in the real world can destory armies. The American airforce destroyed something like 50% of the Iraqi military in the first Persian Gulf war. While in this game, there are only WW2 bombers that you have to use in a mordern world(since the Stealth bomber is pretty expensive for my tastes.
4. There should be better combat estimates, since a warrior could never possibly destory a tank(that happened to me two times).
5. Some very important units in history are missing from the Civ3 game, such as the portable SAMs.
6. Why couldn't subs and battleships carry cruise missles( my spelling sucks, but I think you got what I mean)? I mean all of the US battleships and fast+slow attack subs carry cruise missels.
7. Tech resarch is kind of slow for my tastes, since in the Renissance, resarch went by alot faster than 11 per tech.
If you have any comments, please post.

okay. i feel 'ya

1.) remove the UUs that you don't care for
2.) mod the unit stats so that they'll be more efficient and predictable in battle
3.) mod the arty and cruise missile stats so that they're more powerful
4.) mod the unit stats so that a warrior will never, ever under any circumstances be able to defeat a tank, etc.
5.) search the Units forum and add more units to your epic game
6.) mod it so that BBs and SSs can carry them (SSNs can, i know that much)
7.) mod it so that tech costs are either cheaper or in the general settings, mod it so that there is a more efficient min/max tech research time

get to know the civ3 editor and you should really splurge and get conquests.

 

[Dell19]

3.) mod the arty and cruise missile stats so that they're more powerful

I would have thought artillary was already overpowered

 

[Longasc]

Something must be wrong. Someone asked the same question in a Diablo II Forum, and 99% of the users said it is the best game.

Hm... I wonder why...

 

[warpstorm]

Let's just say that I disagree with all of your points (with the possible exception of CMs on ships which are easily modded into the game) ,but in particular artillery and bombers are extremely overpowered right now. Once I get Arty the game ends within a very short while.

 

[El Justo]

I would have thought artillary was already overpowered

he said it, not me

 

[ybbor]

Here is some critisims I have to make. I only own PTW and Civ3
1. I don't think that some UUs should be here
2. The battles are purely by chance, I really think there should be a real time battle where you can get it done in 1 battle.
3. The weakness of Artillary and aircrafts are too much, since in the Austrian war of succesion and the various wars of Lious XIV showed that a 1:10 ratio of infratary to arts can devestate a enemy force. At the peak of Austrian war of succession art. caused about 50% of enemy casualties. The Bomber in the real world can destory armies. The American airforce destroyed something like 50% of the Iraqi military in the first Persian Gulf war. While in this game, there are only WW2 bombers that you have to use in a mordern world(since the Stealth bomber is pretty expensive for my tastes.
4. There should be better combat estimates, since a warrior could never possibly destory a tank(that happened to me two times).
5. Some very important units in history are missing from the Civ3 game, such as the portable SAMs.
6. Why couldn't subs and battleships carry cruise missles( my spelling sucks, but I think you got what I mean)? I mean all of the US battleships and fast+slow attack subs carry cruise missels.
7. Tech resarch is kind of slow for my tastes, since in the Renissance, resarch went by alot faster than 11 per tech.
If you have any comments, please post.

1) there' an option to turn all UU's off, i forget what it's called but it may be "no civ-specific abilities"
2)not sure of what you mean
3) actually try a 10:1 ratio of artillery to infantry and watch what happens, altough you are right that catapulta and cannons are fairly weak
4) you haver a tendancy to rmber battles you lost, no those you won, besides, would you like it if every battle was decided purely on stats?
5) those are in C3C
6) mod it in
7)the tech pace really isn't that bad, try improving your economy or trading to get techs faster

 

[JG99_Korab]

"REAL time" Like a rpg.

 

[Dell19]

A better example would be the total war games that combine a turn based overview but allow you to fight the battles. However he may have been asking to what extent battles would be fought in real time. Since it wouldn't really be civ if you could win the game by simply being the better commander when it came to combat.

 

[Kayak]

I must agree with warpstorm on this, the game really loses a lot of fun after arty. As to the expensiveness of stealth bomers, why do you think the US is the only country to have them in RL? They are hideously expensive. I'll reveal slightly left of center tendencies here, but think of the tradesoffs America makes to have a wing of those too; lots of infrastucture and welfare just like in civ.

 

[wilbill]

Can't help noticing that 6 of your 7 criticisms have to do with combat. Civ isn't purely a war game. It's "Civilization". War is an important part of the game, but not the only part. The fact that it's not completely historically accurate doesn't bother me.

 

[LLXerxes]

i can't think of any complaints atm, but i love this game. it's the bets

 

[Alvin]

While, the only thing I do in the game is fight wars and try to get conquest victories.
Rome total war is something of a game that civ3 battles should be like but with alot more troops and taking place throughout history.
When ybbor said 1:10 ratio arts. to inf., well I actually tried that, however I always play on contenients or Archpeligos(dunno spelling) so I can't really fly my arts over to another contenient and I hate to transport them.

 

[Dell19]

Thats part of the challenge. A string of 5 to 10 transports can easily transfer a large army across to another continent with artillary. Plus you can airlift units across as soon as you have a city on the other side. The RTW method would severely not work in civ when you would have to display a group of tanks against a formation of spearmen. It would be silly...

 

[Tomoyo]

...if all you're gonna do is fight, why don't you play something like RTW?

 

[punkbass2000]

Yeah, I got R:TW two months ago; it's not that great. It's the first true RTS I've played, and I only have played it once so far; I completed the Prologue.

 

[warpstorm]

Or even Empire (of which there is a new version at killerbeesoftware.com)

 

[Licentia]

Something must be wrong. Someone asked the same question in a Diablo II Forum, and 99% of the users said it is the best game.

Hm... I wonder why...

Only 1% of Diablo players have played Civ I guess...

They got a better percentage then Civ 3 is getting. But that's probably competition from Civ 1 and 2. I don't think many people could say Diablo 1 is better than 2.

 

[Licentia]

"REAL time" Like a rpg.

At first that struck me as.. What are you talking about. Then I remembered I was thinking of FF7 and prior. RPGs have changed. But no, don't put Civ 3 that way, or if they do make both options.