Some things I find distasteful about Civ3

How do you rate Civ3

  • Very Good, best

    Votes: 86 73.5%
  • Good, but some games are better

    Votes: 26 22.2%
  • Ok, average

    Votes: 3 2.6%
  • Not so good

    Votes: 2 1.7%

  • Total voters
    117
Juputoru said:
My main personal gripe is...
Corruption! I understand it in the lower governments, but it's way too high in the other ones...

I have to agree. The corruption in this game is beyond insane, even if you play a commercial civ. I remember the days when Civ had 0 corruption in Democracy. I don't think it should go back that way, but the corruption should be half or less than half what it is now while in Democracy. It really hurts when your far away settlement can't build anything in less than 80 turns because all their shields have gone to corruption.
 
Crow T Robot said:
There are no Battleships in commission and hasnt been for about a decade, and only 2 (two) ever carried cruise missiles as they are too expensive to operate and maintain, especially in relation to their firepower.

But you almost swerved into the most severe flaw in the game: all units carry the same maintenance cost. It costs the same to maintain a warrior as a battleship or ICBM.

But... The price for a small tribe to maintain an army would be just as costly in relation to that tribe as it would be for the US to maintain a battleship. No?
 
Also I'd have thought you no longer have any Warriors around by then anyway.
 
Figaro said:
I understand all your points but every single one of them could be nullified except no.2 by spending 1 hour with the editor. One of the greatest things about Civ3 is how you can edit it.

I hate it when people complain something like,

'Civ3 is crap it should be more like Age of Empires or Rome Total War'

Fact is, if you want to play Age of Empires or Rome Total War play them instead. Civ3 is a Civilization game, a genre in itself. You might as well complain that FIFA'04 doesn't have any shotguns in it or that Diablo II doesn't have an option to let you build your own Aircraft Carrier. Complaints about game balance etc. are reasonable enough, but don't moan that Civ3 isn't enough like a completely different game from a completely different genre.

lol. Aircraft Carrior dropped by Cow King. I'm going to equip my merc with that. :lol:
 
Some kind of set perhaps? The F-15 Helm? The Hull? The Flight Deck Carapace?
 
My complaints are that the bombers keep destroying all the improvements in the cities I want to take over, is there any way to make them hurt only units?

Also as a navy ROTC guy I think that the naval units should be able to bombard farther in on the coast. Maybe after upgrades and research battleships would be able to hit in 3-5 spaces and cruisers 2-4 with each of them doing mroe damage. They're making things like this now (google search on Naval rail guns or naval AGS will turn up things for you). When rail gun research is done they will do just as much damage as many cruise missiles as well as having a faster delivery time and being infinitely cheaper.

Also the carrier based fighters should do more damage to garrisoned units too, they should only do 1 or 2 damage per attack instead of the 2-4 that bombers often do, but right now the fighters are essentially toothless.

I'd also like to see the paratroopers able to drop anywhere in the map, right now I don't see any advantage between using paratroopers or just airlifting something.
 
Personaly, I am dissatisfied with the historical background and the choice for the leader as well as great leaders for Russia. Anyone familiar with Russian history does not need an explanation, for those who aren't, the explanation would be way too long. Cossaks are a good UU IMHO, but should come a bit more early and should be more like an explorer/conquistadore (that's what they did in Siberia, bring it under the control of Russia.) I also know some Indian people who despise Ghandi and could name a lot of other people to be Indian leader... Also swordmen should have been upgradable in vanilla civ3.
 
Alvin said:
Here is some critisims I have to make. I only own PTW and Civ3

'''

4. There should be better combat estimates, since a warrior could never possibly destory a tank(that happened to me two times).

'''

Why not?

During WW2 Russian infantry and very poorly armed partisans would conceal themselves and lob improvised petrol bombs into the air intakes of German tanks or jump out of buildings or trees on to the top of German tanks and then stab the commander. It was extremely risky and most of the russians were killed, but occasionally they got lucky and took out a German tank.

And I dare say a stone age warrior could trap a tank in the same way that he would trap an elephant. i.e. by digging a very deep hole and then covering it with light branches, camoflaging it and then luring a tank on.

Tanks can also get knocked out by blundering or being tricked into driving off cliffs, into mud, quicksand or swamps. I recollect that one German officer reported that the reason they failed to advance and capture Moscow in 1941 was that the autumn rains came early and they had over 100 tanks lost in the mud; and that it took them several months to extract and repair them.

It would not happen often, so Civ3 is correct to make it rare; but it is not impossible for a warrior to defeat a tank; so it should not be eliminated.
 
I take offense to that...
F-15s are air force,
I deeply apologize :)

Personaly, I am dissatisfied with the historical background and the choice for the leader as well as great leaders for Russia. Anyone familiar with Russian history does not need an explanation, for those who aren't, the explanation would be way too long.

Anyone familiar with Russian History doesn't need to read the Civ3 description then. Why don't you go into Civilopedia.txt and type a new one, or delete it then? 99% of the complaints on this thread could be satisfied by the editor or messing about with a couple of files.
 
I think that since CIV is such a huge game to play, people could indefinetly argue about <insert complaint> should be like <solution> and the other way around. If any of you want to post ideas for Civ IV, use the link below.
 
I agree
Which is why Firaxis gave us the editor to fix problems
 
On the subject of Ghandi, I don't think whether or not people despise him is an issue. I'm personally not hot on Elizabeth I but I'm not going to deny that she was leader of England (actually, was Ghandi ever president...?)
 
klopolov said:
Personaly, I am dissatisfied with the historical background and the choice for the leader as well as great leaders for Russia. Anyone familiar with Russian history does not need an explanation, for those who aren't, the explanation would be way too long.

???
So the one there is no good, but if it was any good it would be too long? So what exactly do you want them to do about it?
 
well, they could start by writing much more accurate history and include the cities that were important in the early ages of the civilizations even if they are insignificant or even do not exist anymore. The city of Vladimir was the capital of Russia for at least 2 centuries, it still exists, but it's not in the game, the order of the names for the cities could be done in more chronological order, Kiev was the first main Russian city, while St Petersburg is only 300 years old! The historical aspect of the game (if well done) could be much more fun and even educational. Shooting tanks at each other and researching better tanks should not constitute the main points of the game. All that is, of course, in my very humble opinion...

P.S. in the description for Russians, they say that Novgorod was the capital at some point, to the full extent of my knowledge (and I spent a lot of time studying teh Russian history and reading a lot of historical novels) Novgorod was never a capital, instead, it was a city of commerce, independance and a great source of trouble for Russia.
 
To my knowledge, of which the sole source is a WWII US propaganda film, Novgorod was the Russian capital during the invasion of the German Knights. (1212ish)
 
That would be not true, at that time Novgorod was an independent city (meaning not having a ruler over it, but still a part of Russia). They have sent for Alexander Nevsky (who was the Great Prince of Russia at that time and the Prince of Vladimir, thus making Vladimir a capitol). He agreed to help them thus becoming their Prince as well, but as soon as the German knights were defeated he was their Prince no more and Novgorod was independent as before.
 
Longasc said:
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... :rolleyes:

Hey, I happen to enjoy Diablo II. Of course, I enjoy Civilization more :D
 
Something I really don't like are the bonus units
the AI gets at Monarch and higher levels at the
beginning of each new game.
They pop up the goody huts (yes the AI knows
where the are) and contact other AIs too fast.
Which means the Expansionist trait is almost
worthless and you're always behind in tech.
The production and growth bonus should easily
compensate this if the AI hadn't those starting
units.
 
Back
Top Bottom