Some things I find distasteful about Civ3

[bkwrm79]

There are already good real-time strategy games. They're fun. But I prefer turn-based, and I like best of all having both. I hope the Civ and 'Craft lines both keep going strong, and stay different! So I really, really, really hate the idea of Civ going real-time.

1. Given the number of UUs, I'm glad they've got as few wrong as they did. And I think most of the ones that don't appeal to me fit other peoples' playing styles.

2. It isn't purely by chance. It's weighted.

3. Artillery is pretty effective. I do agree that they need to include modern aircraft (not just stealth), which should be vastly more effective than the first available air units.

4. I don't think it's possible to completely eliminate statistical flukes, but maybe they could improve on this.

5. Too many units makes things too complicated.

6. Subs at least should be able to carry cruise missiles.

7. I haven't found that so, but I haven't played at the higher difficulties yet.

 

[Longasc]

This is way off-topic, but I feel the need to agree to punkbass2000.

Rome was praised like there is no tomorrow, but I lost interest after my first grand campaign and quitted while playing Carthage.

The tactical battles are so dumbed down that they are no longer fun, micromanagement due to superstupid governors takes overhand on the strategic map that I really admire the intelligence of the civ3 mood only governor.

All in all, despite several still unsolved bugs and problems, Civ3 has an unmatched depth. I returned to this game several time by now, this is speaking for itself.

 

[warpstorm]

My opinion about RTW mirrors langasc and punkbass2000. Great fun for a week or so, but I don't feel compelled to play it again.

 

[icey616]

pffffft, the only thing that really bothers me is the fact that the option to trade cities is available, but no matter what you do, the AI will never trade them to you, OR accept them (at least in my experiences) -- possibly might under extreme pressure of extinction or something but meh.

Ever since one of the very first patches (I believe) the AI would never trade cities again, kinda ridiculous. Sometimes I just get mad at the AI and offer all my cities, techs, maps, tons of gpt and gold for one city, just to laugh at them when they refuse. I think, if anything, this needs to be patched so that AIs will realize that there are good deals in city trading and not settle for "bad" deals, but at least accept the ones they know are good. Also times after war when you have taken a city near their capital, and vice versa -- just being able to trade back, or giving up a strategic city to an AI (to them) in return for one strategically placed for you against your invasion of the evil warriors of the north. Meh, I just think that if the option is there, it should be able to be used.. for more than just vs. humans.

 

[braclayrab]

I don't agree with most of your points... I think that the game balance, including the battle-system is very well done. It makes more sense from a game standpoint for a warrior to perhaps rarely defeat a tank, although historically and realistically, it's ridiculous.

I suppose subs and battleships should be able to carry cruise missiles... but who really cares? Again, it might be historically accurate, but the game play wouldn't be significantly improved.

Although most of your complaints are understandable, your third point, about the artillery is just wrong. I used to think that artillery was useless myself, now I realize that is the the single greatest advantage that the player has over the AI in war. If anything, it should be made less effective. Which is also why the bombers should not be made more effective, if bombers had the bombard stat of artillery it'd totally f*** up modern war.

 

[BasketCase]

While I would like to see a few of Alvin's suggestions added to Civ, and don't think that artillery is overpowered (I've won wars with lots of arty or with none at all--same with bombers, nice to have but not essential), the few problems that exist don't detract from what is THE single greatest game ever made for a computer. The Civ games, right from the day I first got my mitts on Civ 1, have wasted more years of my life than any other game.

(Well, actually I never saw Civ 2, but Civ 1 was still great fun right up until Civ 3 came out!)

The one thing that really strikes me as wierd about Civ3 is that the Americans are part of the Native American cultural group, and are led by Abe Lincoln. This doesn't make a lot of sense; the original Native American tribes would be represented by, say, a Sioux civ of the Native American cultural group, and the present-day Americans should be from the European culture group and represented by Abe Lincoln. Guess Firaxis tried to go PC here or something, and gloss over the turbulent history between these two groups....

Edit: Is there a North American "Native American" civ in Civ3 PTW? I forget.

 

[Gato Loco]

No! No! No! Please don't turn Civ into a real-time-clickfest. I enjoy the fact that you can benefit from skills other than mouse dexterity and hotkeys. (Yes, I like RTS games, but I like Civ more and don't want to see it turned into an AoE clone.)

As for the other suggestions, consider the consequenses of speeding up tech and eliminating "spearman kills tank" at the same time. Massive, obsessive research would become the only way to get ahead. Whoever had the better research pace would win automatically, unless you bring back easy tech theft from Civ2.

 

[Juputoru]

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.Which ones? The only one that comes to mind is the Cossack...
2.Maybe this is just because I'm more of a builder type than a warmonger, but the battles seem fine to me.
7.Seems slow to me too, but maybe I'm not putting enough $$$ into science...

My main personal gripe is...
Corruption! I understand it in the lower governments, but it's way too high in the other ones...

And I don't want Civ to be real-time either.(It could be an *option*, but I want to be able to do it turn-based.) Leave that sort of thing to the Age of (whatever) games.

 

[Dell19]

My opinion about RTW mirrors langasc and punkbass2000. Great fun for a week or so, but I don't feel compelled to play it again.

The sad thing is that with MTW I used to go back and play it again and again but RTW hasn't captured my interest in the same way. The governors probably ruined the game since its no fun moving units from your capital just so that you can control the build order in a city and also having to slow down conquests waiting for a governor to appear.

 

[BkGreatWarnut]

Just my take on things...

Umm...Arty versus AI = Unstoppable, I am disatisfied with aircraft progression myself, but build a factory and nuclear plant (and most other production improvements) in a city and you can produce a stealth bomber every 2-4 turns.

If you are disatisfied with regular civ may I suggest the Rise and Rule Mod? Also, most multiplayer games make a world of difference compared to the AI.

And real time battles would be cool and even practical in single player. Like, if you attacked a stack with your stack you would would have about 10 or so of each unit you had in the stack and then you would command them. However, this would be virtually impossible in most multiplayer games as it would give the offense too much of an advantage because the defense would be unable to counter. Therefore leave Civ turn based...

BK

 

[El Justo]

what is "RTW" and "MTW"?

 

[allhailIndia]

I think there are a LOT of changes which can be made to Civ3 which will make it the best..but as far as I am concerned, it is ONE of the best.

My main rant? Scenarios pre-C3C are no fun Either too long or not focussed enough)
Also, I think I was robbed for Civ3 vanilla Ideally they should have released PTW first and then followed it up with one expansion pack, i.e. C3C. I didn't want to pay Rs. 1200 for what was a beta version of the game

As far as UU go, I think they need a little tweaking, but that doesn't make the game less fun. Most of the problems mentioned here are tweaks which can be found in a mod.
I hope whoever is developing Civ4 give us a good product which is completely worth every paisa I pay for it

 

[Ville]

what is "RTW" and "MTW"?

Medieval: Total War and Rome: Total War

 

[Crow T Robot]

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.

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.

 

[Alvin]

I find my self agreeing with Crow T Robot, but battle ships have always been the mainstay of my navy, and the ability to carry CMs would really toast any oppennets navy of lesser ships(ie. cruisers and destroyers). The bombers should really be strengthened, the Artys are good if you feel like pressing the b buttion for all of them. CMs are my favorite way of bombardament because they can actually kill units. The total war series has pretty good real-time, but I like something more of the Rise of Nations real time battles, with a lot more people. Instead of ordering all of my tanks and Infs to attack a city, I really just want one real time battle where I can toast the enemy with my greater strength(and brainpower)

 

[Crow T Robot]

I find my self agreeing with Crow T Robot, but battle ships have always been the mainstay of my navy, and the ability to carry CMs would really toast any oppennets navy of lesser ships(ie. cruisers and destroyers). The bombers should really be strengthened, the Artys are good if you feel like pressing the b buttion for all of them. CMs are my favorite way of bombardament because they can actually kill units.

You can always modify the rules/attributes so that subs, BBs etc can carry missiles, if you like. I like the BB unit as well, and can use it better than the AI can so, its never bothered me that they dont carry CMs (plus only a very few every carried CMs for a VERY brief period of time).

In real life, the AEGIS "cruiser" is really a DDG (Guided Missile Destroyer) and carries banks of cruise and other OTH (Over The Horizon) missiles. So, I changed the AEGIS to do just that. Then, to keep some of the original balance, I added a naval missile which is lethal to naval vessels and kept the cruise as lethal to land units only.

It makes the AEGIS more like the real thing, but more expesive to be lethal AND if one gets sunk with 3 or 4 naval mssiles, it is VERY expensive.

The very very bad thing about missiles is the 1 gpt maintenance. If you carry an inventory of say 10 of them, for a peace period of even 10 turns, thats 1000 Gold - you could build a reusable BB for that.

 

[AA-battery]

pffffft, the only thing that really bothers me is the fact that the option to trade cities is available, but no matter what you do, the AI will never trade them to you, OR accept them (at least in my experiences)

Actually, they will if you are discussing peace terms.

 

[Akaman]

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. Why? Without UUs the game would be soooooo boring. I can't imagine persians without immortals. UUs give some reality to the game. I personally think there should be more UUs.

2.I am against any kind of real time thing! If you have played AOE you know what I say. In AOE the destiny of battles is determined by the number of times you click on enemies! There is much less planning and thinking behind that. I think CIV models real world wars much better.

3. I agree totally with you in this.

4. Why? I think that's a good part of the game. A determined warrior may be able to defeat a motiveless tank! It has happened in history. May be the warrior can manage to go into the tank and slaughter the crew there

5. I agree. But I think very specific units (like various planes and high tech weaponary) must be added in MODs or the game will become too compilcated.

6.That's right. Cruise missile is really nothing in this game. I have decided to change it's characteristics.

 

[clintonio]

Ok im only going on the point of the warrior beats tank: think about it as one tank on screen is obviously represented by an army well one warrior mabey = to 1000-10000 real life warriors and the modern armour mabey 100-1000 imagine it would it be easy for a tank to kill running people (we do have intellingence so they would obviously lear how to destroy them) and well the people could easily dodge the tank missiles or the tank would just miss its hard to aim at people and 10000 of them wont be easy and then the people would open the tank and destry the people inside there is ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY OF EVERYTHING see there is a small chance that i as a RL person could destroy america or that the sun could blow up tommorow so IT IS VERY REALISTIC think about it if my 1000 people village were to riot agaisnt tanks we could still win if we had weapons so WELL YOUR POINT IS JUST WRONG

 

[Figaro]

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.