Warning: long post. These are just my thoughts... (spelling mistakes are not intentional... capitilisation may be wrong throughout this document).
This may be overly agressive, but it sums up my *irritations*.
I think Civ 3 did a lot to bring reality to the game. The game for me, excels, when it reflects reality. It gives more credit to playing for instance a WWII scenario. I have some grievances about the third incarnation about this game, but no where near as many as Civ II. In all, I am from the camp which thinks Civ should pretty much reflect the way the world works or has worked through history. I don't think Civ III was meant to be a "fantasy" game, but of course there are those who disagree.
And of course, nuclear warfare has its own rules, which may not reflect reality. This is one area I think should reflect playability... but implemented as it is, is wrong.
1) Cities which have been nuked should grow at half the rate of normal cities for X amount of turns. the entire *philosophy* of nuclear arms is primarily a deterrant. Their destruction is overwhelming, totally, impossible to completely describe. The effects of using nukes should be amplified.. ie, more distrust from other civs. People tend to think in black and white.. but the nukes used on Japan are like Longbowmen compared to Modern Armour. A good Russian grade nuke could completly wipe out the entire infrastructure of New York City for instance. I mean, *entire* infrastructure. If a Russian grade nuke was dropped on New York, would anything be left standing? everything in the city would be wiped out... the Stock Exchange, the places of worship, roading infrastructre, *everything*. Would only half the population die? doubt it. If nuke was exploded over NYC without warning, a good megatonnage nuke, I doubt whether 20% of the population would be left standing... and way more than half of them would die withing 10 years from radiation. If you dropped 2 current tech nukes on New York I'd doubt if any of the original population would be left standing.
CPU negatives? none. simply a one off mathematical calculation upon occurance.
2) Canals. The real world has them, they should be controlled somehow though.. like resources maybe. In history, canals have been the source of much heated military excercise, such as Israel, Britain with the Suez (not to mention Britain did not bomb on time in that war
)
CPU negatives? Some... this would change the AI structure. It really gets into grey areas with this, such as how the AI "understands" the map, and places value on certain points. A human can do this at a glance, but given how *long* the turns already take, should we increase them? but then it's *canals*. An important, reflection of reality for an empire game *based* on reality.
3) War weariness. Should be more complex. What motivates citizens to patriotism? Invasion of your *land*. look what Pearl harbour did for World War II. I come from a country which fought as an one of the allies in WWI and WWI and Korea and Vietnam. I guarantee you the level of dissent was more than 10 times in Vietnam than in WWII. A war is not simply a war, that's just painting it black and white. it's the *principle* which motivates people.
CPU negatives? not many.
4) The AI is still dumb... yes... comeon.. it IS. I have found it comparably judges by unit numbers... great day I have 115 spearmen and they have 85 modern armour, they will still be dodgified about attacking. Comon!! that's not how a human would think. And they will not attack armies... since when did teh art of war involve winning every battle? the battle does not necessarily count, it's weakening the enemy and winning the war....
And i love the way I can bomb the
deleted out of a sophisticated cultural empire (if my air-force is larger).. destroying their entire infrastructure, cutting the roads to the capital (on the right map).. bombing every single cultural building they have.. but they take so many turns to make peace again.. because their military is larger than yours.. but typically I have a larger navy and airforce, so all their units die in the transportation anyway... hrmm.. very very simplistic way of the AI looking at war.
CPU negatives? unknown.
5) Corruption is not reflective of reality. It's just not. My country is still technically a member of the british empire, it's nearly on the opposite side of the world to Britain. In it's entire history corruption has never been a problem (or not to the standards of the US or Britain)... how bizzare.. the colonies were implemented as *less* corrupt idealisms of the mother country... in fact, this was the half the damn idea of colonialism in the first place!!! How to implement it? don't know, but the current implementation of corruption is WRONG, and in NO way reflects the real world. it is a figment of some Civ III programmers imagination for playability... (yes it works, kinda.. but it's WRONG). Transparency in democracy is not about your history, your lineage or anything. It has a great deal to do with technology though.
It's impossible to have a large empire in Civ III!!! Even if you found the cities yourself.... Yes, I understand that an empire has corruption... --- from cities you *took* to create that empire... what if you founded them all yourself? - same level of corruption. Totally unrealistic. The empire of Rome encompassed *far* less people than the modern country of America.... but similar land mass.... corruption? far more in Rome back then. Difference? Technology.. Transparency... Television.. Live News... Globalisation... etc etc... want me to continue?
CPU negatives? not much.
-------------
And rant. This is just plain
deleted, take it with a grain of salt. Comparision of reality to Civ III, and a few annoyances thrown in.
I think Civ III went far on from its predecessor.. but not far enough. Why can I only see 8 people at a time in the foreign advisors menu? comeon..... I always play a huge map with maximum opponents. So do many others. Air superiority is wierd. if I have 5 fighters in each city, overlapping in their operating radii, I'd damn hope 1 singular bomber could not get through. I think Air power needs a bit of a rework. Air power has just been too important in history, and it's not really reflective in Civ III. I don't care what anyone says, I really doubt how a stack of 10 spearmen could even inflict any damage on a Mech Inf. IT'S AN ARMOURED UNIT. In the real world, if you had 10 spearmen versus a tank.. they'd RUN. and never, inflict damage on the tank. Tanks are traditionally hurt by mines, surface to surface missiles (rocket proelled grenades, whatever) and infantry. A grenade can damage a tank, however, a tank can damage a spear. not the other way around. Why when I am about to crush a society they get even more arrogant towards me? COMEON!! be French for once. Surrender! Do what the oppressor wants. Aircraft carriers can carry way more units. I'm sick of battleships losing to transports. Think in hordes of units rather than good units? try that in the Roman occupation of Britain, when 80,000 uprisers were slaughtered by one 5,000 Roman legionaries. British losses? estimated 80,000. Roman losses? estimated under 400. Everyone still gangs up on you if you are powerful, to a lesser extent but the sentiment is still there. Ok, it still happens with the United States of America today, but it still has *allies*. But in Civ III you'd think that once you were powerful *everyone* would leave you or be intrinsically mistrustful. There are still bugs in the diplomacy menu. Yay. I give them 1000 for a tech, it's close to a deal. add 500 a turn (can afford it), they would never accept it. Maybe I disagree, but when I think this is bad monetary strategy. Sometimes try giving the oppenent everything you have. They would be insulted, honestly. But demand a tribute or give them a punch in the head and they are happy. I bow in awe to the logic. All units do not cost the same. I love the way an aircraft carrier is evaluated the same way as a spearman. Lovely. Units should cost exactly the same as they do in real life, which is, an aircraft carrier with loads of stealth bombers costs a hell of a lot to upkeep. You have to be a first world country to afford it. Some countries in the world feed their entire populace on less than it costs to keep an aircraft carrier and cargo running. Where are B-52's? The most feared bomber in human history is simply missing. Their "bombardment" value is simply unmatched by any aircraft in history. In real life you *can* bunkerbust any "colony". Civilian bombing of foriegn soil creates far more unrest than sinking an enemy battleship after it attacked your mainland. Food should be a tradable resource - Africa is not lacking just food, it's lacking infrastructure to farm it. Civil war happens, it's a reality. It generally happens when people lack confidence in their rulers. Communism is slightly of centre, but bizzarely, less off centre than democracy is implemented in the game. Again... Corruption is just so unrealistic. Cruise missiles need a major upgrade.. their range is too small, bombardment too low, and they seem incapable of delivering precision strikes even though in reality with satellites they can hit within a 10 metre radius. Cultural flips should be toned down at *least* 10%, less, and even more with technology... As the game progresses, it should happen less - it's simplistic to take into account only culture, when history, technology and nationality have everything to do with it - you see, ask an Australian (western) to flip to Indonesia (muslim) because they have had temples longer than you - damn unrealistic in totalilty... and culture flips should be even harder when crossing to a new island/continent. Democracy does not necessarily mean war weariness... sure if you invade Iraq, Vietnam, then of course, there will be sceptics... hit the mainland of your country with some foreign bombs... see how your citizens react then, intellectualism is lost, patriotism is a fever.. it depends *what* you are fighting for.... this is how citizens react to war!!! Some countries also actually have near zero corruption... Incedentally, I work for the Tax Department of my country... how are taxes effectively enforced compared to 100 years ago? Technology. I guarantee it, and I can verify and stand by that generic statement. True democratic states get less corrupt with technology. Maybe the Civ III democratic model is fairly US centric (which is actually a republic), but most of the democratic nations of the world can induce normally binding referendum. Declare war on the Zulus for no reason at all? damn no. If my country had a referendum on this for declaring war for no reason at all, not only would they vote no but nearly overthrow the government if they did not act accordingly. That's the way democracy works. I cannot say it enough. Democracies don't *mind* going to war, so long as the means justifies the end. It's nearly as simple as that. I do not like at all the way democracy is implemented in Civ III. This is a recurring theme I guess, maybe in Ancient Rome the citizens did not care so much what the empire did... but with technology, TV, instant news, comes a little more transparency. Countries cannot simply do as they wish anymore, or it will be breaking news to billions around the world. Globalization causes more interdependant trade relationships. Britain declared war on America for it's Gems resource near San Fransisco. Yeah right. Good one. But that's what happened in Civ II for me. Non-aggression pacts please. Nukes should be a much bigger deal. Half the wars and trade emarbgos today are to do with nuclear capicty. No, you can't manufactour Nukes without a nuclear plant unless you buy the rods yourself. Richer countries should be able to grow quicker (with technology, even quicker with transportation) due to immigration. Some countries in this Earth can literally accept as many people as they want. Future techs please? some of us complete the tech tree before retirement. I'd love to stop those nuclear plants from meting down!!
Please don't blast me over this post, I just want to say what was on my mind. I don't the time to really go over it all and make it more digestable. You know what? Civ III I think was the best upgrade to the Civ series ever. I have played civ religiously since Civ I, original, when we had a 386 at home and I was 14. I love it. Once I dreamt about it. So I am passioniate about the game, far to passioniate. So take my aggressive tone with a grain of salt... or two.
One more thing.... I think after years of playing, the thing I still find the most unrealistic of all, is how city size is dependant totally on immediate agriculture in the surrounding region. Time and time again, in reality, this is just not the case. Food *is* a tradable resource. and city size has *nothing* to do with teh surrounding region, but everything to do with the resources and commerce infrastructure.
Food *IS A TRADABLE RESOURCE* in reality. In Civ II once I had a nice city of 65.... impossible? damn no! IN Civ II you could trade food from one city to another. Adding "1" to a city is of course exponential to size, so before finishing sometimes, I'd make peace with everyone before the space ship landed, and trade food with caravans to max out my population for tax collectors, whatever, to a large city with marketplace, commercial infrastructure. Although that's not the point of what I am saying, it'd be nice to be able to create some mega cities.... not cultural centres like New York, London, Paris.. I mean population overloads like Asia.. Seoul for instance, a good 3 times the size of Nwe York.
