The forum is I have played all three generations of Civilization.
There are many things which I like about the game. However, one of few thing I dislike is how late in the game it can get very tedious managing your civilization.
I think CIV3 has made great strides in this regard with automation of workers, the city production queue, the research queue, the city governors, and other UI interface improvements. Recently, I just concluded my first game where I won a histograph victory. (I made war on the two civilazitions that were ahead of me. Thus, I knocked them out of their superior positions.)
However, I must say that the game was very tedious. Despite all the automation and UI improvements, the process of conducting a protracted war in CIV3 is no easier than it was in CIV1 and CIV2. If greater automation had been offered in this area, then wars would have become much more pleasurable to prosecute.
For example, if one had the ability to establish rally points for your forces being produced. Then, you could allocate a certain percentage of the forces being generated to each rally point.
If one could establish a queue, of cities to attack and/or the percentage of allocation of forces per target city.
If one could establish various goals on the attack such as destroy terrain improvements, destroy enemy units, capture city, and/or raze city.
If one could establish governance strategies for captured cities ...
Etc ...
As a war game/battle field simulation, CIV3 cannot compare to games such as Combat Mission. The ability to Macro-manage wars would make the game much more enjoyable. So, perhaps besides the concept of "governors", CIV also needs the concept of "generals". After my last protracted series of wars, I concluded that I will try to avoid military victories, since they are keystroke intensive with little real reward.
Thoughts?
There are many things which I like about the game. However, one of few thing I dislike is how late in the game it can get very tedious managing your civilization.
I think CIV3 has made great strides in this regard with automation of workers, the city production queue, the research queue, the city governors, and other UI interface improvements. Recently, I just concluded my first game where I won a histograph victory. (I made war on the two civilazitions that were ahead of me. Thus, I knocked them out of their superior positions.)
However, I must say that the game was very tedious. Despite all the automation and UI improvements, the process of conducting a protracted war in CIV3 is no easier than it was in CIV1 and CIV2. If greater automation had been offered in this area, then wars would have become much more pleasurable to prosecute.
For example, if one had the ability to establish rally points for your forces being produced. Then, you could allocate a certain percentage of the forces being generated to each rally point.
If one could establish a queue, of cities to attack and/or the percentage of allocation of forces per target city.
If one could establish various goals on the attack such as destroy terrain improvements, destroy enemy units, capture city, and/or raze city.
If one could establish governance strategies for captured cities ...
Etc ...
As a war game/battle field simulation, CIV3 cannot compare to games such as Combat Mission. The ability to Macro-manage wars would make the game much more enjoyable. So, perhaps besides the concept of "governors", CIV also needs the concept of "generals". After my last protracted series of wars, I concluded that I will try to avoid military victories, since they are keystroke intensive with little real reward.
Thoughts?
