What do you miss in Civ 3?

[Ruffian]

I miss the horror of realizing you started out right by the rutheless mongols. They were great!!

I really wish they'd implemented some of the improvements AC had over Civ. For instance, being able to obsolete useless units. It's frustrating to be close to the end of the game and realize one of the governors in your distant forgotten cities manufactured a swordsman when you have tanks. Argh!!!!

 

[Lavindathar]

Got to be King Richard's Crusade!

 

[Mozenwrath]

The one thing that I really miss is Marco Polo's Embassy. I know a lot of you people find the exploration aspect "exiliarating"(sp) but I hate it and I loved just building the embassy and trading maps with everyone. It got all that messy, "finding out where the people you have to kill are" phase.

 

[Jezner]

Originally posted by Mike C
However, compared to Alpha Centauri, it just doesn't have the same feeling of style and polish that AC had.
...

2) World council seriously had its nuts chopped off in Civ 3.

3) Diplomacy also castrated to a great deal. To some extent, this probably couldn't have been reproduced but the AC social engineering options which directly corrolated to how other factions viewed you was a very enjoyable aspect. When you talked to someone, they would often praise your or pan you for what your government style was etc...

3a) The options seem rather limited as well. You are "at war" or "at peace" or have a MPP. Kind of skimpy if you ask me. There is no way of improving relations being "at peace" so people who were polite to you one minute could turn around and declare war on you. The fact that no nonagreesion pact exists sucks. Also, there is no option of whether to honour MPPs or not.

God I miss the SMAC diplomatic system. I wasn't a big fan of the game, but the diplomacy really took me places. I miss

a) not being able to vote on global measures
b) not being able to give units to your neighbor
c) not being able to broker peace

It does feel like they took a step backward. The diplo screen right now is really good - and quite flexible which I say hats off. But it would have been amazing to add all those other components to it.

Personally, I think Civ3 is much better than Civ2. I don't mind the combat system or the lack of firepower. But then again, I think the combat system is more of a "taster's choice" thing. I think it would be wise for Firaxis to give the player the ability to choose the combat system style. Actually, the more options the better.

Still, they did a great job. It'll keep me playing for a couple of years.

 

[Northstar5757]

I played a lot more civ than civ2 (civ2 was still great) so I thought civil wars could only happen in civ1 (only saw it twice). Was definantly a really cool thing.

Speaking of civ 1 I remember one saved game that messed up. In the advisor screen (embassy) it showed tons of info about the civ which you never could see before. Including ALLIES of computer civs which was probably the weirdest thing since until then I thought there wewrn't allies in civ, but clearly the computer was allying with other comps (of course I didn't have any since I couldn't negotiate allies in civ1).

 

[VoodooAce]

Probably my biggest gripe, which doesn't seem to bother anyone else, is not being able to zoom out and see more of the map at once.

I know, we have that little, itsy bitsy map on the bottom corner.

I want to be able to zoom way out, though, to get a better picture of my overall strategic situation. Would be even cooler now with borders.

Then they could give you a key to hit to show the map as normal, terrain, or colored in borders.....

Anyway, nothing major, but I miss it.

 

[scavenger]

Originally posted by narmox


- resources and luxuries
- no more ICS. you actually need roads and city improvements if you want to win in any way
- bombardment (I don't agree that bombers are useless in civ3 compared to civ2.. I find them very very useful when I fight war in the industrial and modern age to weaken my opponent's armies and infrastructure and to support my artillery and ground troops)
- better AI
- better diplomacy and trade, and no more futzing around with 200 caravans or spies or diplomats
- reduced power of wonders that don't completely overpower your opponents when you build them (read what someone said about the Crusade above) but still remain quite useful. small wonders are cool too
- more stuff happening in each age so you actually get to wage some useful wars before you get tanks
- more corruption (yes! more, maybe not all the corruption pre-patch, but more corruption means no exponential conquest: ie, take one city on a faraway continent with a few tanks, rush-buy a factory and sdi if necessary, then pump out more units every 3 turns from that city to conquer the rest of the continent. Now you actually have to use many resources to conquer or wage a long war)
- war is much better too cause you need to plan things in advance (as for the combat system itself, that's a matter of opinion; I've no prob with it)
- I kinda like the leaders and armies too!
- and so on...

Civ2 pales in comparison.

1.true, sorta
2.whats ICS?
3.bombardment is bad, I like the old skool stylings better
4.AI is stupidier as far as I can see or at least, only as inteligent
5.CARAVANS AND SPIES WERE FRIGGEN FUN!!!!!
6.powerful wonderes were better
7.true
8.combat is better then Civ 1, but far inferior to Civ 2
9.Leaders and armies are ********


another thing I miss, THE FRIGGEN S KEY!

I liked being able to sentry units so I knew if enemies walked past

 

[Mikeweather]

I miss poisoning the water supply etc. They should never have been removed. I miss sleeping units too, but I'd rather have the ability to poison another civ's water etc.

 

[narmox]

Originally posted by scavenger
1.true, sorta
2.whats ICS?

build a city. rush-build a settler as soon as you can. travel 2 tiles and build a city. repeat until you haev a gazillion cities, producing a total of 10000000 gold each turn in 1000 BC and proceed to kill everyone.

3.bombardment is bad, I like the old skool stylings better

oh definitely not. Bombardment is much superior than just the old school no strategy take a bunch of howitzers (which in real life were just support units right? for BOMBING ennemies?) and take over the world.

4.AI is stupidier as far as I can see or at least, only as inteligent

I was quite impressed with the AI, especially when I asked it to declare war and it actually did! so rarely did in civ2 and ctp... and other interesting stuff like that. It is better. It builds cities, it goes for resources, it trades, etc... It could be improved but it's much better than civ2/ctp.

5.CARAVANS AND SPIES WERE FRIGGEN FUN!!!!!

not for me. For me it means just 1000 more units to manage, etc..

6.powerful wonderes were better

not always. First who built Leo's was way too powerful because he didn't need to bother building new units. And so on.. The civ3 wonders haven't been too much penalized compared to civ2, so they're still powerful but they don't dramatically overpower.

7.true
8.combat is better then Civ 1, but far inferior to Civ 2

not in my experience...

9.Leaders and armies are ********

not ********. Could be ameliorated maybe, but I do like them a lot!

another thing I miss, THE FRIGGEN S KEY!

I liked being able to sentry units so I knew if enemies walked past

Well, what I hated about the S key was that I could never sentry spies, diplomats, settlers, etc.. That was pretty much annoying. Same for ships iirc... But I don't miss it that much, since I can usually see everything that's happening.

 

[bakant]

It is possible to zoom out. Just press the Z key.

Hope this helps.

 

[ouzzo]

I really agree with the opinion that CIV 3 has more goddies that CIV 2..

But I really do miss the Scenarios , they made the game super enjoyable and provided endless fun to a super game.

I wish that feature would return soon or that someone from FIraxs would assure that they are working on it.

P.S. I miss the information in the embassy screen too that was cool.

 

[PanaGo]

I have to state first, that I haven't played Civ 2 so everything i miss is from Civ...
1.Wonder Movies (they were in Civ 2)
2.The city view, were you could actually see the wonder being built brick-by-brick(and the knock-knock of the workers)
3.Poison their water!
4.The S key...zzz...
5.The "you are the first to complete a full circle of the earth" bonus of +1 naval movement.
6.Diplomats...
7.I liked the Civ UN wonder better...
9.Spies.

Of course Civ 3 is superior by all means and aspects...

 

[dannyevilcat]

It is possible to zoom out. Just press the Z key.

trust me. Zooming ain't like it used to be.

 

[scavenger]

because I can't rant enough, let me say this on zooming.

In civ two you could see the entire friggen world at zoomed out level, and you could see the snot in your mens noses at zoomed in level

the zoom now is pretty pathetic

 

[RogueNine]

The only thing that I suppose I 'miss' is the civil wars. They were cool, added some stradegy to war. (But that was about the extent of stradegy in Civ 2...)

Pretty much everything about Civ 3 is better IMHO. Is it a step back from CTP or AC? Maybe, I never played CTP and only tried AC briefly. (I actually found it a bit boring compared to Civ 2...) What I do know for sure is that Civ 3 is a ton better than Civ 2 in every way.

The two main gripes I've seen so far about Civ 3 have been Corruption and the Combat system. First, I'd just like to go on record that I don't mind the griping. However, I don't find the problems to be anything near what people are making them out to be.

- Corruption makes you think a bit more about your growth, and prevents the largest empire from the 'I got a faster start thanks to those two nomad-huts in 3500BC, now I've already won'. Getting big is good, getting bigger and bigger after that isn't. (Its not harmful either though.) It makes you think more about growing the cities you do have, and levels the playing field so that technology and culture become more important than turning out settlers faster than your opponent.

- I can understand why some people are a little frustrated with the combat system. But aren't you tired of building 20 tanks, 20 Howitzers, 20 Steath Fighters, and before you've even started a war you KNOW you've won? THATS what Civ 2 was. It really lacked a good end-game. Civ 3 changes ALL that. I can't remember how many Civ 2 games I abandoned simply because I reached the 'time to invade and win now' stage. That gets a tad boring. Its nice knowing that just because I've built twenty tanks, I haven't won yet. Worried about losing an armor to a swordsman? Might look funny, sure, but isn't it nice knowing victory isn't assured? The AI is a tough opponent, even if losing to swordsmen might be a bit of cheating on their part. I just look at it as another challenge to overcome. (And a good challenge is the reason I play this game...)

Anyway, sorry for the long rant, but I just felt that Civ 3 could use a 'positive' post for a change.

 

[Akka]

Doh, there is neither the tech tree nor the combat system in this poll.

NOBODY can honestly say that the HP/FP was NOT better that the combat system in Civ3. HP/FP allow better moddability and more subtle changes that can NOT be made in Civ3 ; HP/FP system basically INCLUDE the Civ3 system, with something more, so well it just allows more options.
Bombardement is good, and combined arms is a big improve over Civ2. Wars are now more interesting. But anyway, the HP/FP is what I miss the most.
And I'll miss it even more when there will be a real editor around here...

And to the one who said that "farmland is here, it's now railroad" : it was like that in Civ1. Civ3, about tile management, basically throw the Civ2 improvements and is back to Civ1 in every way except forests. Talk about improving...

 

[Rhandom]

The loss of the firepower system (or power plant system in SMAC) is the worst, considering how bad the random number generator functions.

I liked SMAC much more than Civ 2. But, I think over all this is still a step backwards from civ 2, and a mad dash back from SMAC. No political intricacies at all. No PENALTIES for the huge bonuses some civs get. No caravans/crawlers to help supply a city in the desert, or to pull resources from a non settled hex. Air units can't kill sea units. Air units can't really do much of anything, though they do tend to survive longer to compensate.

The AI is dumb. The fact that the science whore ploy works at all should indicate that. You still see civs attacking piecemeal instead of building groups.

The resources are an interesting touch, but not well implemented. There aren't enough required in any given age to make trade viable. Many of the cultural units are useless, and several require iron at a time when it is impossible to have transoceanic trade at all. Nice concept, poor implementation.

I miss planetbusters from SMAC. I miss the rising and falling sea levels.

The best improvement from civ 2, the culture war, is poorly implemented and tested. Wartime culture flips of fresh conquests are ridiculous, as is the loss of all the units in the city that should be preventing defection.

Luxuries are a nice addition, also.

The leaders are an awful addition. The ability to instantly build a wonder is crazy powerful now that there is no other way to speed it, and the scarcity of leaders means usually one or two civs get a huge advantage. If multiplayer ever shows, you are going to see this break a lot of competitive games.

I originlly said the game would rate a 9 out of 10 if they fix the bugs. I now think 7 out of 10 is more accurate without some major revisions to the rules.

 

[Busby]

I miss the capacity to select the sex of the leader you play, as an English man originally, I don't want to play the part of Elizabeth if i select ENGLISH. Also the name, I just edited the text file in CIV II but haven't found the location yet for CIV III.

Also the ability to set a unit to sleep I would put a unit with reasonable attack capacity at strategic choke points on a map or sometimes in cities and use them to let me know if someone tried to come near.

You should be able to set units to operate together its risky sending workers out alone but if you send a warrior or archer with them, you have to give orders to the military units every turn.

Lastly from CIV I the natural disaster happenings would have been nice an earthquake or tidal wave occasionally would be interesting, maybe even a planet buster meteroite such as took out the dinasours.

 

[Mike C]

Originally posted by Rhandom
The loss of the firepower system (or power plant system in SMAC) is the worst, considering how bad the random number generator functions.

I liked SMAC much more than Civ 2. But, I think over all this is still a step backwards from civ 2, and a mad dash back from SMAC. No political intricacies at all. No PENALTIES for the huge bonuses some civs get. No caravans/crawlers to help supply a city in the desert, or to pull resources from a non settled hex. Air units can't kill sea units. Air units can't really do much of anything, though they do tend to survive longer to compensate.

The AI is dumb. The fact that the science whore ploy works at all should indicate that. You still see civs attacking piecemeal instead of building groups.

The resources are an interesting touch, but not well implemented. There aren't enough required in any given age to make trade viable. Many of the cultural units are useless, and several require iron at a time when it is impossible to have transoceanic trade at all. Nice concept, poor implementation.

I miss planetbusters from SMAC. I miss the rising and falling sea levels.

The best improvement from civ 2, the culture war, is poorly implemented and tested. Wartime culture flips of fresh conquests are ridiculous, as is the loss of all the units in the city that should be preventing defection.

Luxuries are a nice addition, also.

The leaders are an awful addition. The ability to instantly build a wonder is crazy powerful now that there is no other way to speed it, and the scarcity of leaders means usually one or two civs get a huge advantage. If multiplayer ever shows, you are going to see this break a lot of competitive games.

I originlly said the game would rate a 9 out of 10 if they fix the bugs. I now think 7 out of 10 is more accurate without some major revisions to the rules.

Hey, it looks like we agree on a lot of things about this game!

The biggest thing I miss is social engineering. That thing was really something which breathed life into AC's factions. They way it got tied into diplomacy was well was really nice.

If only you could make culture and strategic resouces in AC. Ahhh. That would be good indeed.

 

[Sam_Catchem]

I change my vote to sleep. I forgot about that. I move unnits into cities to heal..and forget about them. It would be nice to have sleep back.