What if Civilization III was not a Civilization game?

[Frodo Bolson]

Note: This thread is just for all the ones that think that Civilization III is not a good game.

I have noticed that there were high expectations around Civilization III, and the game did not fully satisficed them, so you all are complaining about the game and comparing why Civilization II, Alpha Centauri and (but a bit less) Call To Power II were better than it. But what would you think of Civilization III if it was not a Civilization related game, but just another game of the lot, perhaps "World History" or a name like that? Is Civilization III a bad game in itself, or it suffers in the comparison with other related ones?

 

[God]

I think as a Civ game its better. I've played Civ 2 which was alot of fun and I like Civ3 better.

I think the only reason people constantly bash Civ3 and its AI and compare it to the other games, is because they expected too much, and are getting beaten by the AI because it "cheats". They can't beat diety on their first try like in Civ2 so they say the hate it.

 

[Beam]

Originally posted by God
I think as a Civ game its better. I've played Civ 2 which was alot of fun and I like Civ3 better.

Originally posted by God
I think the only reason people constantly bash Civ3 and its AI and compare it to the other games, is because they expected too much, and are getting beaten by the AI because it "cheats". They can't beat diety on their first try like in Civ2 so they say the hate it.

Couple of others:
- Whine anyway
- Do not accept statistics (spearman vs. tank)
- Can not handle corruption
- Can not handle culture

 

[marshal zhukov]

Frodo Bolson is wrong. Only a company with the information and experience as Firaxis could come up with a game like this, this game is good not because it is CIilization 3 but because it is really good.

I have Call to Power and that game was horribly boring and dull a complete nonsense, I regret that I bought it.
Civilization 3 is the result of the experiences the game industry has had with strategy games since the first one. That may be one of the reasons this game is so good.

 

[Zouave]

After reading "God's" specious and dead wrong post I know why I am an agnostic.

Civ 3 really is "Soren Johnson's Culture". It is NOT in fact "Sid Meier's Civilization III" nor a true successor to Civ 2. But Firaxis paid off old Sid for the cachet of his name so they could cash in on it. Sid, your name is now tarnished and worthless for marketing purposes.

Of course, without Sid's name Firaxis would not have sold half as many games as they did.

As for the poll, most people who are unsatisfied with Civ 3 left this forum long ago, so the poll is meaningless.

 

[God]

Then how come you're still here? And you're whole bunch of civ3-haters that whine non-stop about cheating and what not.

 

[Graeme the mad]

Somebody like civ2 better than civ3 ?????????

WHy??

 

[Klasanov]

Civ III, is, in many ways, 10 step forward from Civ II, and then 10 steps backwards.

Call me completely biased, but I still laugh my butt off when I remember the manual (or the civil-o-pedia) claiming "Combat has been improved so firepower is no longer needed). Okay, maybe it has, but I really think the Civ II system was much better. Honestly. I find the marine 8/6 funny, as, AFAIK, they're better than yhe army (infantry) and supposed to be that way because they handle the hard stuff. Like the initial attack on a city. I guess you can establish a beachhead if you don't mind losing 50 arines amphibious attacking a coastal city.

I liked the culture aspects and all, as well as a lot of other things (concepts of small wonders, pop-rush vs. money rushing, can't rush wonders, etc). Corruption seems to be a lot higher though (I don't remember it being as bad in Communism in Civ II)

 

[bobgote]

The infantry is good at defending. What's odd about this? The marine is good at attacking. Wha'ts the problem here? You won't lose as many marines if you play it right.

I never played civ 2, but i can't imagine it being better than civ 3. I really don't have any problem with the AI and how it plays. It's all part of the game, and you find ways around it. And also there are many threads about communism, and corruption too. If you want more info on it, read them, they can be quite informative. It will mean a slight adjustment in your playing style to play it right.

And to Frodo Bolson: Most of the complainers say "If only they had the combat from alpha centauri" and similar. There's only small bits that they say would be better if it was the same as something else. This is a different game. Go back to those other ones if you don't like this one. And stop writing complaints that we've seen billions of times before. Sheeesh.

 

[Dark Sheer]

If one uses a marine to direct assault a city (Except maybe those 1 tile island city) then he/she deserve to lost a ton of units before capturing the city. Since when did an amphibious unit try to storm a city?

Even in D-day these folks are used for dislodging the axis army from the shore so a beachhead can be established!

 

[Koronin]

Not everyone, there's at least one droning troll left.

Originally posted by Zouave
After reading "God's" specious and dead wrong post I know why I am an agnostic.

Civ 3 really is "Soren Johnson's Culture". It is NOT in fact "Sid Meier's Civilization III" nor a true successor to Civ 2. But Firaxis paid off old Sid for the cachet of his name so they could cash in on it. Sid, your name is now tarnished and worthless for marketing purposes.

Of course, without Sid's name Firaxis would not have sold half as many games as they did.

As for the poll, most people who are unsatisfied with Civ 3 left this forum long ago, so the poll is meaningless.

 

[bobgote]

lol@droning troll.
we need the whiners to argue with tho

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by Zouave
After reading "God's" specious and dead wrong post I know why I am an agnostic.

I disagree with nearly everything Zouave posts about CivIII, I don't buy for a second his assertion that everyone who hated it left, as I see those same few names posting every chance they get.

However, this quote above is one of the funniest things I've read on this forum. My hat is off to you.

Bill
....in PDX

 

[JollyRoger]

Originally posted by Zouave
After reading "God's" specious and dead wrong post I know why I am an agnostic.

Civ 3 really is "Soren Johnson's Culture".

As for the poll, most people who are unsatisfied with Civ 3 left this forum long ago, so the poll is meaningless.

Maybe those initially unsatified and thus citizens of the Agnostic Kingdom of Zouave have gotten the fanboy religion and culturally flipped. Or maybe they were just barbarians who were driven out. That great center (encampment?) of anti-Civilization, Zouave, may never flip or be destroyed. Maybe the Play the World unit will destroy the encampment and take 25 gold.

While sharing certain agnostic sentiments of brother Zouave, I am not so theologically uptight as to need to know or care how many tanks can dance on the tip of a spear.

 

[Koronin]

Oh I believe any reasonable person who hates or even HIGHLY DISLIKES the game is gone and they ain't coming back, why would they?

It takes a special kind of prick mentality takes out their frustrations in a trolling manner on the boards made for the game's discussion.

Of course, maybe all the neigh sayers will come back for an ass kicking when MP finally comes out.

And for the record, I have one official whine about Civ 3, to charge for multi player is totally ABSURD, friggin $9.95 Hasbro risk has it free.

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX


I disagree with nearly everything Zouave posts about CivIII, I don't buy for a second his assertion that everyone who hated it left, as I see those same few names posting every chance they get.

However, this quote above is one of the funniest things I've read on this forum. My hat is off to you.

Bill
....in PDX

 

[EdwardTking]

I have played Civ2 and Civ3 and tell you my preferences:

Where I think Civ3 is well ahead of Civ2!

1) Resources (only discovering them when you have
technology AND needing them for particular units)
2) Ongoing Trade (it is much more realistic)
3) Diplomacy (trading combinations and right of passage)
4) Workers as distinct from settlers.
5) Settlers reducing pop by 2; reducing ICS.
6) Culture flipping.
5) Non lethal bombardment.
7) Small wonders.
8) Units being generally supported and not by individual cities.
9) Main menu support for customised Civs.
10) Not being able to build on mountains.
11) River crossing an obstacle (more realistic).
12) City icons listing turns to next pop & complete production.
13) More options for victory.
14) Not having the MI on a mountain covered by a bomber.15) Capturing rather than killing artillery, catapults, & workers.
15) Less powerful wonders.

Where I think Civ2 was better:

1) Multiplay.
2) Being able to transform tiles.
3) Less unit stacking (lose all if not city or fortress;
I find having my 20 units fight 20 AI units very slow;
infinite concentration unrealistic; Master of Magic better
limited stacking to 9 units per square.).
4) Maps (I liked the windy coastlines, exploring and playing).
5) Having to actually meet a civ before you can negotiate.
6) Having to send diplomat through to establish an embassy.
7) Caravans (I like caravans for trading; not wonder building).
8) Diplomats having to reach city to steal tech.
9) Unit icons (more distinct).
10) More levels of zoom in and zoom out.
11) Retreating (Civ3 concept is not necessarily wrong; but
the implementation favours mass horse attacks on cities.
12) The Council
13) Wonder movies.
14) Not slowing down on enemy territory.

Where I am undecided so far:

1) Armies.
2) Pop rushing.
3) Conscription.

I also liked the multi-map feature of both Master of Magic and Test of Time.