What is your view of Civ3?

[CurtSibling]

CIV3 did have some memorable stacks of doom that made even a veteran like me gasp in horror...

 

[CaptainF]

I'm intrigued to see what will happen with Civ5, since the stacks of doom will no longer exist. Only one unit per tile!

 

[GoodSarmatian]

It looks like they are changing so much in Civ5 it will either revolutionize and rejuvenate the series in a way we couldn't imagine or it will be trainwreck on par with Master of Orion 3.

 

[fugazi]

I always preferred 2 over 3 and never looked back when 4 came out. Beyond the Sword nailed the coffin shut for me

 

[amadeus]

The modding features were too weak, otherwise could've been a great game.

I have to agree with my friend Curt, Civ2 just had too much to offer. Yes, there were admittedly problems with the AI, borders, etc., but at least you could script events and to be fair, the graphics were pretty low-res so it's easy to switch them up with your own creations. Fancy graphics are fine, but they don't always make games better as far as modding goes.

 

[Kyriakos]

It still is relatively easy to mod civ3. Im not sure how many units there are for civ4, but there are over 3000 for civ3, and there are a number of unit makers around.
As for static gfx, there we have fewer people left. But i think that the quality of all civ3 creations easily rivals those of civ4, which are more blocky and most of the time are simple 3d objects with skins, as opposed to models of tens of thousants of polygons which are used in civ3

 

[Bill3000]

Civ3 is and always was an awful game, and pales in comparison to both Civ2 and Civ4. It only worsened infinite city sprawl. Corruption making cities useless was a horrible way to counteract it. It had limited modding capability. By removing HP/firepower it brought back ancient units winning against modern ones; the modern units were deliberately made weaker. For quite a while it had no multiplayer, a significant component that people forget.

The fact that it's "relatively easy to mod in civ3" is irrelevant when there's not much to mod. Oooh, I can make new units! That's totally customizable and brings the game to its full potential! You can't even make a freaking custom message window pop up, for god's sake. In terms of customizability, Civ2 was easier to do and you could do more of it, and Civ4 has unlimited customizability compared to Civ3.

The only reason why people like Civ3 is being they were weaned on it, not because it was a good game. It pales in comparison to other games in the series.

 

[Aegis]

Considering I'm playing 9 years later, one of the best games I've ever owned.

Same here. I have played all of the games in the series (sans the console games), but it's Civ III which I keep coming back to. Sure, it has it flaws, but what game doesn't?

The only reason why people like Civ3 is being they were weaned on it, not because it was a good game.

This is pretty fallacious, and lousy logic.

 

[Patroklos]

Things that I hated about civ3:

- Infinite railroad mobility and the inability to mod it.
- Unlimited stacks.
- No trade routes.

Things I liked about it:

- It looked like a strategy game. More board game like. Civ4 looks like a toddler's playroom with toys randomely thrown about. The units look like toys, and it is near impossible to glean information easily from the map.
- Best air unit implementation of any of the games.
- 3D sucks and is not needed for these type of games, the Civ3 designers understood this.

 

[Bill3000]

This is pretty fallacious, and lousy logic.

No, it's pretty sound.

 

[Tee Kay]

The worst thing about Civ3 is the ridiculous corruption. Apart from that, though, I enjoy it.

 

[Aegis]

No, it's pretty sound.

You misunderstand. I am not denying that the phenomenon occurs, but to claim that it is responsible for everyone who likes the game is patently absurd. That’s like saying, because OCD exists, everyone who likes to wash their hands must suffer from it. It's a logical fallacy, and is just plain wrong.

Case in point: I started by playing Civ I, and III is my favorite.

 

[nc-1701]

C3C is the best Civ I've played, I don't play much anymore but occasionally I still fire up some of the better mods, Balancer or Heart of Destiny usually, from time to time. The thing I liked most about is that it gave me an epic game feeling that cIV never has. cIV feels way too much like an RTS and the 3d graphics are silly and cartoonish, while they did an awesome job fixing many of the problems that plague C3C somewhere along the way they destroyed the games epic feel, and that's why I can't stand cIV it just doesn't draw me in.
I'm really hoping ciV manages to return to the C3C feeling of play while keeping more of the cIV improvements as well as killing the dumb things cIV did like unit upgrades, the horrible diplomacy, and the ******** artillery. Oh and C3C espionage and planes are way better too...

 

[CurtSibling]

I'm intrigued to see what will happen with Civ5, since the stacks of doom will no longer exist. Only one unit per tile!

I heard about this. It sounds like a dumb idea.
How are they going to do sieges that involve more units than sieged tiles, I wonder.

.

 

[Lillefix]

I heard about this. It sounds like a dumb idea.
How are they going to do sieges that involve more units than sieged tiles, I wonder.

.

Apparently, two units beside each other can switch places. So, healthy units are always on the front line.

 

[Cutlass]

Was pretty good up to a point. But late game had some real flaws. The corruption and pollution made late game so frustrating that it discouraged playing. Very badly managed, and very unrealistic. The bombardment feature sucked. And Civ4 didn't really help in that regard either. I haven't played in years. And so don't recall all of my complaints with it. I recall a bug where, if you created enough cities it would start reusing city names. Once that happened, you could run all of your military units through that city and make it their home and all of your unit support would go away. That compensated for the corruption somewhat, but not the frustration of it. All the captured cities I used to use to just constantly draft units in the late game, because they were useless for anything else. It was more effective to draft units and disband them to build improvements than it was to just build.

 

[Aegis]

I heard about this. It sounds like a dumb idea.
How are they going to do sieges that involve more units than sieged tiles, I wonder.

.

Perhaps there will be splash damage.

I am interested in how it will work defensively. I do like the notion that an out manned force will be able to defeat numerically superior forces due to the terrain.

 

[CurtSibling]

I wonder if they will allow unit stacks in cities? They must!

I expect this one unit per tile thing to perhaps be like Axis and Allies, where
we will see one unit, but there will be many others of the same type in the tile.

Time will tell...

..

 

[Lillefix]

I wonder if they will allow unit stacks in cities? They must!

I expect this one unit per tile thing to perhaps be like Axis and Allies, where
we will see one unit, but there will be many others of the same type in the tile.

Time will tell...

..

Actually they've said specifically that they it won't be possible. They want to encourage a strategy that involves long front lines at your borders, in stead of fortifying loads of units in your cities.

 

[CurtSibling]

That sounds like BLASPHEMY! MADNESS! (to quote a film)

I will see how it turns out, but that design choice has "disaster" written all over it...