What is your view of Civ3?

[Newbunkle]

I can't go back to civ 2 after being spoiled by the strategic resources added in civ 3. I still remember my first game, where I started on an island with another civ, and had to fight to capture their iron. Sweet.

 

[GenMarshall]

Used to play it, but not any more.

 

[Till]

Civ3 tried to fix some of Civ2's problems but largely failed (borders, ICS, need to count beakers/shields). The computer opponents sucked, and playing at higher levels generally simply meant more need to micromanage, as the path/strategy to victory was pretty much the same in every game.
I still loved it and it took me a long time to admit to myself that Civ4 is much superior, though still flawed.

 

[Takhisis]

I still loved it and it took me a long time to deceive myself that Civ4 is much superior, though still flawed.

Poast fix'd.

 

[Gary Childress]

Just a poll about Civ3.
Although i am contemplating creating gfx for civ5, i think that i will always produce cities and other stuff for civ3. It is a decade-old game, and has some flaws (like no event file being there, or no source code available) but the community for it here is still active.

The best thing about Civ III is that I know how to mod the graphics and the programs used to mod the graphics are relatively inexpensive and easy to learn. Granted there's no source code but I still have a lot of fun messing around with graphics.

 

[Kyriakos]

It seems that a lot of people in the OT still play. Now if they actually became part of the civ3 community that would be even better

 

[MeteorPunch]

Having spent a bunch of time modding last year, Civ 3 is a overall a solid game, but really limiting as far as what you can do with it for the type of game that it is. Definitely time for Civ 5.

 

[Virote_Considon]

I still play and mod, when I have time

 

[Smellincoffee]

CIV has its merits, but Civ3 remains my preferred means of getting my civilization fix. I suppose my attachment to my own tweaked ruleset helps.

 

[Formaldehyde]

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.

The original MoO was a fantastic game. I keep hoping someone will come out with something similar which is equally addicting.

I just started playing Civ4 again after buying it when it first came out, trying it a few times, and then giving up.

In my current game, I am winning on Noble long time frame (or rather was). I just got attacked by Montezuma with about 50 units stacked on the same tile. I can't even counterattack because he is attacking my city from land belonging to another player. What sort of vile bug is that? And about 20 of his units are catapults. They just obliterated my own megastack of a much stronger units, including infantry and machine guns.

I may have to go back to Civ3...

 

[Takhisis]

Formaldehyde... go back to civ3... that bug is forbidden... are you playing vanilla civ4 or one of the expansions? vanilla had a lot of bugs...

 

[GenMarshall]

...and playing at higher levels generally simply meant more need to micromanage, as the path/strategy to victory was pretty much the same in every game.

Thats what largely turned me off from Civ3. So much flipping micromanagement it's not even funny.

 

[Takhisis]

But you can always play mods and scenarios, they're much more fun than the epic game. Don't let Firaxis box you in!

 

[Jabarto]

I really loved Civ 3, and still do. I hear people complain about the diplomacy, and to them, I ask: have you never played Civ 4? Where the only "diplomacy" that ever took place was the ceaseless AI demands for techs, which they never made to other AI? Civ 4's diplomacy was abominable; it was nothing more than a tool to align the computer against you. And I actually prefer the predefined governments over the hamfisted civics system. At least the options made sense.

Oh, and don't even get me started on the crappy map generation in Civ 4...

I love Civ 4, but 3 did a lot of things right. It just feels more "old school" and true to what I imagine Civ should be.

 

[aelf]

This thread shows that you can't please everyone. But people's complaints about CIV are mostly either quite inaccurate or merely childish (teh graphix look kiddie!!!!!!!!!!), so it's pretty clear that CIV is better

 

[Virote_Considon]

I disagree, aelf.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I've stopped playing it since I got Civ 4. It drove me crazy when I had the only nearby source of coal and it ran out and I had to stop building railroads. (I sucked at the conquest part. I still do in Civ 4.)

 

[Takhisis]

Och, lass, all you had to do was trade for a new one. Ever heard of a strong trading position? I was playing a game as babylon last month and just went an conquered some coal in another continent from some pesky Yankees I was already at war with and has recently conquered it from the Incas, then made peace two turns later. Easy.

 

[Lillefix]

It was a pain to trade strategic resources. Usually, they didn't want to sell any or it was way to expensive. Except when they were outdated, like iron and hourses at the end of the game.

 

[Takhisis]

yeap... that's why I say the epic game sucks and mods are just GREAT.