why civ3 sucks
Neil Wilcox
things about Civ II, while failing to replace them with something
significantly better.
Examples:
1. Spies. True, they were too powerful in Civ II but there must be a better
way of solving that problem. Some ways would include- make them more
expensive, make them require a city improvement to build (i.e. intelligence
agency), reduce their chances of completing a mission, etc.
2. Caravans. Before Civ 3, I loved trade. The feeling of satisfaction from
establishing trade routes is gone. The idea that military units cant
interrupt trade missions is rediculous.
3. The High Counsil. You may laugh, but I love the High Counsil and expected
to see an improved version in Civ 3..no such luck.
4. Fundamentalism. I dont see why this is no longer an option.
5. Embassies- these are just worthless now. why bother?
6. The Senate- something removed which should have been left in. this was a
major factor which seperated democracies and republics from 'real'
governments (like communism and fundamentalism). just think how real world
democracies would behave if there was no senate..
there are a few things I like about Civ 3-
1. production and research queues
2. unit promotion (except for the way Leaders work. It would be better if
they were just superior units with special abilitys, such as greater defense
or offense, depending on how they earn their Leader status)
3. more than 7 civs in a game
4. civ specific units/abilities
i would be happy to hear you opinions on these comments.
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With NINE Servers In California And Texas - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Marc Sylvestre
"Neil Wilcox" <nei...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3c217161$1...@news.uncensored-news.com...
> Civ 3 sucks because Sid Meier and Firaxis took away most of my favorite
> things about Civ II, while failing to replace them with something
> significantly better.
> Examples:
> 1. Spies. True, they were too powerful in Civ II but there must be a
better
> way of solving that problem. Some ways would include- make them more
> expensive, make them require a city improvement to build (i.e.
intelligence
> agency), reduce their chances of completing a mission, etc.
You know, I've seen a lot of complaints about this or that unit being too
powerful. Well GODDAMIT, units are too powerful so that games can friggin go
one way or another sooner than later. SOme folks have complained that
cavelry is too powerful. Well there were times in history where cavelry
ruled, case closed. There is nothing wrong with certain units "ruling" in
certain eras. I liked spies in Civ2 (and I miss them) because they got the
game over quicker. I mean, once you can bribe away whole cities, doesn't
that mean you are dominating the civ you are doing that to?
> 2. Caravans. Before Civ 3, I loved trade. The feeling of satisfaction from
> establishing trade routes is gone. The idea that military units cant
> interrupt trade missions is rediculous.
I agree. Most peoplep didn't like caravans, but I liked the "trade bonus",
both the one time bonus in $ and the science bonus. The AI is an ASSHOLE
about trading resources and luxuries. It rarely lets me do a straight up
trade of one lux for another.
> 3. The High Counsil. You may laugh, but I love the High Counsil and
expected
> to see an improved version in Civ 3..no such luck.
I miss those filmed people too. I think that Firaxis and
Infrogrames(assholes) really cheaped it out on the media parts of Civ3.
> 4. Fundamentalism. I dont see why this is no longer an option.
Worried about offending fundys? Pretty silly. One of the BIG things in the
World right now is the struggle of Religious Fundamentalism vs Modernism.
Not including fundamentalism was silly.
> 5. Embassies- these are just worthless now. why bother?
Add spies to that list. As if I am going to spenmd $1000+ on a CHANCE of
stealing a tech. F that.
> 6. The Senate- something removed which should have been left in. this was
a
> major factor which seperated democracies and republics from 'real'
> governments (like communism and fundamentalism). just think how real world
> democracies would behave if there was no senate..
>
> there are a few things I like about Civ 3-
> 1. production and research queues
> 2. unit promotion (except for the way Leaders work. It would be better if
> they were just superior units with special abilitys, such as greater
defense
> or offense, depending on how they earn their Leader status)
> 3. more than 7 civs in a game
> 4. civ specific units/abilities
>
> i would be happy to hear you opinions on these comments
You got em
Insane Ranter
Neil Wilcox wrote in message <3c217161$1...@news.uncensored-news.com>...
>Civ 3 sucks because Sid Meier and Firaxis took away most of my favorite
>things about Civ II, while failing to replace them with something
>significantly better.
>Examples:
>1. Spies. True, they were too powerful in Civ II but there must be a better
>way of solving that problem. Some ways would include- make them more
>expensive, make them require a city improvement to build (i.e. intelligence
>agency), reduce their chances of completing a mission, etc.
>2. Caravans. Before Civ 3, I loved trade. The feeling of satisfaction from
>establishing trade routes is gone. The idea that military units cant
>interrupt trade missions is rediculous.
They err um can....
>3. The High Counsil. You may laugh, but I love the High Counsil and
expected
>to see an improved version in Civ 3..no such luck.
Always turned this off....
>4. Fundamentalism. I dont see why this is no longer an option.
???
>5. Embassies- these are just worthless now. why bother?
NOt sure
>6. The Senate- something removed which should have been left in. this was a
>major factor which seperated democracies and republics from 'real'
>governments (like communism and fundamentalism). just think how real world
>democracies would behave if there was no senate..
Some "democracies" don't have a senate.. just one parilmentary body.. Are
you saying demo. and rebluics are Fake?
Balgewolf
> Civ 3 sucks because Sid Meier and Firaxis took away most of my favourite
> things about Civ II, while failing to replace them with something
> significantly better.
> Examples:
> 1. Spies. True, they were too powerful in Civ II but there must be a
better
> way of solving that problem. Some ways would include- make them more
> expensive, make them require a city improvement to build (i.e.
intelligence
> agency), reduce their chances of completing a mission, etc.
Actually I prefer the Probe Team System from AC to Civ 2 Spies, I always
hated losing a ton of Tech to Foreign Spies for the Entire Game when ever I
left a 1 Square opening.... To Say it PISSED me off is an understatement ,
not sure if I like the new system but I hated the old system more, But I
have always disagreed with Spies being able to Bribe Cities into Defecting
to your side also.
Much prefer the new Cultural Method and Having to Quell Resistance....feels
more real to me.
And Spies aren't totally useless. The propaganda aspect fits in very well
with the new Cultural aspects of the game and the See All Units Option is a
real help in War
> 2. Caravans. Before Civ 3, I loved trade. The feeling of satisfaction from
> establishing trade routes is gone. The idea that military units cant
> interrupt trade missions is ridiculous.
Actually I really prefer the new way of Trading its more the way I would
have done it. The old System was really dumb, you get a caravan to a city
and they trade forever with no troubles , even in times of War...No Way
> 3. The High Council. You may laugh, but I love the High Council and
expected
> to see an improved version in Civ 3..no such luck.
Yeah I miss these guy's as well, especially the Cute Foreign Ministry Babe,
she was so sexy during Anarchy :)
> 4. Fundamentalism. I don't see why this is no longer an option.
I think this was removed after the September 11 Attacks, along with
Poisoning Cities.... understandable IMHO...maybe they'll put Fundamentalism
back after it all dies down
> 5. Embassies- these are just worthless now. why bother?
I love the New Embassies
> 6. The Senate- something removed which should have been left in. this was
a
> major factor which separated democracies and republics from 'real'
> governments (like communism and fundamentalism). just think how real world
> democracies would behave if there was no senate..
I think that Republican and Democratic Governments should answer to someone,
but I felt that the Civ Senate was just too bloody powerful and I had to
change Government quite a few times to take out an opposition Space Ship
because those dorks stopped me from attacking
This is what the War Weariness is all about, Republics and Democracies
suffer much worst War Weariness than "Real" <<< Why are they more real? >>
Governments like Communism and Fundamentalism
>
> there are a few things I like about Civ 3-
> 1. production and research queues
> 2. unit promotion (except for the way Leaders work. It would be better if
> they were just superior units with special abilities, such as greater
defence
> or offence, depending on how they earn their Leader status)
I would prefer to see Elite units also giving an Attack and Defence Bonus
like in Alpha Centauri, but otherwise no complaints
> 3. more than 7 civs in a game
> 4. civ specific units/abilities
>
> I would be happy to hear you opinions on these comments.
Those are mine, obviously we disagree on a fair few things though :)
--
John Simpson
http://users.bigpond.net.au/spectre/
Nighthawk on #babylon5 , Oz.Org IRC
GM "I Don't care what your Dwarves DEX is, you are not doing a Combat Roll
off your horse while drawing your Two Battleaxes!"
---
"Neil Wilcox" <nei...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3c217161$1...@news.uncensored-news.com...
>
>
>
Matthew Bloomer
>5. Embassies- these are just worthless now. why bother?
If you don't have an embassy with a rival civilisation then you can't
have a right of passage pact with them. I sympathise with what you're
saying though: without right of passage pacts I'd not bother with
embassies.
>6. The Senate- something removed which should have been left in. this was a
>major factor which seperated democracies and republics from 'real'
>governments (like communism and fundamentalism). just think how real world
>democracies would behave if there was no senate..
Actually, I think HM Government would behave better without the House
of Lords to get in the way to block the passing of legislature :)
--
Matthew Bloomer * mailto:maj...@btinternet.com
* * http://web.ukonline.co.uk/m.bloomer/ * *
Rob Lancaster
"Balgewolf" <resa...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:ipiU7.552$wD1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Rob Lancaster
"Balgewolf" <resa...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:ipiU7.552$wD1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> I think this was removed after the September 11 Attacks, along with
> Poisoning Cities.... understandable IMHO...maybe they'll put
Fundamentalism
> back after it all dies down
>
I have an idea Fundamentalism was taken out long before that, probably
because it was too powerful
Rob
ps, sorry about reposting the original with no changes, my mistake.
Rob Lancaster
> things about Civ II, while failing to replace them with something
> significantly better.
> Examples:
> 1. Spies. True, they were too powerful in Civ II but there must be a
better
> way of solving that problem. Some ways would include- make them more
> expensive, make them require a city improvement to build (i.e.
intelligence
> agency), reduce their chances of completing a mission, etc.
Prefer the new method, lot of bother building each spy and moving it around,
IMO.
> 2. Caravans. Before Civ 3, I loved trade. The feeling of satisfaction from
> establishing trade routes is gone. The idea that military units cant
> interrupt trade missions is rediculous.
Again, prefer the new trade network. caravans were a lot of bother to move
around, and half the time the goods were no longer in demand when you
finally got where you were going.
> 3. The High Counsil. You may laugh, but I love the High Counsil and
expected
> to see an improved version in Civ 3..no such luck.
Turned these off, usually. I am disappointed by the general lack of victory
movies, though.
> 4. Fundamentalism. I dont see why this is no longer an option.
I liked playing with Fundamentalism, but it was often too easy and its only
disadvantage, the science penalty could easily be overcome using spies etc.
It would be ok to have it in the current game, maybe with some restrictions.
> 5. Embassies- these are just worthless now. why bother?
You need them for the new diplomacy negotiations.
> 6. The Senate- something removed which should have been left in. this was
a
> major factor which seperated democracies and republics from 'real'
> governments (like communism and fundamentalism). just think how real world
> democracies would behave if there was no senate..
>
The Senate irritated me but I accepted it as a way of stopping me having the
most powerful government for research and production and using that just to
go for conquest. I think the new war-weariness option is better, overall.
> there are a few things I like about Civ 3-
> 1. production and research queues
The production queue is not as easy to use as in SMAC which annoys me.
Research queue is excellent.
> 2. unit promotion (except for the way Leaders work. It would be better if
> they were just superior units with special abilitys, such as greater
defense
> or offense, depending on how they earn their Leader status)
Unit promotion was better in SMAC. Leaders are fine, if you ever manage to
get one.
> 3. more than 7 civs in a game
Good to have, but slow on some systems.
> 4. civ specific units/abilities
>
Depends on the civ, the specific units are not really a level playing field.
I feel the American and German units come to late in the game to be of any
real advantage. Britains is only useful on a islands map. The Aztecs Jaguar
Warrior is possibly the best, costing only 10 shields and requiring no
resources, the extra movement gives you the chance for a good start if you
have close neighbours.
> i would be happy to hear you opinions on these comments.
>
Those are mine. What is your feeling on the impact of Resources to the game?
Rob
harry haller
Neil Wilcox wrote:
> Civ 3 sucks because Sid Meier and Firaxis took away most of my favorite
> things about Civ II, while failing to replace them with something
> significantly better.
> Examples:
<snip>
About the only thing I liked about Civ-3 was that you could see two
squares if you're standing on top of a hill or mountain.
Grim
"Neil Wilcox" <nei...@gte.net> wrote
> Civ 3 sucks because Sid Meier and Firaxis took away most of my favorite
> things about Civ II, while failing to replace them with something
> significantly better.
> Examples:
[snip]
I thought this post was a joke, because the things you listed as what you
liked about Civ2 are the things I consider the most useless or most
unbalanced. Then, I read the list of things you like about Civ3, and I get
the feeling you are serious about liking caravans, spies, etc. I guess it
proves that everyone has a different opinion on what they like and what they
don't.
Luckily, we now have a choice. If you like those things about Civ2, then
stick to playing Civ2. I prefer Civ3, so I'll play it instead.
Andre Goldmann
<IAMTHEANTI...@york.ac.uk> wrote:
>On 20 Dec 2001 05:04:47 GMT, "Neil Wilcox" <nei...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>>5. Embassies- these are just worthless now. why bother?
>
>If you don't have an embassy with a rival civilisation then you can't
>have a right of passage pact with them. I sympathise with what you're
>saying though: without right of passage pacts I'd not bother with
>embassies.
In addition, you can investigate foreign cities (assuming you are not
at war with that civ) way before espionage is available. Very
important if you want to check if they will beat you to a wonder.
Andre
Jeffery S. Jones
<IAMTHEANTI...@york.ac.uk> wrote:
>On 20 Dec 2001 05:04:47 GMT, "Neil Wilcox" <nei...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>>5. Embassies- these are just worthless now. why bother?
>
>If you don't have an embassy with a rival civilisation then you can't
>have a right of passage pact with them. I sympathise with what you're
>saying though: without right of passage pacts I'd not bother with
>embassies.
Embassies also include a free look at their capital city. I also
think that they affect what info your advisers will give you about
them.
>>6. The Senate- something removed which should have been left in. this was a
>>major factor which seperated democracies and republics from 'real'
>>governments (like communism and fundamentalism). just think how real world
>>democracies would behave if there was no senate..
>
>Actually, I think HM Government would behave better without the House
>of Lords to get in the way to block the passing of legislature :)
The senate, representing the will of the people to cooperate with
wars and such, was entirely too uncooperative for democracies in Civ2.
Your key goal was to get the UN so you could override them, as
otherwise, wars lasted until you took a city, then peace was forced on
you. I don't think that reflects well how those governments work.
Still, it might not hurt to have them come along and say "the people
won't like this" before you try to go to war.
--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
*Task Force Games* <http://www.task-force-games.com>
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>
*Graphic Reflections and Websites* <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/>
na_biker
<robert.la...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Balgewolf" <resa...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>news:ipiU7.552$wD1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> > 4. Fundamentalism. I don't see why this is no longer an option.
>> I think this was removed after the September 11 Attacks, along with
>> Poisoning Cities.... understandable IMHO...maybe they'll put
>Fundamentalism
>> back after it all dies down
>>
>
>I have an idea Fundamentalism was taken out long before that, probably
>because it was too powerful
>
Yeah, I totally agree. Of all the governments in Civ2 fundie was the
most broken. No corruption, no disorder even possible, virtually no
unit upkeep, oodles and oodles of cash rolling in? It seems to fit so
well with Iran and the talibans too! ;->
Communism were too powerful too. I always thought governments were
better balanced in Civ1 than Civ2. I think that's one of the(few)
things Sid set straight(i.e. back to Civ1) in Civ3.
The Reverend Bob
pointless meandering on Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:07:13 +0000:
>Actually, I think HM Government would behave better without the House
>of Lords to get in the way to block the passing of legislature :)
I do hope that was meant to be ironic... RIP, Terrorism Act 2000,
Crime & Disorder Act, Football (Disorder) Act, Anti-Terrorism Act.
This *is* a Government that dislikes democracy, doesn't give a flying
scoobie about the right to silence (although the Tories were to blame
for annihilating that, as well as initial limits on free assembly in
the CJA 95), wants to remove the automatic right to trial by jury (ask
any solicitor exactly what they think of Magistrates/JPs...), freedom
of movement, habeas corpus, freedom of association, presumption to
innocence, double jeopardy, burden of proof, right to privacy.
Pretty much the entirety of corpus juris is being nailed by this
particular bunch of authoritarian fascist bastards, and they're being
egged on by an increasingly militant right-wing press and a herd-like
public who have adopted the twin mantras of "If you have nothing to
hide, then you've nothing to fear" and "We have to do something" as
their call to arms...
The House of Lords is one of the least democratic institutions in the
developed world, yet it's the only body attempting to defend the
rights, liberties and freedoms that underpin democracy so the
Government is going to replace it with a body largely consistent of
tame political appointees. Be afraid, be very afraid - remember that
tyrannies and dictatorships *always* enjoy a significant chunk of
popular support initially.
Hmmm... rant over. You hit a sore spot there ;-)
--
contact: rev...@hotmail.com
"Space sucks and gravity gets you down... What ya gonna do?"
Insane Ranter
The Reverend Bob wrote in message ...
Democracy sucks anyway... give me a republic........ give me one reason
50% of a population +1 person can hold aboslute power over the other 50%-1
of the population?
Matthew Bloomer
<take....@the.sig> wrote:
>>Actually, I think HM Government would behave better without the House
>>of Lords to get in the way to block the passing of legislature :)
>I do hope that was meant to be ironic... RIP, Terrorism Act 2000,
>Crime & Disorder Act, Football (Disorder) Act, Anti-Terrorism Act.
But we have too big a military for a democracy! Ditching the House of
Lords would be the first step towards switching to communism! :)
Hank
wrote:
Well, that's not a democracy ... it's a parliament. I wonder if
there are any democracies out there ... though I guess we call
America's Republic a democracy for whatever reason ...
H
AcK!
>Actually I prefer the Probe Team System from AC to Civ 2 Spies, I always
Agreed.
>> 4. Fundamentalism. I don't see why this is no longer an option.
>I think this was removed after the September 11 Attacks, along with
>Poisoning Cities.... understandable IMHO...maybe they'll put Fundamentalism
>back after it all dies down
You are correct about poison, but not about fundies.
Fundies were gone months earlier, due to balancing.
>> 5. Embassies- these are just worthless now. why bother?
>
>I love the New Embassies
Agreed.
>> 6. The Senate- something removed which should have been left in. this was
>a
>> major factor which separated democracies and republics from 'real'
>> governments (like communism and fundamentalism). just think how real world
>> democracies would behave if there was no senate..
>
>I think that Republican and Democratic Governments should answer to someone,
>but I felt that the Civ Senate was just too bloody powerful and I had to
>change Government quite a few times to take out an opposition Space Ship
>because those dorks stopped me from attacking
>This is what the War Weariness is all about, Republics and Democracies
>suffer much worst War Weariness than "Real" <<< Why are they more real? >>
>Governments like Communism and Fundamentalism
War Weariness does this *very* effectively.
It's both more flexible *and* nastier than senates. As much as I hate suffering
from its effects, I love it in comparison to senates. :)
>> there are a few things I like about Civ 3-
>> 1. production and research queues
>> 2. unit promotion (except for the way Leaders work. It would be better if
>> they were just superior units with special abilities, such as greater
>defence
>> or offence, depending on how they earn their Leader status)
>
>I would prefer to see Elite units also giving an Attack and Defence Bonus
>like in Alpha Centauri, but otherwise no complaints
A movement bonus would be nice...
TTYL
... My tagline can beat up your tagline.
krup...@yahoospa.com
remove "spa" to email
AcK!
>1. Spies. True, they were too powerful in Civ II but there must be a better
Try the new intelligence agency, and for more than just techs too...
>2. Caravans. Before Civ 3, I loved trade. The feeling of satisfaction from
>establishing trade routes is gone. The idea that military units cant
>interrupt trade missions is rediculous.
You can.
>3. The High Counsil. You may laugh, but I love the High Counsil and expected
>to see an improved version in Civ 3..no such luck.
It was cute, but I miss WoW movies more.
>4. Fundamentalism. I dont see why this is no longer an option.
Too perfect. You can more or less recreate it in the editor if you want it as an
option, though.
>5. Embassies- these are just worthless now. why bother?
Investigate city without having to spend a diplomat? Pretty good...
>6. The Senate- something removed which should have been left in. this was a
>major factor which seperated democracies and republics from 'real'
>governments (like communism and fundamentalism). just think how real world
>democracies would behave if there was no senate..
Uh, Canada?
Besides, war weariness it much more effective.
TTYL
... Now that I am dead, I'm finally making a living.