10 Things I Hate About Civ3
Daniel McCarthy
the Civ franchise called Civ 3. To establish some context, I've been
playing Civ (and Civ2) since 1991 and I think that Civ 2 is the best
strategy game ever made.
So here's the list:
1. Strategic Resources-
Reforming the trading system is a good idea, the actual execution is a
disaster. The relative scarcity of horses, iron, saltpeter, coal and oil
make development or military bottlenecks inevitable and puts the human
player at a disadvantage against computer opponents who appear to get a more
genenerous distribution of resources. Also, how is that the trade system
favors those nations that have raw materials but has no mechanism for
"advanced" civilizations to sell manufactured goods to other Civs? Applying
the logic of Civ to the real world, Zaire and Saudia Arabia would be
superpowers and England and Japan would be underdeveloped backwaters.
2. The Killer Phalanx- A step backwards? More like two steps backwards.
I was shocked to read either here or at the Civ Fanatics site that this is a
"feature" and not a bug. There is absolutely no reason why I should be able
to build longbowmen and warriors in the end game. The fact that they are
viable combat units after the introduction of rifles is ridiculous. The
game should overweight modern units (as did Civ2) to require frequent
upgrades.
3. Overly expansionistic AI- The computer controlled civs expand way, way
too much---inside areas ringed by other human player territory, into the
Arctic, in deserts. And its not just one civ that pushes hard (like Civ 2)
but all civs. Among other things, this requires the human player to mirror
the computer's strategy and expand quickly or risk being left behind. So,
if your strategy has been to do early tech research and then expand, forget
it. You'll never amount to more than a small power.
4. The computer cheats, it really cheats- I guess I wouldn't mind a few
cheats (like the ocean crossing trireme of Civ1 and 2) for play balance, but
have you ever had a game where you end up with better strategic goods and
luxury placement than the computer civs? Have you ever started a game in
relative isolation, or have there always been two aggresive civs right next
door? How is it that the competing civs manage to have more military units
than the human player, but still finish wonders AND do more research than
the human player?
5. Does government matter any more? Is there any real differance between
despotism/monarchy and republic/democracy? Where is the incentive (as in
the old games) to push for better government? Also what is with the
corruption? Democracy and Republic don't seem to reduce corruption much and
the only way to control it is with forbidden palace and (to a lesser extent)
courthouses. I've read other here complain that putting a city on another
continent pretty much kills you on corruption, even with the courthouse
improvement and that the only thing that really works is proximity to the
capital city. How does that jibe with the way democracy really works?
6. What's with the editor?- I understand that they decided to ship with
the editor unfinished. Much like the rest of the game, unfortunately.
7. Multiplayer- Ditto
8. The Tech Tree- Is it just me, or is the tech tree much more paint by
numbers than it used to be? Part of the fun of the old tech tree was
deciding to wander off the beaten path and focus on government techs or
warfare techs and trade to other civs. Now I feel like everyone is doing
the same research at the same time, or trading tech almost immediately to
keep up with me.
9. Starting Civ Placement- When does "random" not mean random? When the
Civ 3 deisgn team is on the job! How come everytime I play as American, my
two closest neighbors are the Iroquois and Aztecs? Or when I play as
Persia, Babylon is always next door? What is so frigging complicated about
actually randomizing neighbors?
10. Wonders- I liked the old system of playing for certain wonders that
give you a major advantage, like the Great Wall, Michaelangelo's Cathedral
and the UN. Now, wonders seem helpful but not decisive. Also, why can't I
throw all of my empire's production into building a wonder as I could in Civ
2 via the caravan mechanism? Isn't that what a wonder is about? In the
real world, wonders like the Great Wall, St. Peter's and the Manhattan
project required the work of whole nations, not single cities and throwing
money at the completion of such projects did happen. Also, why don't the
cheese screens tell you what effect the wonder has? That would be pretty
helpful. I downloaded one of the player patches at Civ Fanatics to fix this
and have been happy with the results.
Conclusion
Is there anything I like about Civ3? Absolutely. The interface is clean
and easy to use. I like that they got rid of the old trade and espionage
systems. Menu driven versions of these makes more sense than unit driven
versions. I like the use of borders and the culture feature. I'm ok with
the artillery and air bombardment systems. Some of these elements (road
tested in SMAC in many cases) work well. Unfortunately, several things that
did work in CIV2 don't work as well in Civ 3, notably the combat system and
the computer civ AI (At least with regard to cheating and expansion). I
feel like we've been handed a beta to play test. Maybe the patches will fix
the problems, maybe they won't.
I'm also disturbed that most of the computer game review industry is giving
this game a pass. I assume its because of either an unwillingness to tell
the Emperor he has no clothes or because they spent only a few hours with
the game getting basic interface and rules changes and not enough time
drilling down into the profound problems this game in play balance.
My overall grade of the game, as shipped, 2.5 out 5.
Alex Pavloff
<daniel.w...@verizon.net> solemnly uttered:
> The relative scarcity of horses, iron, saltpeter, coal and oil
>make development or military bottlenecks inevitable and puts the human
>player at a disadvantage against computer opponents who appear to get a more
>genenerous distribution of resources.
Not true. I've had the opposite happen to me.
>Also, how is that the trade system favors those nations that have raw materials but has no mechanism for
>"advanced" civilizations to sell manufactured goods to other Civs? Applying
>the logic of Civ to the real world, Zaire and Saudia Arabia would be
>superpowers and England and Japan would be underdeveloped backwaters.
You send money to the civs, they give you strategic resources. Works
for me.
>4. The computer cheats, it really cheats- I guess I wouldn't mind a few
>cheats (like the ocean crossing trireme of Civ1 and 2) for play balance, but
>have you ever had a game where you end up with better strategic goods and
>luxury placement than the computer civs? Have you ever started a game in
>relative isolation, or have there always been two aggresive civs right next
>door? How is it that the competing civs manage to have more military units
>than the human player, but still finish wonders AND do more research than
>the human player?
Because they trade with each other more. Unfortunately, without a
full cheat menu, we are unable to verify whether or not the computer
cheats. You think they do, I don't think they do.
>5. Does government matter any more?
Yes.
>6. What's with the editor?- I understand that they decided to ship with
>the editor unfinished. Much like the rest of the game, unfortunately.
See, now you're confusing "unfinished" with "I don't like it."
>7. Multiplayer- Ditto
Never was promised. I don't mind it not being there -- you do.
>8. The Tech Tree- Is it just me, or is the tech tree much more paint by
>numbers than it used to be? Part of the fun of the old tech tree was
>deciding to wander off the beaten path and focus on government techs or
>warfare techs and trade to other civs. Now I feel like everyone is doing
>the same research at the same time, or trading tech almost immediately to
>keep up with me.
Haven't had that feeling -- notice all the techs on the leaves of the
tech trees? That's where the wonders are. Go straight for modern
armor if you want.
>9. Starting Civ Placement- When does "random" not mean random? When the
>Civ 3 deisgn team is on the job! How come everytime I play as American, my
>two closest neighbors are the Iroquois and Aztecs? Or when I play as
>Persia, Babylon is always next door? What is so frigging complicated about
>actually randomizing neighbors?
That's a design decision. If you read the manual, the civilizations
are groups into "categories" that will usually be placed next to each
other.
>10. Wonders- I liked the old system of playing for certain wonders that
>give you a major advantage, like the Great Wall, Michaelangelo's Cathedral
>and the UN. Now, wonders seem helpful but not decisive. Also, why can't I
>throw all of my empire's production into building a wonder as I could in Civ
>2 via the caravan mechanism? Isn't that what a wonder is about? In the
>real world, wonders like the Great Wall, St. Peter's and the Manhattan
>project required the work of whole nations, not single cities and throwing
>money at the completion of such projects did happen. Also, why don't the
>cheese screens tell you what effect the wonder has? That would be pretty
>helpful. I downloaded one of the player patches at Civ Fanatics to fix this
>and have been happy with the results.
Again, you don't like the new way it is. Alright -- well, I do.
Stockpiling caravans = cheezy tactic in my book. Now, you can always
try to get a leader.
>I'm also disturbed that most of the computer game review industry is giving
>this game a pass. I assume its because of either an unwillingness to tell
>the Emperor he has no clothes or because they spent only a few hours with
>the game getting basic interface and rules changes and not enough time
>drilling down into the profound problems this game in play balance.
You don't like the game -- other people do. There's not conspiracy
here. Its a general problem whenever one is a "fanatic" for a certain
game -- no sequel will EVER be as good.
(Ok, I'm thinking one game in which the sequel was better -- and that
was Longbow 2 -- but it was Longbow 1 + lots of new crap, with no take
outs).
meettonysoprano
<daniel.w...@verizon.net> wrote:
>This is my list of Top Ten gripes about the rather mediocre installment in
>the Civ franchise called Civ 3.
Boy, are you gonna get flamed by some of these guys :-).
You make some good points. I will disagree with some others:
>
>3. Overly expansionistic AI- The computer controlled civs expand way, way
>too much---inside areas ringed by other human player territory, into the
>Arctic, in deserts. And its not just one civ that pushes hard (like Civ 2)
>but all civs. Among other things, this requires the human player to mirror
>the computer's strategy and expand quickly or risk being left behind. So,
>if your strategy has been to do early tech research and then expand, forget
>it. You'll never amount to more than a small power.
Theoretically if a) not expanding rapidly means you get left behind
and b) all the AI players expand rapidly, then c) the AI players are
just *good*, and to not expand rapidly would just be dumbing down the
AI. Therefore your beef ought to be with the rules that don't allow a
compact nation to keep up (basically the resource system, as you've
pointed out, demands that you physically control raw resources or face
technological bottlenecks), not with the AI for maximizing potential
according to the rules.
(Yes, it is very irritating the way the AI expands into worthless
terrain seemingly just to disrupt your road system and stuff).
On a related note there needs to be a hot key command that, with one
press, orders all foreign units to leave your territory. Because you
have to do this *every* turn for every neighbor, the way the AI
endlessly sends settlers and the like trying to reach a bald spot in
my cultural coverage, or to get to the other side of the continent,
or, who knows why. It gets very, very old having to go around and
visit everybody and order them to remove their troops.
>
>4. The computer cheats, it really cheats- I guess I wouldn't mind a few
>cheats (like the ocean crossing trireme of Civ1 and 2) for play balance, but
>have you ever had a game where you end up with better strategic goods and
>luxury placement than the computer civs?
Yeah, my current game. I have everything. I have 5 spices, 5 silks,
5 irons, 4 wines, and I forget what else.
What is amazing is that in my good-sized nation I practically control
all the worlds resources and the damb AI still won't trade me for
them. I offer the poor, luxury-starved Russians a spice for a fur and
they turn me down. Guess what...I don't need their stinkin furs, I
live in the friggin jungle!.
>Have you ever started a game in
>relative isolation,
Yes.
>or have there always been two aggresive civs right next
>door?
I think unfortunately you need to start about 5 games to get one good
playable one. That's been my experience. I mean, the other 4 are
literally playable but they aren't going to be fun or competitive
because of resource placement, etc.
Starting in isolation is not necessarily a benefit, by the way,
because you're missing out on all the tech trading.
I have been playing on a huge map with minimal land (continents) with
10 or 11 players in order to try and isolate more nations. If you do
that a few times you're bound to end up on an Australia-like island.
>How is it that the competing civs manage to have more military units
>than the human player, but still finish wonders AND do more research than
>the human player?
I guess they're just smarter than you ;->.
>
>9. Starting Civ Placement- When does "random" not mean random? When the
>Civ 3 deisgn team is on the job! How come everytime I play as American, my
>two closest neighbors are the Iroquois and Aztecs? Or when I play as
>Persia, Babylon is always next door? What is so frigging complicated about
>actually randomizing neighbors?
Hmm. I presumed this was based on the slot you put each nation. But
then again I have always been putting historical neighbors in the
first slots so I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. (I.e. if I
play as the Romans and put Greece as AI #1 and Egypt as AI #2 they
seem more often than not to be nearby).
>Now, wonders seem helpful but not decisive.
Well, taking you literally I don't want Wonders to be "decisive". I
want them to be "influential", and they seem to succeed at that.
>Also, why can't I
>throw all of my empire's production into building a wonder as I could in Civ
>2 via the caravan mechanism? Isn't that what a wonder is about? In the
>real world, wonders like the Great Wall, St. Peter's and the Manhattan
>project required the work of whole nations, not single cities and throwing
>money at the completion of such projects did happen.
I prefer the Wonder Building as it now exists. It keeps me from
getting all the best Wonders in every game, unlike Civ 2, which makes
it more interesting and challenging.
>
>My overall grade of the game, as shipped, 2.5 out 5.
Harsh! I hope you brought your asbestos pj's! :-).
Jeremy Reaban
"Daniel McCarthy" <daniel.w...@verizon.net> wrote in
<snip>
> 9. Starting Civ Placement- When does "random" not mean random?
When the
> Civ 3 deisgn team is on the job! How come everytime I play as
American, my
> two closest neighbors are the Iroquois and Aztecs? Or when I play
as
> Persia, Babylon is always next door?
In my current game, I'm Persia, and my neighbors are Iroquios, the
Indians (who I wiped out), the English (ditto), and the French. The
Babylonians are in the game, but not near me.
You do seem to have a point, though. In my only game as an American,
my neighbors were the Iroquois, the Aztecs, an the French.
And before that, I can't remember. But it always seems like my
neighbors are the French & Iroquios (the last I hate because I can
never spell correctly...)
Timo Haukioja
: Around Mon, 19 Nov 2001 03:28:18 GMT, "Daniel McCarthy"
: <daniel.w...@verizon.net> solemnly uttered:
:> The relative scarcity of horses, iron, saltpeter, coal and oil
:>make development or military bottlenecks inevitable and puts the human
:>player at a disadvantage against computer opponents who appear to get a more
:>genenerous distribution of resources.
: Not true. I've had the opposite happen to me.
Same here. I'm pretty sure that you (= the generic human player) will
always feel worse off with regard to resources than what you actually
are. I mean, you'll easily forget that you have loads of gems, dyes,
horses and iron if you're forced to go to the market hunting for
coal. You just pay more attention to stuff you don't have.
That being said, sometimes you do get screwed. Someone will always
be the poorest civilization, and sometimes it's you.
- Timo
Eep²
> Around Mon, 19 Nov 2001 03:28:18 GMT, "Daniel McCarthy"
> <daniel.w...@verizon.net> solemnly uttered:
>
> >10. Wonders- I liked the old system of playing for certain wonders that
> >give you a major advantage, like the Great Wall, Michaelangelo's Cathedral
> >and the UN. Now, wonders seem helpful but not decisive. Also, why can't I
> >throw all of my empire's production into building a wonder as I could in Civ
> >2 via the caravan mechanism? Isn't that what a wonder is about? In the
> >real world, wonders like the Great Wall, St. Peter's and the Manhattan
> >project required the work of whole nations, not single cities and throwing
> >money at the completion of such projects did happen. Also, why don't the
> >cheese screens tell you what effect the wonder has? That would be pretty
> >helpful. I downloaded one of the player patches at Civ Fanatics to fix this
> >and have been happy with the results.
>
> Again, you don't like the new way it is. Alright -- well, I do.
> Stockpiling caravans = cheezy tactic in my book. Now, you can always
> try to get a leader.
Leaders can't rush wonder (or spaceship) production.
Chols
> >
> >4. The computer cheats, it really cheats- I guess I wouldn't mind a few
> >cheats (like the ocean crossing trireme of Civ1 and 2) for play balance,
but
> >have you ever had a game where you end up with better strategic goods and
> >luxury placement than the computer civs?
>
> Yeah, my current game. I have everything. I have 5 spices, 5 silks,
> 5 irons, 4 wines, and I forget what else.
>
> What is amazing is that in my good-sized nation I practically control
> all the worlds resources and the damb AI still won't trade me for
> them. I offer the poor, luxury-starved Russians a spice for a fur and
> they turn me down. Guess what...I don't need their stinkin furs, I
> live in the friggin jungle!.
>
Yeah, whenever I trade goods with other civs, they always want more than
I'll get from them. This even happens if it's them who start the dealing.
For instance, if I want furs from the Japanese, they'd ask for, say, Silk,
Dye and some gold. Either that, or they won't trade. Not only that, but also
they will get mad at me if I don't trade with them. Strange.
Chols.
John Alcock
The one that cheeses me off is when they want to "trade world maps,"
but conveniently forget to mention that you should also throw in one
of your best techs.
Apparently, even if they're much smaller than you, their world map is
worth a great deal more than yours. A little time on the shrink's
couch wouldn't hurt some of these guys....
--
John Alcock
jalcockATearthlinkDOTnet
Steve Hilberg
>Leaders can't rush wonder (or spaceship) production.
Yes, they can. Maybe you should read the manual.
--
Steve Hilberg <Necromancer> CCSO Workstation Support Group
<hil...@uiuc.edu> KB9TEV
Member, APAGear CCSO _still_ doesn't pay me enough to
http://www.apagear.org speak for them, so I still don't.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As we were forged we shall return, perhaps some day. | VNV Nation,
I will remember you and wonder who we were." | "Further"
meettonysoprano
wrote:
>
>Apparently, even if they're much smaller than you, their world map is
>worth a great deal more than yours. A little time on the shrink's
>couch wouldn't hurt some of these guys....
LOL.
Bill Seurer
> The relative scarcity of horses, iron, saltpeter, coal and oil
> make development or military bottlenecks inevitable and puts the human
> player at a disadvantage against computer opponents who appear to get a more
> genenerous distribution of resources.
This is just not true, the distribution appears to be completely
random. In my last game I had almost 3/4 of the strategic and luxury
resources in a large game when I only controlled about 1/8th the land.
I just got real lucky and made one "sneak city attack" to take away two
luxuries.
The next game all I had was one horse and I thought I was screwed.
Bargaining for coal was the worst part, the AI knew it had me over a
barrel. I hung on though and ended up getting rubber, oil, and ALL the
aluminum!
J.S.
"Daniel McCarthy" <daniel.w...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:m%_J7.1948$%y5.1...@typhoon1.gnilink.net...
> This is my list of Top Ten gripes about the rather mediocre installment in
> the Civ franchise called Civ 3. To establish some context, I've been
> playing Civ (and Civ2) since 1991 and I think that Civ 2 is the best
> strategy game ever made.
>
> So here's the list:
>
> 1. Strategic Resources-
>
> Reforming the trading system is a good idea, the actual execution is a
> disaster. The relative scarcity of horses, iron, saltpeter, coal and oil
> make development or military bottlenecks inevitable and puts the human
> player at a disadvantage against computer opponents who appear to get a
more
> genenerous distribution of resources. Also, how is that the trade system
> favors those nations that have raw materials but has no mechanism for
> "advanced" civilizations to sell manufactured goods to other Civs?
Applying
> the logic of Civ to the real world, Zaire and Saudia Arabia would be
> superpowers and England and Japan would be underdeveloped backwaters.
For me it is about 50/50 with having a good set of resources. My one
complaint is that with corruption, it makes islands really rather unfun to
play even on chieftain level (I can understand making it harder on regent
and above). That and the fact that the AI almost always seems to get
resources with no problems but in my experience rarely trades
(strategic..luxuries are easier IME to get) them. He may only have one
source but most likely he has 2 or 3 but they might not be on roads yet.
>
> 2. The Killer Phalanx- A step backwards? More like two steps backwards.
> I was shocked to read either here or at the Civ Fanatics site that this is
a
> "feature" and not a bug. There is absolutely no reason why I should be
able
> to build longbowmen and warriors in the end game. The fact that they are
> viable combat units after the introduction of rifles is ridiculous. The
> game should overweight modern units (as did Civ2) to require frequent
> upgrades.
This seems to be a direct result of the new resource system which the combat
engine had to be modified around. If you don't have resources to build the
modern unit, you need something don't you? Thus you can still build the old
stuff (not necessarily bad mind you) but the old stuff has been made still
viable combat wise thus entering the "cav loses to spearmen", " tank loses
to spearman", "rifleman loses to jaguar warrior" far too often than one
would like or would make any sort of sense.
>
> 3. Overly expansionistic AI- The computer controlled civs expand way,
way
> too much---inside areas ringed by other human player territory, into the
> Arctic, in deserts. And its not just one civ that pushes hard (like Civ
2)
> but all civs. Among other things, this requires the human player to
mirror
> the computer's strategy and expand quickly or risk being left behind. So,
> if your strategy has been to do early tech research and then expand,
forget
> it. You'll never amount to more than a small power.
I like that they are pushy but I agree that they are a bit obsessive about
it. This also forces you to expand right along with them because you need
mucho land to ensure resource availability.
> 4. The computer cheats, it really cheats- I guess I wouldn't mind a few
> cheats (like the ocean crossing trireme of Civ1 and 2) for play balance,
but
> have you ever had a game where you end up with better strategic goods and
> luxury placement than the computer civs? Have you ever started a game in
> relative isolation, or have there always been two aggresive civs right
next
> door? How is it that the competing civs manage to have more military
units
> than the human player, but still finish wonders AND do more research than
> the human player?
I don't think it cheats too much on the lower levels, apparently it doesn't
cheat on mid difficulty and gets major bonuses on the higher levels. I do
tend to wonder at times however, when they have mostly small cities in
crappy places yet pump out the tech and units. Though I know in chieftain
level they don't bother with much city building.
> 5. Does government matter any more? Is there any real differance between
> despotism/monarchy and republic/democracy? Where is the incentive (as in
> the old games) to push for better government? Also what is with the
> corruption? Democracy and Republic don't seem to reduce corruption much
and
> the only way to control it is with forbidden palace and (to a lesser
extent)
> courthouses. I've read other here complain that putting a city on another
> continent pretty much kills you on corruption, even with the courthouse
> improvement and that the only thing that really works is proximity to the
> capital city. How does that jibe with the way democracy really works?
Put in to curb massive expansion, conquer the world type games. I can live
with high corruption. What doesn't make sense to me is the shield production
is just too high. What are all these citizens going to be content to live in
a shithole the rest of their lives?
> 6. What's with the editor?- I understand that they decided to ship with
> the editor unfinished. Much like the rest of the game, unfortunately.
Yup they did. Time constraints/publisher pushing etc. Shame since the editor
is nice & has great potential even if its missing components from Civ2's
editor (placement of civs,units etc.). Scenario making is hosed.
>
> 7. Multiplayer- Ditto
Meh. They did the same thing with Civ2. No big loss IMHO, but then I've
never had an interest in multi civ.
> 8. The Tech Tree- Is it just me, or is the tech tree much more paint by
> numbers than it used to be? Part of the fun of the old tech tree was
> deciding to wander off the beaten path and focus on government techs or
> warfare techs and trade to other civs. Now I feel like everyone is doing
> the same research at the same time, or trading tech almost immediately to
> keep up with me.
My only beef with the tech is research is abysmally slow at times even on
the easy level.
> 9. Starting Civ Placement- When does "random" not mean random? When the
> Civ 3 deisgn team is on the job! How come everytime I play as American,
my
> two closest neighbors are the Iroquois and Aztecs? Or when I play as
> Persia, Babylon is always next door? What is so frigging complicated
about
> actually randomizing neighbors?
This does get annoying. It is a nice feature that should be switchable on
startup. Games can become predictable when you know who your neighbors
are..and their tendecies.
> 10. Wonders- I liked the old system of playing for certain wonders that
> give you a major advantage, like the Great Wall, Michaelangelo's Cathedral
> and the UN. Now, wonders seem helpful but not decisive. Also, why can't
I
> throw all of my empire's production into building a wonder as I could in
Civ
> 2 via the caravan mechanism? Isn't that what a wonder is about? In the
> real world, wonders like the Great Wall, St. Peter's and the Manhattan
> project required the work of whole nations, not single cities and throwing
> money at the completion of such projects did happen. Also, why don't the
> cheese screens tell you what effect the wonder has? That would be pretty
> helpful. I downloaded one of the player patches at Civ Fanatics to fix
this
> and have been happy with the results.
While I dont miss caravans for trading, they did all this hampering of the
quick build wonder to make them more worthwhile. Problem is good luck
building any of them before 1000-500 BC, and later wonders should have the
old system back. Especially when the AI's build them, there is no warning
when they are close to finishing.
> Conclusion
>
> Is there anything I like about Civ3? Absolutely. The interface is clean
> and easy to use. I like that they got rid of the old trade and espionage
> systems. Menu driven versions of these makes more sense than unit driven
> versions. I like the use of borders and the culture feature. I'm ok with
> the artillery and air bombardment systems. Some of these elements (road
> tested in SMAC in many cases) work well. Unfortunately, several things
that
> did work in CIV2 don't work as well in Civ 3, notably the combat system
and
> the computer civ AI (At least with regard to cheating and expansion). I
> feel like we've been handed a beta to play test. Maybe the patches will
fix
> the problems, maybe they won't.
Only thing about espionage that bugs me is the prices are insanely high.
Bombardment is about the only thing I like about the combat system except
that air power should sink ships. As far as the beta test, the game
definately screams unpolished with several bugs that make you go "how'd they
miss that!" namely air intercept and coastal fortresses. I think a lot of
the complaints are mainly gripes with how they designed major functions and
the differences with Civ2. However, I don't think they balanced the new
system out either.
J.S.
J.S.
"Steve Hilberg" <hil...@tower.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:8%aK7.1066$rt6....@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
> =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <eepN...@tnlc.com> writes:
> >Leaders can't rush wonder (or spaceship) production.
>
> Yes, they can. Maybe you should read the manual.
>
They can hurry spaceship parts?? /me starts digging for manual yet again..
J.S.
Eep²
Matt Ruff
>
> 1. Strategic Resources-
>
> Reforming the trading system is a good idea, the actual
> execution is a disaster. The relative scarcity of horses,
> iron, saltpeter, coal and oil make development or military
> bottlenecks inevitable
Which is a good thing, because it makes the game more challenging, and
forces you to trade with other civs.
> and puts the human player at a disadvantage against computer
> opponents who appear to get a more genenerous distribution
> of resources.
Appearances can be deceiving. I'm pretty sure the distribution is random
-- sometimes you do very well, sometimes you get screwed. But the
diplomacy system means you can work around a lack of resources.
> 2. The Killer Phalanx- A step backwards? More like two
> steps backwards. I was shocked to read either here or at the
> Civ Fanatics site that this is a "feature" and not a bug.
> There is absolutely no reason why I should be able to build
> longbowmen and warriors in the end game. The fact that they
> are viable combat units after the introduction of rifles is
> ridiculous.
They definitely aren't a match for riflemen, though they can
occasionally beat them. The fact that ancient combat units never become
totally useless is a design decision -- it may not be realistic, but the
game isn't supposed to be realistic.
> The game should overweight modern units (as did Civ2) to
> require frequent upgrades.
Upgrades are still important -- if I'm going to go to war against a civ
with guns, I definitely want to have guns too.
> 3. Overly expansionistic AI- The computer controlled civs
> expand way, way too much---inside areas ringed by other human
> player territory, into the Arctic, in deserts. And its not
> just one civ that pushes hard (like Civ 2) but all civs.
> Among other things, this requires the human player to mirror
> the computer's strategy and expand quickly
Not true. By concentrating on culture and trade it's possible to win
with only a handful of cities. It's even possible, though difficult, to
win with only *one* city -- there was a post about a week ago explaining
how to do that.
> 4. The computer cheats, it really cheats
The designers say it doesn't, and I haven't seen any evidence of
cheating.
> have you ever had a game where you end up with better
> strategic goods and luxury placement than the computer civs?
Yes.
> Have you ever started a game in relative isolation,
Yes -- I've had entire (small- or medium-sized) continents to myself.
This is potentially a *bad* thing, by the way, because it keeps you from
trading with other civs early on, a definite disadvantage.
> How is it that the competing civs manage to have more
> military units than the human player,
They use the draft, most likely.
> but still finish wonders AND do more research than
> the human player?
Computer civs trade techs with each other (and with you, if you let
them), so it seems like they're doing more research than they actually
are.
> 5. Does government matter any more?
Yes.
> Also what is with the corruption?
Apparently it's a design decision meant to prevent huge civs from
running away with the game.
> 6. What's with the editor?- I understand that they decided
> to ship with the editor unfinished.
A legitimate gripe. I think they should have done a better job with it,
or not advertised it as a feature.
> 7. Multiplayer- Ditto
The box doesn't promise multiplayer, so I don't feel like I was let
down.
> 8. The Tech Tree...I feel like everyone is doing the same
> research at the same time, or trading tech almost immediately
> to keep up with me.
They *are* trading tech. This makes it difficult (but not impossible) to
get a commanding lead in tech, which keeps the game challenging.
> 9. Starting Civ Placement- When does "random" not mean
> random? When the Civ 3 deisgn team is on the job! How come
> everytime I play as American, my two closest neighbors are
> the Iroquois and Aztecs?
I don't think it's documented in the manual, but the sixteen civs are
divided into five "culture" groups, and civs from the same culture group
are more likely to start the game near each other. American, Iroquois,
and Aztec are all part of the "North American" culture group.
> 10. Wonders- I liked the old system of playing for certain
> wonders that give you a major advantage, like the Great Wall,
> Michaelangelo's Cathedral and the UN. Now, wonders seem
> helpful but not decisive.
Which I kind of like.
> Also, why can't I throw all of my empire's production into
> building a wonder as I could in Civ 2 via the caravan
> mechanism?
To prevent you from building *all* the wonders, the way you could in
Civ2.
-- M. Ruff
Richard J. Morris
building the wonder?
Dweeb
>1. Strategic Resources-
>
>Reforming the trading system is a good idea, the actual execution is a
>disaster. The relative scarcity of horses, iron, saltpeter, coal and oil
>make development or military bottlenecks inevitable and puts the human
>player at a disadvantage against computer opponents who appear to get a
more
>genenerous distribution of resources.
Just trade for them. I haven't had much trouble with this.
>5. Does government matter any more?
I don't really think so. I'm sure there's a bug or two in there.
>7. Multiplayer- Ditto
I don't understand why people want this. I just can't imagine the game would
ever get anywhere.
>9. Starting Civ Placement- When does "random" not mean random? When the
>Civ 3 deisgn team is on the job! How come everytime I play as American, my
>two closest neighbors are the Iroquois and Aztecs? Or when I play as
>Persia, Babylon is always next door? What is so frigging complicated about
>actually randomizing neighbors?
Actually, they did this on purpose.
David Short
> >9. Starting Civ Placement- When does "random" not mean random? When the
> >Civ 3 deisgn team is on the job! How come everytime I play as American,
my
> >two closest neighbors are the Iroquois and Aztecs? Or when I play as
> >Persia, Babylon is always next door? What is so frigging complicated
about
> >actually randomizing neighbors?
>
> Actually, they did this on purpose.
>
cadence.
Babylon starts out great guns, but once you've weathered the storm,
they become a paper tiger. The Persians are a force to be reckoned
with during a specific stage of the game, but after that they are
nothing special. Allowing for more variance in civ sequencing
would enhance replayability.
dfs
Christoph Nahr
<daniel.w...@verizon.net> wrote:
>This is my list of Top Ten gripes about the rather mediocre installment in
>the Civ franchise called Civ 3. To establish some context, I've been
>playing Civ (and Civ2) since 1991 and I think that Civ 2 is the best
>strategy game ever made.
Well, I suppose you can go back to Civ2 then and we'll happily
continue playing Civ3. I agree with very few of your gripes...
>1. Strategic Resources-
>
>Reforming the trading system is a good idea, the actual execution is a
>disaster. The relative scarcity of horses, iron, saltpeter, coal and oil
>make development or military bottlenecks inevitable and puts the human
>player at a disadvantage against computer opponents who appear to get a more
>genenerous distribution of resources.
Untrue. Distribution is random, just grab enough land and you'll
never run out of important resources. Trade for what you don't have,
the AI will usually give out even crucial resources like oil when you
pay them enough. The resource system works very well for me, I think
it's you who needs to adjust his gameplay style...
>2. The Killer Phalanx- A step backwards? More like two steps backwards.
More like a step forward, but this has been discussed extensively.
IMO this system is better than Civ2's for gameplay reasons.
>3. Overly expansionistic AI- The computer controlled civs expand way, way
>too much---inside areas ringed by other human player territory, into the
>Arctic, in deserts. And its not just one civ that pushes hard (like Civ 2)
>but all civs. Among other things, this requires the human player to mirror
>the computer's strategy and expand quickly or risk being left behind. So,
>if your strategy has been to do early tech research and then expand, forget
>it. You'll never amount to more than a small power.
So what? The computer now plays to win, rather than to leaving the
human player to play as idiotically as he wants to and still win the
game. And this is a gripe in your world? Liked Ascendancy much? :-p
>4. The computer cheats, it really cheats
No, it doesn't. You just don't know how to play the game, as evident
from your other gripes. Again, this has been discussed extensively,
the computer seems to get some extra info and possible gets a better
deal when trading with his computer buddies but otherwise it's playing
fair (on medium difficulty and below). That's a first for Civ-style
games except SMAC, and it's disappointing to see people spreading this
bullshit about a "cheating computer" just because they can't win.
>How is it that the competing civs manage to have more military units
>than the human player, but still finish wonders AND do more research than
>the human player?
They can't, if the human player has a clue. After a week of training
I'm regularly pulling ahead of the AI on Chieftain and Warlord. And
the AI's production is perfectly in line with its empire size.
>5. Does government matter any more? Is there any real differance between
>despotism/monarchy and republic/democracy?
Yes, but once again you need to learn how to play the game before you
realise the differences. You obviously expected everything to work
just like in Civ2 -- it didn't, and now you're complaining.
>Also what is with the corruption?
This one is actually a legit gameplay gripe. The "optimal number of
cities" has been the subject of much discussion here, and the
corruption issue is being looked at for the upcoming patch.
>6. What's with the editor?- I understand that they decided to ship with
>the editor unfinished. Much like the rest of the game, unfortunately.
>
>7. Multiplayer- Ditto
Apart from your unsupported insinuation that the game is "unfinished",
your other two complaints are subject to personal preferences. I
don't care for multiplayer but I do wish they'd finish up the editor.
>8. The Tech Tree- Is it just me, or is the tech tree much more paint by
>numbers than it used to be? Part of the fun of the old tech tree was
>deciding to wander off the beaten path and focus on government techs or
>warfare techs and trade to other civs. Now I feel like everyone is doing
>the same research at the same time, or trading tech almost immediately to
>keep up with me.
Agreed to some extent, but again I have to wonder if you actually want
any challenge in a strategy game or if you'd rather have some kind of
SimEmpire. Your "wandering off the beaten path" basically means you
want lots of useless techs that you can research at your leisure while
the AI is too stupid to pull ahead of you. Civ3 cuts out the slack
and has a better AI. There are fewer alternatives and the game is
more focused on "being first". The game is simply more competitive
overall. There are still a number of optional techs in Civ3, though.
>9. Starting Civ Placement- When does "random" not mean random? When the
>Civ 3 deisgn team is on the job! How come everytime I play as American, my
>two closest neighbors are the Iroquois and Aztecs? Or when I play as
>Persia, Babylon is always next door? What is so frigging complicated about
>actually randomizing neighbors?
Now that you mention it, you have a point here but placing related
civilisations close to each other makes sense to me. Aren't you the
one who always comes up with "real world" examples, anyway?
>10. Wonders- I liked the old system of playing for certain wonders that
>give you a major advantage, like the Great Wall, Michaelangelo's Cathedral
>and the UN. Now, wonders seem helpful but not decisive.
Sounds like you want a Civ2-style insta-win by micromanaging caravans
while fucking up the rest of your empire. Civ3 wonders don't work
like that, and that's a good thing IMO. The wonder benefits are quite
important but their effects are more subtle, and perhaps their most
important effect is the massive amount of culture they generate.
>Also, why can't I
>throw all of my empire's production into building a wonder as I could in Civ
>2 via the caravan mechanism? Isn't that what a wonder is about?
Because it screwed up game balance and ensured that the biggest civ,
or the one that was best at micromanaging caravans, always got all the
wonders. I snipped your "real world" examples, this is a GAME.
>Is there anything I like about Civ3? Absolutely. The interface is clean
>and easy to use.
LOL. Actually that's one real gripe that many people have... people
that have won a few games, that is. From your post it's obvious that
you never got to the stage where micromanagement becomes a problem.
>I like that they got rid of the old trade and espionage
>systems. Menu driven versions of these makes more sense than unit driven
>versions. I like the use of borders and the culture feature. I'm ok with
>the artillery and air bombardment systems.
Well, here we actually agree on something.
>Unfortunately, several things that
>did work in CIV2 don't work as well in Civ 3, notably the combat system and
>the computer civ AI (At least with regard to cheating and expansion). I
>feel like we've been handed a beta to play test. Maybe the patches will fix
>the problems, maybe they won't.
It's completely unclear to me how a combat system and computer players
that you don't like translate to a "beta". Is any game that you don't
like for some reason a "beta" in your world? I noticed that you
haven't reported any bugs which is generally the definition of a beta.
>I'm also disturbed that most of the computer game review industry is giving
>this game a pass. I assume its because of either an unwillingness to tell
>the Emperor he has no clothes or because they spent only a few hours with
>the game getting basic interface and rules changes and not enough time
>drilling down into the profound problems this game in play balance.
*LAUGH*
Dude, it's YOU who obviously has only spent a few hours with the game.
The reviewers may often be wrong but this time they're right, even if
they did give their high scores just because someone told them so.
>My overall grade of the game, as shipped, 2.5 out 5.
On a scale where 5 means "just like Civ2", I agree...
--
http://www.kynosarges.de
Christoph Nahr
(meettonysoprano) wrote:
>(Yes, it is very irritating the way the AI expands into worthless
>terrain seemingly just to disrupt your road system and stuff).
Which is actually a great way to win the game if you do it yourself.
Cut another empire in two, cripple their trade for a while and steal a
few cities when they finally get fed up and attack you! All while
playing nice guy yourself and enjoying the benefit of the extra city.
>On a related note there needs to be a hot key command that, with one
>press, orders all foreign units to leave your territory. Because you
>have to do this *every* turn for every neighbor, the way the AI
>endlessly sends settlers and the like trying to reach a bald spot in
>my cultural coverage, or to get to the other side of the continent,
>or, who knows why. It gets very, very old having to go around and
>visit everybody and order them to remove their troops.
If there's a choke point near the border you can simply fortify a few
military units there to block the path. The AI sees that it can't get
through and will stay out of your territory. Or if you trust them you
could simply agree to a Right of Passage agreement -- this is very
useful if two civilisations can only get at each other through your
territory, they'll decimate each other rather than you!
>I think unfortunately you need to start about 5 games to get one good
>playable one. That's been my experience. I mean, the other 4 are
>literally playable but they aren't going to be fun or competitive
>because of resource placement, etc.
I'd peg it more at 50:50 so far but yes, initial placement matters.
That's no different from any other version of Civ, by the way.
--
http://www.kynosarges.de
Jim Vieira
points raised in this thread, at least half of them could be
done away with by taking some time with the Editor. YES,
I realize this is not something that should be the players
responsibility. I'm just saying you have the tools at your
disposal to make the game play more the way you want.
I spent a couple hours making my own map and I'm very
happy with it. You can choose to put resources anywhere
you want to avoid those problems. You can adjust corruption
levels. You can choose starting locations so people are more
spread out, and just restart a few times with the map until you
have the neighbors you WANT next to you, etc.
Jim
David Adrien Tanguay
> If there's a choke point near the border you can simply fortify a few
> military units there to block the path. The AI sees that it can't get
> through and will stay out of your territory.
I had a non-blockable, wide isthmus. The Romans sent the standard
pikeman/settler combo in to get to a hole in my lands. I blocked
their path with 3 units in a row from nearby towns. As they moved to
on side, I would shuffle the whole line to maintain blockage along a
line. I was surprised that after a few turns of this (maybe 5), the
Romans gave up and headed back home.
> I'd peg it more at 50:50 so far but yes, initial placement matters.
> That's no different from any other version of Civ, by the way.
I'm on my 6th game, and this is the first where my initial placement
looks like a serious handicap. No Lebensraum, not even a few good
sites for "core" cities. I archer-rushed (!) the English to get a few
good cities (they were as poorly off as me), but I'm far behind the
others, now.
--
David Tanguay d...@Thinkage.ca http://www.thinkage.ca/~dat/
Thinkage, Ltd. Kitchener, Ontario, Canada [43.24N 80.29W]
Sluicifer
> looks like a serious handicap. No Lebensraum, not even a few good
> sites for "core" cities. I archer-rushed (!) the English to get a few
> good cities (they were as poorly off as me), but I'm far behind the
> others, now.
One abandoned game had me on a small continent (alone) with no horses or
iron. Argh. OTOH my only completed game so far had me start right in the
'bottom land'. There were 5 other civs on the same continent but their
towns were nestled within mountain ranges.
-Slu
David Adrien Tanguay
> This seems to be a direct result of the new resource system which the combat
> engine had to be modified around. If you don't have resources to build the
> modern unit, you need something don't you?
Riflemen don't require any resources. It's weird, though, that cavalry
still need saltpetre after you've got riflemen. And once you've got
horses, you should always have horses.
> Put in to curb massive expansion, conquer the world type games. I can live
> with high corruption. What doesn't make sense to me is the shield production
> is just too high. What are all these citizens going to be content to live in
> a shithole the rest of their lives?
It's also weird when it's not a conquest city, but just a post-war city
that's close to your capital, filling in a hole. E.g., in one game, a
jungle area near my capital.
> My only beef with the tech is research is abysmally slow at times even on
> the easy level.
And, there seems to be an undeclared cap. I never seem to be able to do
better than 4 turns, even when I can get that at only 40% science.
alexti
> This is my list of Top Ten gripes about the rather mediocre installment
> in the Civ franchise called Civ 3. To establish some context, I've
> been playing Civ (and Civ2) since 1991 and I think that Civ 2 is the
> best strategy game ever made.
>
> So here's the list:
>
> 3. Overly expansionistic AI- The computer controlled civs expand way,
> way too much---inside areas ringed by other human player territory,
> into the Arctic, in deserts. And its not just one civ that pushes hard
> (like Civ 2) but all civs. Among other things, this requires the human
> player to mirror the computer's strategy and expand quickly or risk
> being left behind. So, if your strategy has been to do early tech
> research and then expand, forget it. You'll never amount to more than
> a small power.
I agree that AI is overly expansionistic in sense that it continues
to expand when it should've stopped. It is probably one of major weaknesses
of AI which allows player to come back in the mid-game, AI production
and food bonuses has been spent on those settlers those low value
villages.
> 4. The computer cheats, it really cheats- I guess I wouldn't mind a
> few cheats (like the ocean crossing trireme of Civ1 and 2) for play
> balance, but have you ever had a game where you end up with better
> strategic goods and luxury placement than the computer civs? Have you
> ever started a game in relative isolation, or have there always been
> two aggresive civs right next door? How is it that the competing civs
> manage to have more military units than the human player, but still
> finish wonders AND do more research than the human player?
I have contrary experience. I am sure that in average I am getting more
resources than any particular AI civ, but maybe I was just lucky.
Starting in isolation on harder difficulties is a bad thing, because
you can't trade/buy techs and you need some of them quite soon for
the development.
At Deity AI needs only half shield cost for production and their
foodbox is 1/2 of player. Plus they apparently have research bonuses.
So your observations are not surprising. I am not sure there're
other advantages to AI. Probably they see the map, though it's not
clear then why they're willing to pay for your maps.
>
> 5. Does government matter any more? Is there any real differance
> between despotism/monarchy and republic/democracy? Where is the
> incentive (as in the old games) to push for better government? Also
> what is with the corruption? Democracy and Republic don't seem to
> reduce corruption much and the only way to control it is with forbidden
> palace and (to a lesser extent) courthouses. I've read other here
> complain that putting a city on another continent pretty much kills you
> on corruption, even with the courthouse improvement and that the only
> thing that really works is proximity to the capital city. How does
> that jibe with the way democracy really works?
Advanced governments reduce corruption by some margin and this
margin is important. Democracy also gives faster worker, which is
important too. In neither case the difference is huge, however
picking up small benefits here and there makes a big difference
in the end.
> 8. The Tech Tree- Is it just me, or is the tech tree much more paint
> by numbers than it used to be? Part of the fun of the old tech tree
> was deciding to wander off the beaten path and focus on government
> techs or warfare techs and trade to other civs. Now I feel like
> everyone is doing the same research at the same time, or trading tech
> almost immediately to keep up with me.
Yeah, tech tree is too tightly related, I much prefer MOO style
tech tree. I liked SMAC tech tree more than Civ3 too.
Alex
John Alcock
(alexti) wrote:
>"Daniel McCarthy" <daniel.w...@verizon.net> wrote in
>news:m%_J7.1948$%y5.1...@typhoon1.gnilink.net:
>
>>
>> 5. Does government matter any more? Is there any real differance
>> between despotism/monarchy and republic/democracy? Where is the
>> incentive (as in the old games) to push for better government? Also
>> what is with the corruption? Democracy and Republic don't seem to
>> reduce corruption much and the only way to control it is with forbidden
>> palace and (to a lesser extent) courthouses. I've read other here
>> complain that putting a city on another continent pretty much kills you
>> on corruption, even with the courthouse improvement and that the only
>> thing that really works is proximity to the capital city. How does
>> that jibe with the way democracy really works?
>Advanced governments reduce corruption by some margin and this
>margin is important. Democracy also gives faster worker, which is
>important too. In neither case the difference is huge, however
>picking up small benefits here and there makes a big difference
>in the end.
>
Advanced government works as it always has; it allows you to fully
exploit the terrain around your city. The fact that when you switch
from, say, Despotism to Republic you don't see an instant tremendous
boost in your Science output (probably the bottom line for most of us)
is not indicative that over the course of time you won't. It is clear
to me that Republic and Democracy are HUGELY more effective in
generating commerce than more primitive governments, but you need to
acclimatize your civ to the new government over the course of time, it
doesn't happen in one turn.
--
John Alcock
jalcockATearthlinkDOTnet
Grifman
wrote:
>> I'm on my 6th game, and this is the first where my initial placement
>> looks like a serious handicap. No Lebensraum, not even a few good
>> sites for "core" cities. I archer-rushed (!) the English to get a few
>> good cities (they were as poorly off as me), but I'm far behind the
>> others, now.
>
>One abandoned game had me on a small continent (alone) with no horses or
>iron. Argh. OTOH my only completed game so far had me start right in the
>'bottom land'. There were 5 other civs on the same continent but their
>towns were nestled within mountain ranges.
I had one game where the AI Romans were deep in the middle of a
massive jungle area. They never recovered, though they did make me
very nice vassals :)
Grifman
Eep²
The Enigmatic One
daniel.w...@verizon.net says...
>My overall grade of the game, as shipped, 2.5 out 5.
Ignore the troll, please.
-Tim
The Enigmatic One
says...
>The one that cheeses me off is when they want to "trade world maps,"
>but conveniently forget to mention that you should also throw in one
>of your best techs.
>
>Apparently, even if they're much smaller than you, their world map is
>worth a great deal more than yours. A little time on the shrink's
>couch wouldn't hurt some of these guys....
Actually, that map is especially valuable, as you're not really able to
send a unit to regularly scout their terrain. New resources are always popping
up, and it's nice to know where they are.
On the other hand, I once had a game where every civ (only 4) was on
one large continent, and I was the only one to go exploring the seas. I found
a wealth of resources on islands and the other two (quite small) continents
and, at that point, basically refused to hand over my maps.
-Tim
The Enigmatic One
pytho...@NoSpamrocketmail.com says...
>This seems to be a direct result of the new resource system which the combat
>engine had to be modified around. If you don't have resources to build the
>modern unit, you need something don't you? Thus you can still build the old
>stuff (not necessarily bad mind you) but the old stuff has been made still
>viable combat wise thus entering the "cav loses to spearmen", " tank loses
>to spearman", "rifleman loses to jaguar warrior" far too often than one
>would like or would make any sort of sense.
Again, the "answer" to this, if any, is either to change the name of
the units as tech advances, or give some sort of "catch-up logic" to the civs
behind in tech.
-Tim
John Alcock
One) wrote:
>In article <3bf9292c...@news1.newscene.com>, jal...@NOJUNKMAIL.com
>says...
>
>>The one that cheeses me off is when they want to "trade world maps,"
>>but conveniently forget to mention that you should also throw in one
>>of your best techs.
>>
>>Apparently, even if they're much smaller than you, their world map is
>>worth a great deal more than yours. A little time on the shrink's
>>couch wouldn't hurt some of these guys....
>
> Actually, that map is especially valuable, as you're not really able to
>send a unit to regularly scout their terrain. New resources are always popping
>up, and it's nice to know where they are.
>
I'm not really sure it works this way. In my latest game I discovered
saltpeter (I was the first nation to discover it) and was able to
scroll around my neighbor's territory and discover where his deposits
were. I'm pretty sure I remember this from other games as well.
At least when a new resource is discovered, you don't need to have the
map visible to you to see the resource, just un-blacked-out.
I doubt it works differently when a new resource pops up, but I could
be wrong.
--
John Alcock
jalcockATearthlinkDOTnet
inferno2000
> This is my list of Top Ten gripes about the rather mediocre installment in
> the Civ franchise called Civ 3. To establish some context, I've been
> playing Civ (and Civ2) since 1991 and I think that Civ 2 is the best
> strategy game ever made.
Personally I felt that if you are still interested, you should
play more of the game and you will find most of the points below are
either wrong or does not hinder enjoyment of the game:
> 1. Strategic Resources-
>
> Reforming the trading system is a good idea, the actual execution is a
> disaster. The relative scarcity of horses, iron, saltpeter, coal and oil
> make development or military bottlenecks inevitable and puts the human
> player at a disadvantage against computer opponents who appear to get a more
> genenerous distribution of resources. Also, how is that the trade system
> favors those nations that have raw materials but has no mechanism for
> "advanced" civilizations to sell manufactured goods to other Civs? Applying
> the logic of Civ to the real world, Zaire and Saudia Arabia would be
> superpowers and England and Japan would be underdeveloped backwaters.
Computer does not get a more generous distribution of resources.
However, I do notice the map engine does not distribute the resources
evenly. It tends to place 3-4 resources of the same type close to
each other. This looks like a feature to create strategic advantage
of nation over each other. So in my game, I have been able to control
vast supply of horse and iron in ancient age, then got only one
saltpeter in medieval age, and have to wage a war to steal coal and
rubber during industrial age, and wage another limited war to steal
uranium.
By design, the player cannot count on having access to all strategic
resources. If you dislike expanding too much, you will probably have
no access to most strategic resources. I usually tried to control a
continent as soon as possible and then develop in peace. This allowed
me access to may be 3-4 strategic resources. Wage a war to control
two continents and the chance to obtain more strategic resources
increase to 5-7. But it is all luck at the end.
In one of my lucky game I only control a continent and have access
to all strategic resource except uranium. With such luck I am easily
in the lead.
So, the computer does not have a more generous distribution of
resources. The design only means that if the player is unlucky, he
will have to either wage a war, or be friendly and trade for the
resources.
Yes, there is many ways to con the computer so that he will trade
you what you want. You may feel you are paying too much for trading
2 resources + cash + tech for 20 turns of strategic resources. But
if you plan carefully, you can do a lot within 20 turns. And
remember, all tech will be obsolete sooner or later, if you do not
trade the tech, another AI will. Finally, cash is the most
unimportant resources in the game as there are lots of easy way
to raise thousands of cash in a few turns, and the AI hardly demand
anything more than a few hundred. If you cannot pay, try paying
tribute for 20 turns. Do wonder for my strategy.
Maybe you have no resources, technology or cash that the AI wants.
Wage a war then. AI much stronger than you? Nobody mention that you
have to fight alone. Once again, cunning diplomacy tactics will let
you allied with other civilizations to against a single enemy. A
hint: mutual protection pact.
> 2. The Killer Phalanx- A step backwards? More like two steps backwards.
> I was shocked to read either here or at the Civ Fanatics site that this is a
> "feature" and not a bug. There is absolutely no reason why I should be able
> to build longbowmen and warriors in the end game. The fact that they are
> viable combat units after the introduction of rifles is ridiculous. The
> game should overweight modern units (as did Civ2) to require frequent
> upgrades.
I do not know what you mean. By the time you have rifle, phalanx is
gone from the build list. And you can always upgrade defensive land unit
like phalanx to even mech. infantry.
> 3. Overly expansionistic AI- The computer controlled civs expand way, way
> too much---inside areas ringed by other human player territory, into the
> Arctic, in deserts. And its not just one civ that pushes hard (like Civ 2)
> but all civs. Among other things, this requires the human player to mirror
> the computer's strategy and expand quickly or risk being left behind. So,
> if your strategy has been to do early tech research and then expand, forget
> it. You'll never amount to more than a small power.
Land = power base. The more land you control, the more luxury and
strategic resource you may have, the more income you can generate.
Single city strategy will never work in Civ3.
However, corruption and waste effect also means that you do not really
need to get very BIG. Up to a certain point you will have sufficient land
for you to pull ahead of the competition. If too much time is spend to
colonize land, you will spend less time building city improvement that
generate culture. A good balance will allow you to have enough land with
tolerable/minimal corruption and waste, yet generate so much culture that
you can slowly but surely subjugate enemy cities without a fight.
> 4. The computer cheats, it really cheats- I guess I wouldn't mind a few
> cheats (like the ocean crossing trireme of Civ1 and 2) for play balance, but
> have you ever had a game where you end up with better strategic goods and
> luxury placement than the computer civs? Have you ever started a game in
> relative isolation, or have there always been two aggresive civs right next
> door? How is it that the competing civs manage to have more military units
> than the human player, but still finish wonders AND do more research than
> the human player?
Depend on which level you play at. If you are playing in Chieftain or
Warlord level and you are falling behind in every category, you need to
learn or re-learn the winning strategy. My first game was at Chieftain
level, there was some surprises but yet I managed to pull ahead in tech
race. Although I did not manage to build quite a number of Great Wonder
but I was definitely ahead. The only reason I still lost the game was
due to United Nation chose an AI during the vote. So I lost, and so I had
learned. The point is, Chieftain level is so easy that everyone should be
able to win eventually.
Now in every Warlord game, I managed to build *all* Great Wonders after
medieval age, most *important* Great Wonder in medieval age, and a few
or no Wonder in ancient age. I always lead in tech, I always have lots
of luxury via trade, and always have the largest military power, and
in democracy government. This should give you a hint of what strategy
you could use.
> 5. Does government matter any more? Is there any real differance between
> despotism/monarchy and republic/democracy? Where is the incentive (as in
> the old games) to push for better government? Also what is with the
> corruption? Democracy and Republic don't seem to reduce corruption much and
> the only way to control it is with forbidden palace and (to a lesser extent)
> courthouses. I've read other here complain that putting a city on another
> continent pretty much kills you on corruption, even with the courthouse
> improvement and that the only thing that really works is proximity to the
> capital city. How does that jibe with the way democracy really works?
There is definitely clear differences between despotism and democracy.
However, comparing despostism with monarchy or republic and democracy
will show not much of a difference.
The flip side of it is that now you can reasonably use every government
type depending on the situation. If your civilizations is religious you
can even switch government quickly from time to time depending on what
is best for the situation. For example, you can stay in
democracy/republic to earn cash and build military units for 10 turns,
then switch to depotism to wage a war if you have lots of small and
unproductive cities. Or switch to monarchy/communism if you have lots
of large and unproductive cities.
There is no point to perform much city improvement on far away city.
Even courthouse is useless if the city is sufficiently far away. The
city improvement you should build depends on the purpose of such city:
(1) If the city collect luxury or strategic resource for you, build
either a harbor or airport.
(2) If the city is a frontier city that you want to use to subjugate
enemy peacefully, build lots of city improvement that generates
culture. Do not forget to put in a strong defensive forces.
(3) If the city is a frontier city that you want to use to launch
invasion from, build veteran producing improvement like barrack,
harbor and airport. Build wall if city is less than size 6. Build
some culture improvement to ensure the city won't defect. Put
in lots of military units and invade in full force.
(4) If the city is not doing anything important, just build either a
temple or library to generate some culture. Keep the population
size down and zero growth to avoid micromanagement.
(5) If the city is not doing anything important, but you like to draft
free military unit for invasion, build proper improvement to ensure
the city grows big enough. Other than that, build only minimal
culture improvement structure.
The city governor can be use to good effect to reduce most of the
micromanagement. Remember, you only need micromanagement on those
10-20 cities near your capital. These are the only cities that
produce almost everything you need.
> 6. What's with the editor?- I understand that they decided to ship with
> the editor unfinished. Much like the rest of the game, unfortunately.
No comment on this as I never care about editor, for any game.
> 7. Multiplayer- Ditto
While I am disappointed, I don't see how the players will stick together
to finish a game. Currently I am spending probably 24 hours or so
for a complete Civ3 game vs the computer.
> 8. The Tech Tree- Is it just me, or is the tech tree much more paint by
> numbers than it used to be? Part of the fun of the old tech tree was
> deciding to wander off the beaten path and focus on government techs or
> warfare techs and trade to other civs. Now I feel like everyone is doing
> the same research at the same time, or trading tech almost immediately to
> keep up with me.
While you are behind the tech race, there is nothing much you can do
except to go for the most important military tech to keep up and trade for
the rest. However, I lead in tech race after ancient age in my games, and
I get to decide which tech is more important to me. Having early access
to Hoover Dam is basically so unfair that the computer can never hope to
keep up after that.
> 9. Starting Civ Placement- When does "random" not mean random? When the
> Civ 3 deisgn team is on the job! How come everytime I play as American, my
> two closest neighbors are the Iroquois and Aztecs? Or when I play as
> Persia, Babylon is always next door? What is so frigging complicated about
> actually randomizing neighbors?
That does seem to be the tendency, yes. But I have no problem with that
though.
> 10. Wonders- I liked the old system of playing for certain wonders that
> give you a major advantage, like the Great Wall, Michaelangelo's Cathedral
> and the UN. Now, wonders seem helpful but not decisive. Also, why can't I
> throw all of my empire's production into building a wonder as I could in Civ
> 2 via the caravan mechanism? Isn't that what a wonder is about? In the
> real world, wonders like the Great Wall, St. Peter's and the Manhattan
> project required the work of whole nations, not single cities and throwing
> money at the completion of such projects did happen. Also, why don't the
> cheese screens tell you what effect the wonder has? That would be pretty
> helpful. I downloaded one of the player patches at Civ Fanatics to fix this
> and have been happy with the results.
When you are behind in tech race, don't count on getting the Great Wonder
you want. The only way to be sure is:
(1) Get ahead in tech race, then you are assured of plenty of time to
build Great Wonder without risk of other civ stealing it away
from you.
(2) If your tech is at about the same level as the computer, plan for
how long it will take to get the tech with access to the Great Wonder.
If it is going to take you 17 turns to get the tech, start building
palace, small wonder, or ICBM early while ensuring that they will
not be accidentally built before you reach the tech. When you get
the tech, switch to build the Great Wonder.
(3) If you are far behind in tech, forget about building Great Wonder.
inferno2000
> >cheats (like the ocean crossing trireme of Civ1 and 2) for play balance, but
> >have you ever had a game where you end up with better strategic goods and
> >luxury placement than the computer civs?
>
> 5 irons, 4 wines, and I forget what else.
>
> What is amazing is that in my good-sized nation I practically control
> all the worlds resources and the damb AI still won't trade me for
> them. I offer the poor, luxury-starved Russians a spice for a fur and
> they turn me down. Guess what...I don't need their stinkin furs, I
> live in the friggin jungle!.
None of you never notice that Germany AI is so greedy that they always
almost want to trade their single resource for 3 of yours + cash +
your mother? I think the design make some AI as nice trader and some
as bad. I found Babylon to be nice enough to trade 1 resource with 1
resource, may be plus some cash.
Anyway, it is important to note that you always control a lot of extra
resources for trading; for example 5 spices and 5 silks. That mean you
can trade 2 resource for your neighbour 1 and yet get 5 extra
resources in return. This bring you a total of 7 luxury/strategic
resources. As excess resources contribute nothing to you, why not just
offer more of them to the AI and get what you want? Just forget about
even handed trade and you will start to see how you can exploit the AI
via trade. Ever try to get on the good side of 4 civs and then gang up
on 1 other civ? *evil grin*
There is more than one way to con the AI. Remember though, never
accept the
first offer from AI, always negotiate. Get the most important
resources to
you. Never under estimate luxury resources as they can significantly
increase happiness and give you "We love the X day".
inferno2000
> Yeah, whenever I trade goods with other civs, they always want more than
> I'll get from them. This even happens if it's them who start the dealing.
> For instance, if I want furs from the Japanese, they'd ask for, say, Silk,
> Dye and some gold. Either that, or they won't trade. Not only that, but also
> they will get mad at me if I don't trade with them. Strange.
>
As I mentioned in other post, just give them more and get what you
need. AI is dumb enough and they won't be able to make good use of the
extra resources you give them. The most important thing is for you to
get what you *need*.
Consider your need:
(1) A tech
(2) A luxury that will give you 4 happy faces
(3) A strategic resource to build certain military units
(4) Good relationship with AI to win diplomacy victory
(5) Good relationship with AI for joint invasion against someone else
(6) Communication with other AI so that you can trade tech
(7) Money, or money per turn
(8) World or region map
However, never expect this:
(1) Good relationship with AI so that they will always be peaceful.
All AI in this game knows how to backstab, even India!
inferno2000
> but conveniently forget to mention that you should also throw in one
> of your best techs.
>
> Apparently, even if they're much smaller than you, their world map is
> worth a great deal more than yours. A little time on the shrink's
> couch wouldn't hurt some of these guys....
So re-negotiate. Instead giving your best tech, give them one of your
excess resources, or pay them a few hundred, or just don't take
anything from them and give them some money to send them off with a
smiling face. Even in real life you will have to give before you can
receive.
inferno2000
> > 5. Does government matter any more? Is there any real differance between
> > despotism/monarchy and republic/democracy? Where is the incentive (as in
> > the old games) to push for better government? Also what is with the
> > corruption? Democracy and Republic don't seem to reduce corruption much
> and
> > the only way to control it is with forbidden palace and (to a lesser
> extent)
> > courthouses. I've read other here complain that putting a city on another
> > continent pretty much kills you on corruption, even with the courthouse
> > improvement and that the only thing that really works is proximity to the
> > capital city. How does that jibe with the way democracy really works?
>
> Put in to curb massive expansion, conquer the world type games. I can live
> with high corruption. What doesn't make sense to me is the shield production
> is just too high. What are all these citizens going to be content to live in
> a shithole the rest of their lives?
In real-life, I would think the high corruption/waste mean that most
of the people are now working for a drug lord who manage to bribe your
government agents to skip most of the tax. As nobody wants to work for
you, your production is down as everyone is selling drugs. Even though
the government gets almost nothing, the citizens are having a good
lives as they are making lots of money that never shows up in the
income tax record.
inferno2000
> > My only beef with the tech is research is abysmally slow at times even on
> > the easy level.
>
> And, there seems to be an undeclared cap. I never seem to be able to do
> better than 4 turns, even when I can get that at only 40% science.
I have seen research in 3 turns, or even 2 turns. This usually occurs
around late medieval while I have lots of research going with
university, library, and democracy.
I do notice many of you claim to have the 4 turns limit. What I notice
is that it is difficult to produce enough research to get less than 4
turns in industrial and modern age. So I doubt there is a cap. It is
just that unlike Civ1 and Civ2, you do not get huge research during
late game due to the corruption effect. So you tend to get optimal
research speed in late medieval age.
John Alcock
wrote:
Oh, I never give it to them :) It just irritates me that they have
such an inflated sense of their own worth.
--
John Alcock
jalcockATearthlinkDOTnet
Gerald Black
buttons pop up at the bottom of the screen. One is create army, the
other is complete production. If you choose to complete production,
the wonder is completed and the leader is consumed. You're right
about the "rush production" button not working for wonders and
spaceship parts though.
Ethel the Ardvaark
> the Civ franchise called Civ 3. To establish some context, I've been
> playing Civ (and Civ2) since 1991 and I think that Civ 2 is the best
> strategy game ever made.
No, I would still vote for MOM.
> Reforming the trading system is a good idea, the actual execution is a
> disaster. The relative scarcity of horses, iron, saltpeter, coal and oil
> make development or military bottlenecks inevitable and puts the human
That's a good thing. It means that you have to make more strategic
plans for building your forces. It ain't simply make a bunch of
howitzers mech inf, and settlers and away you go.
> player at a disadvantage against computer opponents who appear to get a more
> genenerous distribution of resources. Also, how is that the trade system
They don't get a more generous distribution of resources. It's
people's penchant for having negative experiences imprint with more
weight. Also, the other civs are probably trading with each other for
resources they lack. Are you?
> favors those nations that have raw materials but has no mechanism for
> "advanced" civilizations to sell manufactured goods to other Civs? Applying
> the logic of Civ to the real world, Zaire and Saudia Arabia would be
> superpowers and England and Japan would be underdeveloped backwaters.
That's why we ended up with those countries taking on an imperialist
policies in the past (and to a degree in the present). Would the
addition of manufactured goods improve or simply complicate the
gameplay? It's debatable.
> 2. The Killer Phalanx- A step backwards? More like two steps backwards.
> I was shocked to read either here or at the Civ Fanatics site that this is a
> "feature" and not a bug. There is absolutely no reason why I should be able
It's more of a game balance and game play issue. A bit unrealistic
but not so outrageous that I would stop playing the game.
> to build longbowmen and warriors in the end game. The fact that they are
> viable combat units after the introduction of rifles is ridiculous. The
> game should overweight modern units (as did Civ2) to require frequent
> upgrades.
Actually, they aren't really viable combat units. They tend to lose
and to wage any type of significat military campaign, you will need to
upgrade.
> 3. Overly expansionistic AI- The computer controlled civs expand way, way
> too much---inside areas ringed by other human player territory, into the
And isn't this the same sort of tactic favoured by human players. One
of the complaints in general about games is how the AI doesn't do
things that most human players would. It's a good strategy, except
for plunking cities down in places that will obviously be culturally
assimilated.
> Arctic, in deserts. And its not just one civ that pushes hard (like Civ 2)
> but all civs. Among other things, this requires the human player to mirror
> the computer's strategy and expand quickly or risk being left behind. So,
> if your strategy has been to do early tech research and then expand, forget
> it. You'll never amount to more than a small power.
That isn't necessarily so. There's already been one post about
winning with a single city. Check the dejagoogle archives.
> 4. The computer cheats, it really cheats- I guess I wouldn't mind a few
> cheats (like the ocean crossing trireme of Civ1 and 2) for play balance, but
Not according to the developer and there hasn't been any credible
evidence that I've seen that indicates the computer is cheating. On
the contrary, the civs seem to behaving in a more rational manner than
in Civ2. The Japanese and I were buddy-buddies for a long time. We
went to war together to clear out the contintent and maintained good
relations the whole time. In fact, I was the backstabbing SOB that
started the war with them because I decided it was time to have the
continent for myself.
> have you ever had a game where you end up with better strategic goods and
> luxury placement than the computer civs? Have you ever started a game in
> relative isolation, or have there always been two aggresive civs right next
> door? How is it that the competing civs manage to have more military units
> than the human player, but still finish wonders AND do more research than
> the human player?
I've had good starting positions and bad starting positions for
resources. I've been isolated and also run into neighbours quickly.
As for the other things, trading with the other civs keeps you up on
the research and allows you to allocate more of your resources to
units or building.
> 5. Does government matter any more? Is there any real differance between
> despotism/monarchy and republic/democracy? Where is the incentive (as in
Yes it matters and there are differences. Read the manual and you'll
find out.
> the old games) to push for better government? Also what is with the
> corruption? Democracy and Republic don't seem to reduce corruption much and
> the only way to control it is with forbidden palace and (to a lesser extent)
> courthouses. I've read other here complain that putting a city on another
I agree. The corruption is rather severe. Firaxis is looking at
reducing the effects in a patch.
> continent pretty much kills you on corruption, even with the courthouse
> improvement and that the only thing that really works is proximity to the
> capital city. How does that jibe with the way democracy really works?
Civ3 only loosely models things. What's with the Pyramids acting as
granaries? I just choose to accept that a few quirks for gameplay.
> 6. What's with the editor?- I understand that they decided to ship with
> the editor unfinished. Much like the rest of the game, unfortunately.
I wouldn't call the rest of the game unfinished. The editor... I
think everybody is in agreement that it's unfinished. Too bad they
rushed it to hit the Christmas selling season.
> 7. Multiplayer- Ditto
There was a lot of talk about multi-player but they never committed to
doing it. I'm not big on multi-player so it's high on my priority
list.
> 8. The Tech Tree- Is it just me, or is the tech tree much more paint by
> numbers than it used to be? Part of the fun of the old tech tree was
It's always been paint by numbers, and this doesn't feel any better or
worse than before.
> deciding to wander off the beaten path and focus on government techs or
> warfare techs and trade to other civs. Now I feel like everyone is doing
> the same research at the same time, or trading tech almost immediately to
> keep up with me.
They ARE trading techs to keep up with you. It's an important part of
the game.
> 9. Starting Civ Placement- When does "random" not mean random? When the
> Civ 3 deisgn team is on the job! How come everytime I play as American, my
> two closest neighbors are the Iroquois and Aztecs? Or when I play as
> Persia, Babylon is always next door? What is so frigging complicated about
> actually randomizing neighbors?
Dunno about that one.
> 10. Wonders- I liked the old system of playing for certain wonders that
> give you a major advantage, like the Great Wall, Michaelangelo's Cathedral
> and the UN. Now, wonders seem helpful but not decisive. Also, why can't I
Wonders shouldn't be decisive. I like the fact that the powers of
Wonders aren't as world-shaking.
> throw all of my empire's production into building a wonder as I could in Civ
> 2 via the caravan mechanism? Isn't that what a wonder is about? In the
A Wonder should be a monumental achievement. I like the fact that
only one city can start a given Wonder and that they are hard to
build.
> real world, wonders like the Great Wall, St. Peter's and the Manhattan
> project required the work of whole nations, not single cities and throwing
> money at the completion of such projects did happen. Also, why don't the
I don't disagree that in real-life Wonders are built from the
production base of the entire nation, but Civ doesn't model production
that way. I prefer this change.
David Short
> Actually, that map is especially valuable, as you're not really able to
> send a unit to regularly scout their terrain. New resources are always
popping
> up, and it's nice to know where they are.
Knowing where resources are is valuable, but I don't see any relationship
between that and trading maps. If you have the square on your map and
you discover the trigger tech for the resource, the resource appears on
your map.
dfs
Christoph Nahr
wrote:
>I had one game where the AI Romans were deep in the middle of a
>massive jungle area. They never recovered, though they did make me
>very nice vassals :)
Jungle is evil. Very nice terrain once it's cleared (grasslands/
plains plus the extra shields from deforestation) but clearing takes
*forever* in the early ages when you need every turn... I'd rather
start in the desert than in a jungle.
--
http://www.kynosarges.de
Christoph Nahr
>No, you just "rush production" with it but it then says it can't be rushed: wonders and spaceship parts CAN'T BE RUSHED!
You must select the LEADER... either via right-click on the city
screen, or directly on the map screen. Then you get a leader command
that says "finish work" or something like that. It's one of the
little round unit command buttons at the bottom of the screen. The
standard rush production does NOT use a leader if one is present
(although I guess it would be good interface design if it did).
--
http://www.kynosarges.de
Theodoric of York
news:3BF95BE6...@tnlc.com...
> Welp, not when I tried it they couldn't! <shrug>
Let me guess, you moved a leader into a city building a wonder and it didn't
ask if you wanted to complete the wonder and so you assumed it did not work.
This was my first reaction but, as it turns out, a leader in a city building
a wonder has a "Hurry Improvement" (poorly named, that) button which will
complete the wonder.
Theodoric of York
>
> "Steve Hilberg" <hil...@tower.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> news:8%aK7.1066$rt6....@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
> > =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= <eepN...@tnlc.com> writes:
> > >Leaders can't rush wonder (or spaceship) production.
> >
> > Yes, they can. Maybe you should read the manual.
> >
>
Spaceship parts aren't wonders, though, so I think leaders do not help here.
Can you pay for them?
Theodoric of York
> Be prepared for the flood, good post overall. My opinions below....
> "Daniel McCarthy" <daniel.w...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:m%_J7.1948$%y5.1...@typhoon1.gnilink.net...
in
> > playing Civ (and Civ2) since 1991 and I think that Civ 2 is the best
> > strategy game ever made.
> >
> >
> >
> > Reforming the trading system is a good idea, the actual execution is a
> > disaster. The relative scarcity of horses, iron, saltpeter, coal and
oil
> > make development or military bottlenecks inevitable and puts the human
> more
> > genenerous distribution of resources. Also, how is that the trade
system
> > "advanced" civilizations to sell manufactured goods to other Civs?
> Applying
> > the logic of Civ to the real world, Zaire and Saudia Arabia would be
> > superpowers and England and Japan would be underdeveloped backwaters.
>
> complaint is that with corruption, it makes islands really rather unfun to
> play even on chieftain level (I can understand making it harder on regent
> and above). That and the fact that the AI almost always seems to get
> resources with no problems but in my experience rarely trades
> (strategic..luxuries are easier IME to get) them. He may only have one
> source but most likely he has 2 or 3 but they might not be on roads yet.
I get the impression that the AI trades agressively to get resources. BTW,
you can do this too.
> > 2. The Killer Phalanx- A step backwards? More like two steps
backwards.
> > I was shocked to read either here or at the Civ Fanatics site that this
is
> a
> > "feature" and not a bug. There is absolutely no reason why I should be
> able
> > to build longbowmen and warriors in the end game. The fact that they
are
> > viable combat units after the introduction of rifles is ridiculous. The
> > game should overweight modern units (as did Civ2) to require frequent
> > upgrades.
>
> This seems to be a direct result of the new resource system which the
combat
> engine had to be modified around. If you don't have resources to build the
> modern unit, you need something don't you? Thus you can still build the
old
> stuff (not necessarily bad mind you) but the old stuff has been made still
> viable combat wise thus entering the "cav loses to spearmen", " tank loses
> to spearman", "rifleman loses to jaguar warrior" far too often than one
> would like or would make any sort of sense.
Except that Civ3 is a game and not a simulation. Balance wins out over any
attempt to make sense.
> > 3. Overly expansionistic AI- The computer controlled civs expand way,
> way
> > too much---inside areas ringed by other human player territory, into the
> > Arctic, in deserts. And its not just one civ that pushes hard (like Civ
> 2)
> > but all civs. Among other things, this requires the human player to
> mirror
> > the computer's strategy and expand quickly or risk being left behind.
So,
> > if your strategy has been to do early tech research and then expand,
> forget
> > it. You'll never amount to more than a small power.
>
> I like that they are pushy but I agree that they are a bit obsessive about
> it. This also forces you to expand right along with them because you need
> mucho land to ensure resource availability.
Or concentrate on culture and assimilate their crappy, far-flung cities into
your empire.
> > 8. The Tech Tree- Is it just me, or is the tech tree much more paint
by
> > numbers than it used to be? Part of the fun of the old tech tree was
> > deciding to wander off the beaten path and focus on government techs or
> > warfare techs and trade to other civs. Now I feel like everyone is
doing
> > the same research at the same time, or trading tech almost immediately
to
> > keep up with me.
>
> My only beef with the tech is research is abysmally slow at times even on
> the easy level.
Maybe 32 turns is slow, but I think that's the slowest I've ever seen. 7-8
turns seems more typical. Is that slow?
> > 10. Wonders- I liked the old system of playing for certain wonders
that
> > give you a major advantage, like the Great Wall, Michaelangelo's
Cathedral
> > and the UN. Now, wonders seem helpful but not decisive. Also, why
can't
> I
> > throw all of my empire's production into building a wonder as I could in
> Civ
> > 2 via the caravan mechanism? Isn't that what a wonder is about? In the
> > real world, wonders like the Great Wall, St. Peter's and the Manhattan
> > project required the work of whole nations, not single cities and
throwing
> > money at the completion of such projects did happen. Also, why don't
the
> > cheese screens tell you what effect the wonder has? That would be
pretty
> > helpful. I downloaded one of the player patches at Civ Fanatics to fix
> this
> > and have been happy with the results.
>
> While I dont miss caravans for trading, they did all this hampering of the
> quick build wonder to make them more worthwhile. Problem is good luck
> building any of them before 1000-500 BC, and later wonders should have the
> old system back. Especially when the AI's build them, there is no warning
> when they are close to finishing.
Which gives you incentive to spy on their cities more often. At least the
Wonder page (f10?) tells you which cities are building which wonders.
Theodoric of York
news:9tbuc2$1khv1$1...@ID-63350.news.dfncis.de...
> "Dweeb" <dbohne...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >9. Starting Civ Placement- When does "random" not mean random? When
the
> > >Civ 3 deisgn team is on the job! How come everytime I play as
American,
> my
> > >two closest neighbors are the Iroquois and Aztecs? Or when I play as
> > >Persia, Babylon is always next door? What is so frigging complicated
> about
> > >actually randomizing neighbors?
> >
> >
> But it was still a bad decision. The different civ's have a different
> cadence.
> Babylon starts out great guns, but once you've weathered the storm,
> they become a paper tiger. The Persians are a force to be reckoned
> with during a specific stage of the game, but after that they are
> nothing special. Allowing for more variance in civ sequencing
> would enhance replayability.
Well, you could always play as a different civ.
Theodoric of York
news:8kfK7.505646$ME2.63...@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
> I just wanted to point out that while I agree with some of the
> points raised in this thread, at least half of them could be
> done away with by taking some time with the Editor. YES,
> I realize this is not something that should be the players
> responsibility. I'm just saying you have the tools at your
> disposal to make the game play more the way you want.
I'm sorry, but how is "make the game play more the way you want" NOT
"something that should be the players responsibility"?
> I spent a couple hours making my own map and I'm very
> happy with it. You can choose to put resources anywhere
> you want to avoid those problems. You can adjust corruption
> levels. You can choose starting locations so people are more
> spread out, and just restart a few times with the map until you
> have the neighbors you WANT next to you, etc.
I am always glad to hear people taking it upon themselves to tweak the game
to be more like the one they want. You are a braver man than I! Why some
people think the way they want it=the way it should be, however, is
completely beyond me.
Theodoric of York
Now, now, he did have SOME valid points. Plus, it seems like even those
things he got wrong he got wrong because he's not very familiar with the
game/expected something different; not because he wanted to generate a lot
of flames.
Black Dog
NO NO NO. You don't "rush production" with him and you don't "disband" him.
When your leader is "active" (his turn to move) and in a city building a
wonder LOOK AT THE BUTTONS. Those brown buttons, bottom centre of screen,
that have all the possible actions of whatever unit is active. There will
be two buttons in the top row. One is build wonder and the other is build
army.
Hey FIRAXIS PEOPLE--next time could you put that in the manual instead of
just telling us that great leader could rush build wonders? Thanks.
Stella
Craig S. Richardson
>Alex Pavloff wrote:
>> Again, you don't like the new way it is. Alright -- well, I do.
>> Stockpiling caravans = cheezy tactic in my book. Now, you can always
>> try to get a leader.
>
>Leaders can't rush wonder (or spaceship) production.
Civ3 manual, p.100. Thanks for playing.
--Craig
--
David Collins from Burnley: 70K pounds
Luke Weaver from Spurs: 500K pounds
Matthew Etherington from Grasshoppers-Zurich: 1.2M pounds
Leyton Orient 1-0 St. Mirren in the 2003 UEFA Cup Final: Priceless
Richard J. Morris
button for the city management screen. Thanks for saving George washington!
Brian Oster
>
>"Eep˛" <eepN...@tnlc.com> wrote in message
>
>
>NO NO NO. You don't "rush production" with him and you don't "disband" him.
>
>When your leader is "active" (his turn to move) and in a city building a
>wonder LOOK AT THE BUTTONS. Those brown buttons, bottom centre of screen,
>that have all the possible actions of whatever unit is active. There will
>be two buttons in the top row. One is build wonder and the other is build
>army.
>
>Hey FIRAXIS PEOPLE--next time could you put that in the manual instead of
>just telling us that great leader could rush build wonders? Thanks.
>
Ya, no kidding. The manual is big but its not very well done. Don't
get me wrong, I am not a Civ III basher, I like the game. But they
could have spent a little more time on the manual and the interface.
Is it just me or has anyone else still not figure out if it takes a
single click or a double click on the radio buttons...
Brian Oster
David Adrien Tanguay
> > And, there seems to be an undeclared cap. I never seem to be able to do
> > better than 4 turns, even when I can get that at only 40% science.
>
> I have seen research in 3 turns, or even 2 turns. This usually occurs
> around late medieval while I have lots of research going with
> university, library, and democracy.
>
> I do notice many of you claim to have the 4 turns limit. What I notice
> is that it is difficult to produce enough research to get less than 4
> turns in industrial and modern age. So I doubt there is a cap. It is
> just that unlike Civ1 and Civ2, you do not get huge research during
> late game due to the corruption effect. So you tend to get optimal
> research speed in late medieval age.
But if I can make 4 turns with 40% science (at the start of a new tech),
then jumping science up to 100% should give me better than 4 turns. It
doesn't. It might not be a cap, but there's something weird going on.
Maybe science increases only logarithmically with the resources pumped
into it?
--
David Tanguay d...@Thinkage.ca http://www.thinkage.ca/~dat/
Thinkage, Ltd. Kitchener, Ontario, Canada [43.24N 80.29W]
Eep²
Richard J. Morris
Eep²
Jim Vieira
"David Adrien Tanguay" <d...@thinkage.ca> wrote:
> But if I can make 4 turns with 40% science (at the start of a new tech),
> then jumping science up to 100% should give me better than 4 turns. It
> doesn't. It might not be a cap, but there's something weird going on.
> Maybe science increases only logarithmically with the resources pumped
> into it?
According to some posts I read at apolyton, tech research gets cheaper
on some things as more people discover them. There is a thread there
in the strategy forum about a 4 turn cap. Some have speculated that
the reason sometimes people see 3 turns or less is when you are
researching and at the same time a few other civs also learn the
tech, it gets cheaper and falls under the cap. I believe they took
their information from the editor but I'm not positive.
Jim
Mark T. Lemmon
>
> No, you just "rush production" with it but it then says it can't be rushed: wonders and spaceship parts CAN'T BE RUSHED!
You'll have to explain that to my Secretary General of the UN. Be
patient, he's tired after building the UN the turn after production
started.
Jim Vieira
"Theodoric of York" wrote:"
> I'm sorry, but how is "make the game play more the way you want" NOT
> "something that should be the players responsibility"?
I was only worried that someone would flame me saying that
they "shouldnt have to take the time to do the stuff in the editor",
and "the game should have been tested better", etc, etc, etc. My
post wasn't flaming the guy who started this, I was just offering
a suggestion and worried that some may get defensive and say
"editing the game is not an option" or something like that. I
was merely trying to avoid defensive flames.
> I am always glad to hear people taking it upon themselves to tweak the
game
> to be more like the one they want. You are a braver man than I! Why some
> people think the way they want it=the way it should be, however, is
> completely beyond me.
I agree, I don't understand that mentality either. As I said above
I was just trying to offer suggestions for the original poster or other
people with similar complaints to make the game play more they
way they wanted.
Jim
David Short
> > Is it just me or has anyone else still not figure out if it takes a
> > single click or a double click on the radio buttons...
>
Actually I believe there are instances of both cases, but
for the most part you are save assuming a double click.
dfs
Jim Vieira
"David Short" <David...@Wright.Edu> wrote in message
It works like this. If the button you want to select is already
highlighted, then a single click will activate it. If a different
button is lit up, the first click on the button you want will
move the highligh there, and the second will select it.
If you guys didn't notice, there is an X and O in the lower right
corner of the box for cancel and OK. The way this type of a
windows box would normally work would be you select one
of the radio buttons and then hit the OK button in the lower
right to activate. They took it a step further and made it
so you can click on the button a second time to quickly
select it. But normally you would choose one of them
and then hit the OK button below.
I don't even touch the mouse with these menus anymore, and
just hit up / down arrow to select the one I want, and then
hit enter to activate. It's easier and less confusing. I'm
hoping they add an option like SMAC had where "Radio
buttons select on a single click" so you can simply just
click the button you want and it activates and closes the
window right away.
Jim
David Adrien Tanguay
> > 2. The Killer Phalanx- A step backwards? More like two steps backwards.
> > I was shocked to read either here or at the Civ Fanatics site that this is a
> > "feature" and not a bug. There is absolutely no reason why I should be able
>
> It's more of a game balance and game play issue. A bit unrealistic
> but not so outrageous that I would stop playing the game.
>
> > to build longbowmen and warriors in the end game. The fact that they are
> > viable combat units after the introduction of rifles is ridiculous. The
> > game should overweight modern units (as did Civ2) to require frequent
> > upgrades.
>
> Actually, they aren't really viable combat units. They tend to lose
> and to wage any type of significat military campaign, you will need to
> upgrade.
This contradicts your statement above. It's not an issue of balance, since
the balance is unaffected in any significant campaign. It's just a
needless mimesis breaker.
That said, I agree with your overall sentiment: it's not a major gameplay
issue. I don't start wars with one tank.
> I've had good starting positions and bad starting positions for
> resources. I've been isolated and also run into neighbours quickly.
>
> As for the other things, trading with the other civs keeps you up on
> the research and allows you to allocate more of your resources to
> units or building.
I think people have been attaching too much importance to resources,
at least until the modern era. If you haven't got resources, you just
have to learn to be diplomatic, or to focus on commerce. You have to
adapt your strategy to fit the game. This is a nice change from Civ2,
where you could usually decide which way to play the game early on.
> I agree. The corruption is rather severe. Firaxis is looking at
> reducing the effects in a patch.
It's not just the severity, but also the kludgy way it's implemented.
Even the use of corruption is a ham-hamnded way to achieve this
particular goal (curbing civ sprawl).
> Civ3 only loosely models things. What's with the Pyramids acting as
> granaries? I just choose to accept that a few quirks for gameplay.
I don't like the whole concept of unique (great) wonders. :-) The USA
couldn't implement universal suffrage because New Zealand did it first?
As culture and trade (tourism) enhancers, they're fine, but my ideal
Civ game would implement most of the other effects as minor wonders.
> A Wonder should be a monumental achievement. I like the fact that
> only one city can start a given Wonder and that they are hard to
> build.
Some are, some aren't. Newton, for example, didn't require a whole lot
of work by England, just Ma and Pa Newton. If you consider it as an
abstraction for a coordinated educational system, then the single city
build requirement becomes even more nonsensical.
I usually start some city building a palace, then switch it to the wonder
when it's available. Timing it right is usually enough to ensure that
you will get that wonder, provided you're not late getting the advance.
Ethel the Ardvaark
> Ethel the Ardvaark wrote:
> This contradicts your statement above. It's not an issue of balance, since
> the balance is unaffected in any significant campaign. It's just a
> needless mimesis breaker.
I need to clarify the statement then. To start a war, you will need
to upgrade your units. However, the obsolete units are not totally
useless in a situation where you are defending. With numbers, and
defense bonuses, the obsolete units can be used as defenders. If they
were totally useless, you would simply overrun. So I think it does
provide some game balance allowing resource poor civs to research
units that don't need the missing resource (such as bypassing the
musketmen for riflemen).
> That said, I agree with your overall sentiment: it's not a major gameplay
> issue. I don't start wars with one tank.
Unlike in civ2 where starting a war with a few units was very viable.
:-)
> I think people have been attaching too much importance to resources,
> at least until the modern era. If you haven't got resources, you just
> have to learn to be diplomatic, or to focus on commerce. You have to
> adapt your strategy to fit the game. This is a nice change from Civ2,
> where you could usually decide which way to play the game early on.
Well, the resources are important. Whether you have them or not
forces you to make significant decisions and take significant actions.
So they are important.
> It's not just the severity, but also the kludgy way it's implemented.
> Even the use of corruption is a ham-hamnded way to achieve this
> particular goal (curbing civ sprawl).
Totally agree. All of sudden, kablamo! It's like falling off a
cliff.
> I don't like the whole concept of unique (great) wonders. :-) The USA
> couldn't implement universal suffrage because New Zealand did it first?
> As culture and trade (tourism) enhancers, they're fine, but my ideal
> Civ game would implement most of the other effects as minor wonders.
That's true of all the wonders. Just because the Egyptians built the
Pyramids, the Aztecs can't? I accept it as part of the game, and I
think it does add a nice element to have unique Wonders.
> Some are, some aren't. Newton, for example, didn't require a whole lot
> of work by England, just Ma and Pa Newton. If you consider it as an
> abstraction for a coordinated educational system, then the single city
> build requirement becomes even more nonsensical.
Perhaps so, but there will always be exceptions when trying to fit
things into a general framework. It works well enough for me and I'm
not really bothered by it.
> I usually start some city building a palace, then switch it to the wonder
> when it's available. Timing it right is usually enough to ensure that
> you will get that wonder, provided you're not late getting the advance.
Hmmm... never though of doing it that way... I'll have to try it out.
Juan Jimenez A
"Ethel the Ardvaark" <postm...@beoutdoors.net> escribió en el mensaje
news:92ba3e7.01112...@posting.google.com...
> "Daniel McCarthy" <daniel.w...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<m%_J7.1948$%y5.1...@typhoon1.gnilink.net>...
>
> > the Civ franchise called Civ 3. To establish some context, I've been
> > playing Civ (and Civ2) since 1991 and I think that Civ 2 is the best
> > strategy game ever made.
>
> No, I would still vote for MOM.
>
> > Reforming the trading system is a good idea, the actual execution is a
> > disaster. The relative scarcity of horses, iron, saltpeter, coal and
oil
> > make development or military bottlenecks inevitable and puts the human
>
> That's a good thing. It means that you have to make more strategic
> plans for building your forces. It ain't simply make a bunch of
> howitzers mech inf, and settlers and away you go.
I like the scarcity level of the resources on the game: It is common -at
least that it is my experience- both having two sources of a resource and
none of other, so you have large opportunities to trade for them. If the
resources are very common there is not a reason to trade
them (I was playing in a regent game recently and for the middle game only
five moderately large players were left and all had practically all
resources, so there was no way to use my three sources of oil to trade for
anything). If the resources
are very scarce, then trade it is very difficult. The current situation (I
do not know if in more difficult levels this change) is IMHO very balanced.
In fact, I think that the game (probably it is related to the fact that I am
learning new strategies when playing, and I like that) more balanced that
Civ 2. In Civ 2 I was able to rush building practically any Wonder without
thinking very much and build easily empiries with 50 cities withouth any
significant problem (and in Deity). Losing a wonder by one turn to an AI
player and be forced to lose 150 shields (I have lost a couple a wonders in
that way) is an entirely new level of challenge.
Juan Jimenez A.
Craig S. Richardson
<s...@reply-to.invalid> wrote:
>>3. Overly expansionistic AI- The computer controlled civs expand way, way
>>too much---inside areas ringed by other human player territory, into the
>>Arctic, in deserts. And its not just one civ that pushes hard (like Civ 2)
>>but all civs. Among other things, this requires the human player to mirror
>>the computer's strategy and expand quickly or risk being left behind. So,
>>if your strategy has been to do early tech research and then expand, forget
>>it. You'll never amount to more than a small power.
>
>So what? The computer now plays to win, rather than to leaving the
>human player to play as idiotically as he wants to and still win the
>game. And this is a gripe in your world? Liked Ascendancy much? :-p
I like it, it's more of a challenge, but in fairness it does make the
early game more uniform. Even a peaceful technologist must water her
strategy down with a good bit of expansionism and military
development. It reminds me of Imperialism quite a bit in that way.
>>4. The computer cheats, it really cheats
>
>No, it doesn't. You just don't know how to play the game, as evident
>from your other gripes. Again, this has been discussed extensively,
>the computer seems to get some extra info and possible gets a better
>deal when trading with his computer buddies but otherwise it's playing
>fair (on medium difficulty and below). That's a first for Civ-style
>games except SMAC, and it's disappointing to see people spreading this
>bullshit about a "cheating computer" just because they can't win.
Like heavyweight champions who fatten up on easy targets, we're
finally seeing a real fight. We have to change our styles to adapt to
an opponent who fights back. Hell, at Chieftain on Civ1, I went an
entire game without even defending any of my cities...
>>How is it that the competing civs manage to have more military units
>>than the human player, but still finish wonders AND do more research than
>>the human player?
>
>They can't, if the human player has a clue. After a week of training
>I'm regularly pulling ahead of the AI on Chieftain and Warlord. And
>the AI's production is perfectly in line with its empire size.
... which is (relatively) much larger than it used to be. I think
they also derive more benefit from AI trading in the mid-first-age,
where there is maximum benefit from parallel processing research
across seven civs, since there are about six that can be researched
with the same commonly available prereqs.
>>5. Does government matter any more? Is there any real differance between
>>despotism/monarchy and republic/democracy?
>
>Yes, but once again you need to learn how to play the game before you
>realise the differences. You obviously expected everything to work
>just like in Civ2 -- it didn't, and now you're complaining.
That is, in fact, a big difference in my play style. In Civ2, I
targeted Monarchy right out of the blocks, and waited for workers and
wonders before going to Republic. This is no longer, IMO, viable.
>>Also what is with the corruption?
>
>This one is actually a legit gameplay gripe. The "optimal number of
>cities" has been the subject of much discussion here, and the
>corruption issue is being looked at for the upcoming patch.
I've only once hit the "optimal" number...
>>7. Multiplayer- Ditto
>
>Apart from your unsupported insinuation that the game is "unfinished",
>your other two complaints are subject to personal preferences. I
>don't care for multiplayer but I do wish they'd finish up the editor.
Hell, he can't even handle an AI that plays by the same rules. I
don't think anyone who can't reliably beat the AI at Emperor has any
real need for multiplayer. I certainly don't...
>>8. The Tech Tree- Is it just me, or is the tech tree much more paint by
>>numbers than it used to be? Part of the fun of the old tech tree was
>>deciding to wander off the beaten path and focus on government techs or
>>warfare techs and trade to other civs. Now I feel like everyone is doing
>>the same research at the same time, or trading tech almost immediately to
>>keep up with me.
>
>Agreed to some extent, but again I have to wonder if you actually want
>any challenge in a strategy game or if you'd rather have some kind of
>SimEmpire. Your "wandering off the beaten path" basically means you
>want lots of useless techs that you can research at your leisure while
>the AI is too stupid to pull ahead of you. Civ3 cuts out the slack
>and has a better AI. There are fewer alternatives and the game is
>more focused on "being first". The game is simply more competitive
>overall. There are still a number of optional techs in Civ3, though.
Mind you, "share your tech" was a viable strategy in Civ2 also,
especially due to the undocumented "drag" that pulled your research
back when you got too far ahead. Now the benefits are more up-front.
>>10. Wonders- I liked the old system of playing for certain wonders that
>>give you a major advantage, like the Great Wall, Michaelangelo's Cathedral
>>and the UN. Now, wonders seem helpful but not decisive.
>
>Sounds like you want a Civ2-style insta-win by micromanaging caravans
>while fucking up the rest of your empire. Civ3 wonders don't work
>like that, and that's a good thing IMO. The wonder benefits are quite
>important but their effects are more subtle, and perhaps their most
>important effect is the massive amount of culture they generate.
Plus, he has a massively different play style, since I never found
Great Wall or UN even _useful_ in Civ2, much less a "major advantage",
especially compared to Hoover, Bach, or the "science city" wonders.
>>Also, why can't I
>>throw all of my empire's production into building a wonder as I could in Civ
>>2 via the caravan mechanism? Isn't that what a wonder is about?
>
>Because it screwed up game balance and ensured that the biggest civ,
>or the one that was best at micromanaging caravans, always got all the
>wonders. I snipped your "real world" examples, this is a GAME.
Be fair. I miss that ability. I know it was screwing up the game by
using a feature in an unintended way. It was still a kind of
over-the-top fun.
>>I like that they got rid of the old trade and espionage
>>systems. Menu driven versions of these makes more sense than unit driven
>>versions. I like the use of borders and the culture feature. I'm ok with
>>the artillery and air bombardment systems.
>
>Well, here we actually agree on something.
Wait a minute - he liked micromanaging caravans for wonders but not
for trade, and you agree? I can see a case for liking both or
knocking both, but to me they're a matched set.
The rest, OTOH, were well enough changed.
Christoph Nahr
<crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Wait a minute - he liked micromanaging caravans for wonders but not
>for trade, and you agree? I can see a case for liking both or
>knocking both, but to me they're a matched set.
I agreed only on his dislike of micromanaging caravans for trade, but
not on his desire to micromanage caravans for wonders. Personally I
disliked micromanaging caravans and freight in any conceivable way.
--
http://www.kynosarges.de
Chris Schack
infer...@my-deja.com (inferno2000) wrote:
<snip>
>I do notice many of you claim to have the 4 turns limit. What I notice
>is that it is difficult to produce enough research to get less than 4
>turns in industrial and modern age. So I doubt there is a cap. It is
>just that unlike Civ1 and Civ2, you do not get huge research during
>late game due to the corruption effect. So you tend to get optimal
>research speed in late medieval age.
Guess again, there MUST be a cap of some sort. I'm running a fairly
large Communism at 4/6/0, and research is at 4 turns. I tried boosting
the Science to see if I could speed up the next advance, and I couldn't
(BTW, I have lots of gold, so I would be willing to run a deficit for
a little while). As soon as the French die, I switch back to Democracy,
though ... maybe. Then again, if I can't speed research, why should
I bother? I'm currently building veteran units to replace conscripts,
for lack of anything much better to do...
Chris Schack
Chris Schack
t...@again.spammers (The Enigmatic One) wrote:
<snip>
> On the other hand, I once had a game where every civ (only 4) was on
>one large continent, and I was the only one to go exploring the seas. I found
>a wealth of resources on islands and the other two (quite small) continents
>and, at that point, basically refused to hand over my maps.
For that, maybe you could get away with trading TERRITORY maps, not
WORLD maps...
Chris Schack
The Enigmatic One
Only for a short time. I soon had a city with colonies branching out
from it on the largest other land mass.
-Tim