 |
| |
|
|
A Former Member
|
|
My computer's hard disk has just omitted an equivalent of a 'sigh of relief' as 1.5GB of Civilization data has been removed.
Having been with Civilization III from the start, I'm now giving it up. For the entire two and a half years the game has been on release with its expansions, I've had the same old problem - sometimes getting the win, but 90% of the time being subjected to harsh luck and even harsher gaming conventions like 'thou shalt not build at higher difficulty levels'.
For example, yesterday I finished a game on Emperor level as the Arabs, and scored 5723 points. However, my addiction needs fueling so I started up more games today - but found that the same old thing was happening. For every one game successful, at least a dozen others set upon by the forces of 'unfairness'.
Whether it be a rush from an AI that starts the game with half a dozen units, an AI that expands into your spaces before you can even conceivably build settlers let alone move them or build roads for them to move over, barbarians attacking your workers and units when you've barely had time to do anything, a terrible starting location, a good starting location which you realize after a few turns is terrible because it's surrounded by jungle, or even the annoying habit of the AI punishing you for building too many buildings while it, on the other hand, is pumping out not just units, workers and improvements but also wonders.
If Firaxis want me, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, back as a customer for Civ4 then something must be done about the harsh exposure to probability. Other games that I have enjoyed and respected like Age of Empires and Red Alert do not start you off in terrible locations. In fact, in Age of Empires 2 you always start with roughly the same resources around you. Perhaps it is part of Firaxis's attempt to make Civilization look like a game for the more mature. However, it is annoying. The introduction of new difficulty levels, as well as continued membership on these forums, makes the prospect of going back in difficulty, or turning barbarians down (I always have them at the level just above sedentary) seem like too humiliating a concession.
Civilization has great potential, but the game's mechanics are still stuck in the primitive set of the original civilization released more than ten years ago. Civ4 needs to be radical, entirely different. It needs to offer a more satisfying way of winning games, challenging but not obnoxiously or overpoweringly so at higher levels. I feel that the current set-up is dying and I do not see a Civ5 unless Sid figures out where properly to address the series' shortcomings.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Prot
|
|
Valetta, Malta
Jan 2004
time: 05:33
|
|
I almost always make my own maps when I play on higher difficulty levels. It may get old, but why not trying out building an Island and starting on it alone?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Exquisitor
|
|
I had similar issues with Civ3 and corruption. I like to build so I used to edit the game to lower corruption. It really made a difference in my enjoyment level.
I also downloaded one of the scenarios where outdated units were given the ability to upgrade to infantry and fighters were given the ability to kill. That made a lot of sense. The scenario also improved my enjoyment.
As in C3, I play most of my C3C games at Monarch because I like easier games where a couple of wrong moves or bad luck don't kill you. However, I also enjoy the harder games, just not so often.
I think C2..C3C has done a bang up job in the difficulty levels. The differences in difficulty are seemingly on a log scale (or maybe a ln scale). My kids like it on the easier settings and I like it more difficult. Gives us much to talk about.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SlightlyMadman
|
|
Baltimore
Nov 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
I have similar issues with this game. I have hundreds of annoyances with balance and little things, but the main problem I see with the game is that it's way too easy at Monarch and below, to the point that it's no fun to play. Above Monarch, it's annoying and luck-based at the beginning, until you finally start to catch up to the AI, at which point it's too easy again.
I'd rather see Civ4 take the game down a step in complexity to allow the AI to compete better, as I understand writing a really good AI for a game like this is near impossible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tall Stranger
|
 |
Northern Virginia
Nov 2002
time: 00:33
|
|
Former Member/ SlightlyMadman:
First off, let me say that I'm sorry you're not happy with the game. However, I disagree with your criticisms of the game and think a few comments on your complaints are in order.
1. You both seem to be very upset over the role that luck plays in this game. Whether it be the quality of your starting position, the aggressiveness of your neighbors or unfortunate combat roles, I agree that luck plays a factor (as it does in real life as well). I tend to agree with Uber KruX: that's part of the fun. Getting a crappy starting can make for a very challenging and enjoyable game. It also lets you try different approaches/ strategies to win. Rarely do you get a starting position which is truly "unwinnable."
2. Building on that point, I'd ask you to consider the possibility that you're allowing yourself to get into a rut in terms of your play-style. I mean no insult here, but if you're finding that for every one game you can reasonably play, you're losing/ quitting 12 games, I would suggest that you are not modifying your way of playing to make the most of your situation. The reality is that not every starting position lends itself to every type of victory.
3. Former Member, I don't know what to make of your statement that taking a step down is "too humiliating a concession." I would just say that, since the intent of the game is to have FUN, if dropping to Monarch makes the game more fun for you, don't let pride get in the way! You should be aware that many very good players here prefer Monarch. If, however, being able to win at Emp is very important to you, I'd recommend reading Mountain Sage's thread on Winning at Emperor level and posting questions or saves to the forum. People here are happy to help you.
If your decision to stop playing is final, again I'm sorry to hear that. I've been playing Civ3 for an awfully long time now, and have yet to feel like it's no longer interesting, challenging or fun.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sovereign
|
|
Hrmm....
I've enjoyed Civ 1, 2, and 3. I love the concept of forging a nation from the ground up.
However, I just have two nitpicks with Civ3, which probably has already been discussed before.
The weird AI diplomacy, especially with MPP and declaring war aganist other AI civ's.
Ai's tendency to buddy up with other AI's more than they do with the human player, even if the human player is middle or last ranking. (Understandable gang-up if the human player is #1).
I always create random maps in the Editor, so I can tweak a few rules. Most of the time, I tweak the ship movement points (Does it really take 20 - 100 years for a steam OR combustion powered ship to travel around the world?  ) and on some occasions, I bump up food production in hills to 2, and mountains to 1... and also enable city building in mountains (The Incas were able to eke out food production in their mountain cities. Also, cities between mountain valleys or small plateaus on mounatins are feasible).
I also lower the corruption levels a bit, to somewhere between 20 - 30% of the original levels. Think of it this way, San Franscisco, Los Angeles, and Anchorage are a long way from Washington D.C. but they handle production just as effectively as New York City, Boston, or Baltimore.
Other than that, the rules remain normal. My enjoyment remains high. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Exquisitor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tall Stranger
Former Member/ SlightlyMadman:
If, however, being able to win at Emp is very important to you, I'd recommend reading Mountain Sage's thread on Winning at Emperor level and posting questions or saves to the forum. People here are happy to help you.
|
I've been looking for this thread and can't seem to find it. Please provide a link.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SlightlyMadman
I have similar issues with this game. I have hundreds of annoyances with balance and little things, but the main problem I see with the game is that it's way too easy at Monarch and below, to the point that it's no fun to play. Above Monarch, it's annoying and luck-based at the beginning, until you finally start to catch up to the AI, at which point it's too easy again.
I'd rather see Civ4 take the game down a step in complexity to allow the AI to compete better, as I understand writing a really good AI for a game like this is near impossible. |
God Lord man are you mad. If this game gets any simpler I'll write a batch program to play for me.
Why can't people get that the AI can never compete with a human. We might lose a game because of a bad start or some quirk but the AI can never outthink us.
So the game needs to be made more complex so that we don't go to sleep during the boring lets push 100 units one tile turn tedium.
If Firaxis had an once of sense they would have programed the AI to gang up on the human at the point where player has moved into the lead. This would be more fun and more challenging. But some boneheads here would be running amok cause the AI was cheating.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dis
|
 |
Las Vegas, Nevada
Feb 2000
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by A Former Member
My computer's hard disk has just omitted an equivalent of a 'sigh of relief' as 1.5GB of Civilization data has been removed.
Having been with Civilization III from the start, I'm now giving it up. For the entire two and a half years the game has been on release with its expansions, I've had the same old problem - sometimes getting the win, but 90% of the time being subjected to harsh luck and even harsher gaming conventions like 'thou shalt not build at higher difficulty levels'.
For example, yesterday I finished a game on Emperor level as the Arabs, and scored 5723 points. However, my addiction needs fueling so I started up more games today - but found that the same old thing was happening. For every one game successful, at least a dozen others set upon by the forces of 'unfairness'.
Whether it be a rush from an AI that starts the game with half a dozen units, an AI that expands into your spaces before you can even conceivably build settlers let alone move them or build roads for them to move over, barbarians attacking your workers and units when you've barely had time to do anything, a terrible starting location, a good starting location which you realize after a few turns is terrible because it's surrounded by jungle, or even the annoying habit of the AI punishing you for building too many buildings while it, on the other hand, is pumping out not just units, workers and improvements but also wonders.
If Firaxis want me, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, back as a customer for Civ4 then something must be done about the harsh exposure to probability. Other games that I have enjoyed and respected like Age of Empires and Red Alert do not start you off in terrible locations. In fact, in Age of Empires 2 you always start with roughly the same resources around you. Perhaps it is part of Firaxis's attempt to make Civilization look like a game for the more mature. However, it is annoying. The introduction of new difficulty levels, as well as continued membership on these forums, makes the prospect of going back in difficulty, or turning barbarians down (I always have them at the level just above sedentary) seem like too humiliating a concession.
Civilization has great potential, but the game's mechanics are still stuck in the primitive set of the original civilization released more than ten years ago. Civ4 needs to be radical, entirely different. It needs to offer a more satisfying way of winning games, challenging but not obnoxiously or overpoweringly so at higher levels. I feel that the current set-up is dying and I do not see a Civ5 unless Sid figures out where properly to address the series' shortcomings. |
I think a big problem with this game is people complained civ2 was too easy. If you look at the gameplay of civ3, you can see that they tried to do everything they could to make the game more challenging for the player. Including simplifying the game to improve the ai decision making.
But what they didn't take into account was different playing styles. They designed the game to challenge people who play a certain way.
All I can say is if you aren't willing to drop down a difficulty level, you are stuck.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dis
|
|
Las Vegas, Nevada
Feb 2000
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SlightlyMadman
I have similar issues with this game. I have hundreds of annoyances with balance and little things, but the main problem I see with the game is that it's way too easy at Monarch and below, to the point that it's no fun to play. Above Monarch, it's annoying and luck-based at the beginning, until you finally start to catch up to the AI, at which point it's too easy again.
I'd rather see Civ4 take the game down a step in complexity to allow the AI to compete better, as I understand writing a really good AI for a game like this is near impossible. |
yeah right. Not all of us are super Civ players. This is the problem I have. People like you keep claiming the game is too easy. And the programmers do stupid things to make the game tougher.
The lower difficulties should be easy. Doesn't that make sense?
and jimmytrick. Not all of us are as smart as you seem to be. I'm sorry I can't be the best civ3 player.
But some of us want the game to be fun. You guys keep pushing to make the game harder. Soon I won't even be able to win on warlord level if they keep making the game harder.
I lose because the ai cheats. period. Of course I can outhtink the ai. But the ai can build more units than I. Always. There are no maybes about it. They always can outbuild me.
Last edited by Dis on 31-01-2004 at 13:42
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
yeah right. Not all of us are super Civ players. This is the problem I have. People like you keep claiming the game is too easy. And the programmers do stupid things to make the game tougher.
The lower difficulties should be easy. Doesn't that make sense?
and jimmytrick. Not all of us are as smart as you seem to be. I'm sorry I can't be the best civ3 player.
But some of us want the game to be fun. You guys keep pushing to make the game harder. Soon I won't even be able to win on warlord level if they keep making the game harder.
I lose because the ai cheats. period. Of course I can outhtink the ai. But the ai can build more units than I. Always. There are no maybes about it. They always can outbuild me. |
I am sorry. I am not making my point. I would like the game to have many of the type of sideshows like we had in SMAC. Like using crawlers. Energy parks. Super science citys. Specialist cities. Social engineering. Unit workshop. I basically wanted Civ3 to be an extension of those types of game concepts.
Instead we got a simpler game with little variety of play. Made more tedious (not difficult) by giving the AI escalating levels of advantage.
Experienced civers that manage to learn a few basics should not have any problem winning Civ3-PTW-C3C on any level below diety. But if you are not a veteran of MoM, Moo, Civ, Moo2, Civ2, SMAC, CtP, CtP2 and other 4X games yeah, you might have a bit of work getting up to speed.
One other big issue the policy of Firaxis of not explaining what is happening in the game. We have to either play and take notes and do our own analysis or read threads on sites like this one or CivFanatics to get a grip on concepts like culture and corruption. This makes the game more difficult for casual gamers. Firaxis doesn't seem to get it. They will when sales drop off in the future.
Whatever they do for Civ4 I hope they put the fun back in and document the game. This will enlarge the community and preserve hope for Civ style gaming in the future.
A lot of ground has been lost to the RTS folks already. We lost our best designer to that crap. (Reynolds, Rise of Nations).
Hopefully something will happen to turn this franchise around.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Whilst I agree with some of jimmytricks sentiment, I think that real world limitations mean that certain concessions have to be made.
For instance... map-centric features such as crawlers rely on an understanding of a 2d space, which is innately learned by human players, who can ignore clutter and understand distance and orientation. Modelling this mathematically isn't trivial. When you introduce factors like variable movement, and a variety of variable effects, which conflict... it becomes nigh on impossible to solve optimally. Of course, you don't *need* for the AI to act in an absolutely optimal fashion, but this does require uneveness to provide challenge.
Certain features such as the unit workshop require finesse when you are competing with other designs. Solutions are more fuzzy than crisp logic, and whilst you can emulate partially fuzzy solutions with logic, they are far from perfect.
Fuzzy state machines *could* be used... but fuzzy math isn't a simple concept, and tough to design. Very few designers feel comfortable designing a new AI based on it.
When you compete with a skilled human, you have to be very close to optimal, to compete. Humans learn, adapt and improve. AI's don't (well.. Evolutionary AI's can, but evolutionary AI's in a Civ sense, are more theoretical... blue-sky constructs than tried and tested approaches.)
I think that the Civ3 approach of finding the areas where the AI cannot compete, and making them equal is not only useful, its practically essential.
There is no more obvious and flawed a feature, than the one which the human knows they can whip an AI silly with, and the AI won't respond with.
We've certainly not seen the end of percentile AI bonuses, either
AI's will improve... not as massively as many would like. Computing power isn't increasing exponentially, and much more advanced AI algorithms are much more costly. Waiting a long time for your turn is generally a game killer... and won't be implemented in a commercial game.
Crawlers and the unit workshop make little sense to implement, however "fun" they might be perceived, since they'll turn the AI into whipping boys, every time, when the human develops an ounce of skill with them.
Last edited by MrBaggins on 31-01-2004 at 23:23
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-01-2004 03:06
Ya know Jimmy, I too believe that there is a point here. You are right, once you gain the lead over the rest of the world, it is basicaly a cake walk....but if all of the AIs should all of the sudden gang up on you.....well, a different picture may well be painted. 
|