 |
| |
|
|
albiedamned
|
|
Ellicott City, MD
Sep 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
I just bought Conquests and got back into Civ3 after not playing for quite a while, basically since it first came out. I just wanted to say how far this game has come, both since it first came out, and especially since its predecessors (Civ2, SMAC). While the game is not without flaws, and while there are features of the game that people still complain about, I think Civ3 has really established itself as the premier TBS game. Here are some reasons why I think this:
- The tech tree and the eras. In Civ2, the early tech tree was mostly a joke and the game really didn't even start until tanks or at least cavalry. In Civ3, every era really matters, and just about every advance gives you important new abilities. The Ancient Era is critical, and following the right path up the tech tree can make or break your game. Ancient Era wars basically never happened in Civ2, but in Civ3 they are not only common but crucial to most strategies.
- The units. There are very few useless units in Civ3. Just about everything serves a purpose. Compare that to Civ2, with its legions and catapults and horsemen that no one ever built. There are a few relatively useless things in Civ3, such as Explorers, but for the most part every new unit you gain access to really helps in some way or other. And I won't be surprised if someone replies to this post with a really good use for Explorers which I haven't discovered! SMAC does still get an edge here though because of its unit workshop - nothing in Civ3 compares to that.
- The AI. I'm sure I'm going to get some grief on this one because there are still many complaints about the AI. But compare it to Civ2 or SMAC, and it's night and day. Experienced players can always defeat the AI by exploiting its weaknesses, but unfortunately I don't think there are any games in existence where this is not true. However the Civ3 AI regularly gives new players a run for their money, usually for quite some time. The way it aggressively goes after your weaknesses is very impressive. Of course the AI could be improved, especially in the use of bombardment and in organizing amphibious assaults, but it's still miles beyond Civ2 and SMAC.
- Diplomacy. I know I'm going to get grief on this one too, but the Diplomacy screen in Civ3 gives you so much more flexibility than any previous TBS game that it's not even close. Yes the AI doesn't always make the smartest deals, but still, the flexibility to define each trade individually, and to trade such varied components as maps, contacts, techs, resources, workers etc. is a major advance from previous games.
- The combat model. I think Civ3 really got the combat model right for the first time in the TBS genre. This is one area where there seem to be almost no complaints. In Civ2, or even in SMAC, the "phalanx sunk my battleship" complaint was probably the most common. The key features that make the Civ3 model good are the use of experience towards hit points (SMAC had this too), the new bombardment model, the new air mission model, and in general the balancing of the unit strengths.
- The new features: resources, culture, separate workers vs settlers, bombardment, unique units, civ traits, borders etc. SMAC had some of these features too, but no previous Civ game did and they all add quite a bit to the game.
- The improvements since the game first came out. There really are no major bugs anymore, and many of our complaints from the initial release have been addressed. The balancing tweaks I think have really improved the game, especially the UU tweaks (no more useless French Musketeers) and the new units (no more un-upgradeable swordsmen), and also the vastly improved balancing and diversity of naval units. I'll even throw the Espionage screen on this list. While the Espionage model is still clumsy, the new screen is far better than the original implementation, and far far better than the Spy/Diplomat/Probe units of Civ2 and SMAC (and all their accompanying exploits).
I'll stop gushing now. My overall point is that while the game had serious flaws when it first came out, it really has turned into a well polished product. So while everyone still is entitled to their complaints, just think about what we had before Civ3 came out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachen
|
|
An explorer has two moves but treats all terrain as if it had roads. An act of pillage counts as one move and that means you can pillage the tile you’re on and then move three tiles or traverse three tiles and pillage one of them. If you move them with an army they can pillage and come to rest under the protection of the army at the end of their two moves and the AI does not attack healthy armies. I have found that an army traveling with four or five explorers can lay waste an enemy land in short order. Enjoy.
 Attachment: pillage carthage.jpg
This has been downloaded 221 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
albiedamned
|
|
Ellicott City, MD
Sep 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
I seem to recall that they added in an additional bonus for when units from more modern eras fight against units from older eras. Was that in one of the patches? Anyway, yes a fortified spearmen in a metropolis on a hill across a river etc. etc. could beat a tank on rare occassion. My point is just that the complaints about the combat system in Civ3 are few and far between, considering that the combat system was one of the chief complaints in Civ2.
The sub bug I don't consider to be a major bug. It's a pain to be sure, but it doesn't come into play often enough to be a major bug. Nevertheless they should fix it! The AI inadequacies regarding armies, bombardment, and amphibious assault aren't really bugs, they're just weaknesses in the AI (it's not a bug, it's a feature!). And you have to agree that even despite these weaknesses, the Civ3 AI is well beyond the SMAC and Civ2 AI.
Last Conformist, what is wrong with barbarian behavior? Like I said I've been away for a while so I've probably missed those threads. I've definitely noticed that it's changed from the initial release. Before the barbs would just attack whatever unit or city they saw. Now they seem to be a little smarter; they seem to avoid attacks that are almost certain losses.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
You didn't need to wait for Tanks or Cavalry to win Civ2. Writing gave you Diplomats which pretty much sealed the end for the AI.
On units: while Civ2 did have some useless ones, Civ3 is guilty of having gaps. The worst one is the long long wait from 6 attack Cavalry to 16 attack Tanks. That's more than double the attack strength without any intermediate unit. Warmongering pretty much grinds to a halt after those Riflemen and Infantry show up in cities.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
albiedamned
|
|
Ellicott City, MD
Sep 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gunkulator
On units: while Civ2 did have some useless ones, Civ3 is guilty of having gaps. The worst one is the long long wait from 6 attack Cavalry to 16 attack Tanks. That's more than double the attack strength without any intermediate unit. Warmongering pretty much grinds to a halt after those Riflemen and Infantry show up in cities. |
I disagree. First of all, it is historically realistic as the World War I era was a time when defense dominated. Come WWII, tanks switched the balance to offense. But secondly, it is extremely possible to attack in this era if you pile up enough artillery. See this ancient thread I wrote on the topic. Basically, your 6 attack Cav or Infantry will win if you bombard the defenders down to 1 HP, even if those defenders are 10 defense Infantry. In fact you could even win with Riflemen, if you lack the resources for Cav or Infantry. A Rifleman/Artillery army requires no resources.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
I disagree. First of all, it is historically realistic as the World War I era was a time when defense dominated. Come WWII, tanks switched the balance to offense. But secondly, it is extremely possible to attack in this era if you pile up enough artillery |
Yes, I know about the massive Arty stack tactic. My complaint is a gameplay one, not a realism one. Building a moving a huge stack of infantry and artillery requires more micromanagement. Plodding along at 1 move per turn drags the game down compared to medieval and ancient era warfare. Realistic? Probably. Good gameplay: nope.
This is an area where Civ2 was better, although it tended to swing the other way. Modern warfare was very fast but also too easy. Blitzkrieg just isn't possible in Civ3.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
albiedamned
|
|
Ellicott City, MD
Sep 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
You know what, I think I'm confusing Civ3 with RoN here. I think RoN did that; made modern units more likely to beat ancient ones.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Leonidas
|
|
There is a lot I like in Civ3. But Civ2 also has a lot I like as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by WarpStorm
One word, Railroads.
|
...that don't work in AI land. By the time Tanks come rolling along, much of the AI's territory is 3 squares deep. If you bring Artillery, you need one turn to get 3 squares away, another to get 2 squares away and then you can attack on the third turn. Reinforcements? Forget it. They may be just one square away on clear land but it might as well be across a mountain or swamp.
Rails are also an annoyance in that they bring about the most unrealistic aspect of the game: The AI can attack your invading army with everything its got, no matter how far away, all in a single turn. To survive this, you need raw numbers, leading to massive "unit bloat" and the associated monotonous one-at-a-time attacks.
quote:
Of course, blitzkrieg really needs tanks. Once you have tanks blitz is very much possible in Civ3. I can often take 5-10 cities in one turn in the late game.. |
With MA's, yes but there's an awful long stretch of time to get them. Without MAs, you'll never get past their borders without a counter attack. The only way I've ever taken that many cities in the modern era is by breaking a ROP and that's a one shot deal.
I dunno, I prefer ancient and medieval warfare. More kinds of units, more options, quicker to get in and attack. YMMV I suppose.
IMHO, Civ2 made modern warfare too easy, but it was fast. Civ3 has swung too far the other way.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-05-2004 22:14
)
|
