 |
| |
|
|
Blackadar1
|
|
Sid and the rest of the gang:
I'd like to congratulate you on Civ III - it has wonderful...potential. But there are some serious gameplay problems with Civ III that absolutely causes major problems. The one I'd most like to point out are the "resources" - you know, the ones that you need to possess to build certain units? Great idea...except in the following example.
I had one of 3 major continents completely to myself and was leading the tech race. All was good. I was playing my normal isolationist/appeasment scheme and was winning handily. However, when it came time to the modern era...I was left with no source of oil. None. Zero. I wasn't strong enough, nor did I wish to, invade my competitor for oil. However, he had only one source as well, so I couldn't trade for it either. So there I am, in mid-late game, I cannot build ANY of the modern units. No tanks. No mechanized armor. No battleships. No planes. NOTHING. Well, you can probably guess what happened. My compeitors got to build those units and wiped me out pretty handily at the end of the game as I was using Marines and Infantry against Tanks and Airplanes.
Frankly, this is an unexcusable gameplay balance oversight. If you're going to require pretty much all of the units from an era to have a resource, you need to make sure it's pretty damned available. Essentially, I was dealt a losing hand, but I didn't even know that until I had invested almost 15 hours in the game. Come on, guys - that's just not fun.
Also, I have a couple of other suggestions for a patch:
- Tone down the pollution a bit. Besides trying to fend of hordes of units, I felt like little more than a janitor running around trying to clean up pollution. It takes so long to clean up that it just got absurd after a while - the map looked like an uncleaned rollercoaster exit from RollerCoaster tycoon. Puke all over the place.
- The AI has problems. Not only do they consistently invade my borders after REPEATED attempts to keep them at bay, but I've had the AI make a mutual defense pact with me and invade me the very next turn. That's not much fun, either.
- War weariness needs to be modified. In the above scenario, problems were compounded because the AI wouldn't even talk to me, even after repeated attempts. Well, my people kept getting more upset...causing more riots...reducing my productivity and my ability to defend myself...causing the AI to be more aggressive...causing my people to get even more upset...causing more riots...get the point? The AI should not cause the player to get into a "death spiral".
Thanks for your understanding. These are all issues that can easily be solved with a patch which would make the game much more enjoyable.
Blackadar
Owner of Civ III and pretty much every other Sid game made in the last 15 years.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
CygnusZ
|
|
What you describe really sounds like the strengths of the game. You were supposed to have diplomacy and relations with other nations, not to mention going into mutual protection pacts. It was because you neglected the diplomacy that you lost, not simply because you didn't have access to oil.
In my last game I didn't have any access to rubber. Did it get in the way of my getting tanks? HELL NO! I just traded in a lot of gold for Rubber from the Indians and pumped out as many tanks as I could in the 20 turns I got the resource, and I could have renewed the deal if I felt it necessary.
Another memory was an invasion of an island a bit away from the mainland. I took an English city and went into the build screen. I was shocked to see that I was back to building spearmen. I had a good laugh and built a harbor, but it goes to show that resources are central to the game just like how they are central to real civilizations.
The limited resources are good because they can allow a weaker civilization to overcome a greater civilization through time. They are the great equalizer. If you're an isolationist civ, you deserve to lose.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Blackadar1
|
|
Signus, it's obvious that you didn't read my post - or perhaps I wasn't clear enough. There were 3 civs left - mine was one. There wasn't ANY oil available via any of the trade screens at any time. Each of the other 2 civs had 1 oil resource and, of course, they were using it. I had a ton of gold that I would have gladly given up for any oil - but there was none to be had. I wasn't playing totally isolationist. I was actively trading and making diplomatic deals. I just had my version of "fortress Europa" going where I was on the defensive militarily with no conquest in mind.
Dan, I appreciate the response. But playing on a "normal" map against 5 starting civs, I shouldn't have to go around playing in the editor to ensure that I'll have a "winnable" game. That is a programming issue. Frankly, IMHO, oil should NOT be a prerequisite for all of the later units. The great thing about horses, iron, etc. is that even if you don't possess one them, you can still get around and function. It may make it more difficult, but you can still produce archers, longbowmen, etc. that can help compensate for the lack of natural resources. Heck, I had no access to iron and got around it by making longbowmen and calvary. That was a fun challenge.
You start getting into saltpeper (sort of) and oil and you find you can't live without them. That is a major gameplay issue that should be closely examined. That's not a fun challenge - it's the equivalent of handing the player a losing hand due to no fault of his/her own.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ProfessorPhobos
|
|
This isn't really the game's fault. Your going to have to vary your tactics between aggression and pacifism throughout the game. At least that's been my experience so far. It's much harder to win- resources are actually important now.
A lot of the problems people are having aren't because the game is poorly balanced- it's perfectly balanced...it's just not Civ2...old strategies no longer work. Adapt or Die, etc etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dan Magaha FIRAXIS
|
 |
The Metropolis known as Hunt Valley
Mar 2000
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Blackadar1
Dan, I appreciate the response. But playing on a "normal" map against 5 starting civs, I shouldn't have to go around playing in the editor to ensure that I'll have a "winnable" game. That is a programming issue. Frankly, IMHO, oil should NOT be a prerequisite for all of the later units. The great thing about horses, iron, etc. is that even if you don't possess one them, you can still get around and function. It may make it more difficult, but you can still produce archers, longbowmen, etc. that can help compensate for the lack of natural resources. Heck, I had no access to iron and got around it by making longbowmen and calvary. That was a fun challenge.
You start getting into saltpeper (sort of) and oil and you find you can't live without them. That is a major gameplay issue that should be closely examined. That's not a fun challenge - it's the equivalent of handing the player a losing hand due to no fault of his/her own. |
Well, just for clarification, all I'm saying is the editor allows you tweak the game to play differently if you don't agree with our design choices. If you want to remove the oil prereq from some or all of the units, you can do that. And if you think oil should be more common, you can do that too.
Both of the issues you seem to have with the way the game plays are conscious design choices that were made to make the game more fun, and in my experience thus far, most people do seem to enjoy them. But, as I said, different strokes for different folks. The editor will allow you to bypass these challenges if they make the game less fun for you.
Dan
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Blackadar1
|
|
I disagree, prof.
Perhaps my experience is out of the norm. But, if not - heck, even if it happens in 1 out of every 10 games - the game is almost dictating a style of play. Frankly, it'd be back to the MONGOLS style. Just build military units so you'd be assured of being able to capture resources.
I just think that oil and uranium are too damned important to be random resources. It's not like you can see where they are placed early in the game and rush to capture them. For example, say you're evenly matched (or even close) with another Civ and the only oil pops up deep in their territory - where you can't reach because they can withstand your attack. If you can't trade for it (like I couldn't), well, game over - you lost. That's not fun - that's randomly picking a winner. If the tables had been reversed, I would have been the winner, but I wouldn't have earned it. There are no tactics involved here, unless you consider picking a difficultly level that allows you to conquer the entire world (or the majority of it) before the advent of oil a "tactic".
Luck always plays a role, but great games give the player the opportunity to overcome bad luck. In this case, there is no opportunity to recover and you have no advance warning that this is about to happen to prepare for it. That's not tactics, bud. That's a gameplay and balance issue.
Dan, again, I appreciate the prompness of the rssponse. And I'm sure this is a rare case where the appearance of a resource (or the lack of one) causes the player to have no chance of winning. However, it would be a very simple fix to ensure that all continents, and maybe even all civs above a certain population size, have access to such a vital resource when it appears.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CygnusZ
|
|
You know, I noticed that problem too. I couldn't get the Indian's to trade rubber with me at first. I eventually went to the "Trade" screen and saw it suddenly available. Really weird, because I wanted to trade strategic resources before (I had 6 horses) but the option just didn't appear on my diplomacy screen. I think its some sort of bug maybe?
Anyway, worst comes to worst, you can always have your allies and yourself beat up on the remaining civ until you seize their supply of oil.
Maybe there needs to be more resources in greater concentration? I don't like the idea of all civs having access to all the resources, but if a civ has oil, they should have oil
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OctaviusIII
|
|
I've been spending a lot of time in the Master of Orion 3 forums which has given me a little bit of an idea of what should have happened: give the player OPTIONS.
If oil and uranium are so important, they should have comparable unit concepts which use something like steam power or gunpowder or something. The only reason that we use oil a lot today is because it packs a lot of punch in a very easy-to-use package.
Or, if the team doesn't want to get conceptual, vital resources should be more common or else it becomes a luck-of-the-draw situation. Perhaps to keep the same strategic elements in place, oil could be concentrated in certain areas rather than spread around. That way you really could trade for oil. That's what the designers should have done (not to mention design test it w/ fans).
As for the best thing with the game as-is, just suck it up and use the editor for future games. It's a shame the team didn't think of such a situation, but oh well. I guess we should just know that Sid Meier makes mistakes... even big ones.
Oh, and as for the death-spiral... why didn't the attacking Civ get a similar response from its population? The AI should have exactly the same rules as the player. Period. Or maybe I'm just missing something only a player would catch...
Last edited by OctaviusIII on 05-11-2001 at 06:42
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MORON
|
|
Vancouver, Canada
Jun 2001
time: 13:15
|
|
.....hum.......
The Japanese in WWII didn't have oil, and they had to fight a country with 10times the industrial power to get it.........
Well, a game is a game....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Blackadar1
|
|
I kinda like that idea. I've been in the same situation but I realized I had to act fast to capture that source of oil and I did, before they got to build those tanks and airplanes Yes it would require you to change your isolationist policy but hey, its either adapt or be eaten in the real world
Yea, but this kind of forces you into being in a position to be able to take on the toughest Civ at the advent of the age of oil. Essentially, this dicates a style of play toward a militaristic bent. Perhaps it's just my wish for a "kinder, gentler" Civ - one bent more toward Culture and diplomacy - which is what Firaxis was aiming for, or so they said in numerous interviews/previews with the media.
Actually, the simplest solution would be remove the dependency of oil on some of the units. Say, keep tanks on Oil but allow the player to build Mech. Armor and some air units - ethanol, pehaps?  Yes, this can be accomplished via the editor, but just because it can be changed doesn't mean it's a poor balancing decision by Firaxis. I actually like the idea of resources. I just think that oil was made waaaaaaaaaaaaay too important and is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too random to be that important.
Note I did not say bug, because it most certainly is not a bug.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Soren Johnson Firaxis
|
|
Hunt Valley, MD
May 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheDarkside
I have to disagree about the resource thign. I kinda like that idea. I've been in the same situation but I realized I had to act fast to capture that source of oil and I did, before they got to build those tanks and airplanes  Yes it would require you to change your isolationist policy but hey, its either adapt or be eaten in the real world
But I do agree on war weariness- particularly when some attacks you! This makes ABSOLUTELY no sense and I'm convinced who ever programmed the war weariness did not stop and think before typing in his formulas and algorithms... Since when does a country that gets attacked go into anti-war protests?! They didnt have a choice! If China suddenly invaded Taiwan- would you think A. The Tawainese would be spurred on by a new sense of nationalism and actually fight better with more patriotism, or B. Tawain will go into massive revolts in protest of the war which Taiwan had no dicision in? Here's a hint, think New York City Sept. 11th. |
You are right, and in fact, that is how war weariness works. (As you might be able to tell, I am the programmer that implemented war weariness...) At any rate, if another civ declares war on you, your cities get happier at first. They only get unhappy once the war starts dragging on...
On an entirely different subject, I am curious whether Blackadar did not notice a source of oil on the map. The map generator is supposed to produce one source of oil for each civ, so there should have been at least three sources of oil on the map. Blackadar, were you using a Tiny map? The map generator often has difficulty find space for all the luxuries and resources on a Tiny map... I need to find out whether this is a bug.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Blackadar1
|
|
No, there were 3 sources of oil and aluminum. However, 2 of the 3 sources of oil and all 3 aluminum were with a Civ that refuses to trade them. The option doesn't even appear. And no, there's not a trade embargo.
So I'm unable to build:
Paratrooper
Marines
Tank
Fighter
Bomber
Helicopter
Transport
Carrier
Submarine
Destroyer
Battleship
Mech Infantry
Modern Armor
Jet Fighter
Stealth Fighter
Stealth Bomber
all due to the lack of access to oil, even though I had a very strong civ.
And due to the lack of aluminum...
Modern Armor
Radar Artillery
Cruise Missle
Tactical Nuke
ICBM
Jet Fighter
Stealth Fighter
Stealth Bomber
Aegis Cruiser
So while modern armor is 24.16.3 and Battleships are 24.20.4., my best alternatives were Infantry @ 8.12.2 and the wonderful Frigate @ a whopping 2.2.4. Kinda tough to win, wouldn't you say?
Why even bother with the first 6000 years if the close games come down to a crapshoot of these two resources??? Think this is an issue now? Wait until multiplayer. People will be screaming their heads off. You'll get down to two closely matched Civs and one will get both the oil resources. Game over, folks.
With all due respect, there's gotta be a way around this roadblock. An advance of "advanced metals" or "synthetics" could be out there for those who don't have access to these resources. Or a wonder. Or something.
As for the war weariness, Soren, it's a wonderful concept. It's just that it can cause a death spiral a player can't get out of.
- Opposition Civ declares war - Has initial success - Continues war - Refuses to hear emmissaries of other nation - Other nation starts to decline, having been built for a Republic - Has cities thrown into revolt - They destroy buidings, wreck economy - Civ gets even weaker - Attacker gets emboldened (maybe built for a Monarchy or Communism), attacks more - Death spiral.
Is gearing your economy and Civ towards a peaceful, Democratic existence a problem in this game? The original Civs were great because they usually gave you the option (unless you were playing on Deity) to play a peaceful Civ. Yes, it had it's problems as well (damn Senate kept getting in the way), but you COULD play that way. It seems like Civ III, even though it was touted as the Civ that provided real alternatives to war, actually encourages players to be even more warlike than before. Hey, if this is the case, I can deal with it, but that should be been make more evident to the public before the release of the game IMHO.
Last edited by Blackadar1 on 02-11-2001 at 08:49
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Soren Johnson Firaxis
|
|
Hunt Valley, MD
May 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Blackadar1
No, there were 3 sources of oil and aluminum. However, 2 of the 3 sources of oil and all 3 aluminum were with a Civ that refuses to trade them. The option doesn't even appear. |
Hmmm.... this could just be a bug. Would it be possible for you to post a screenshot showing how the oil was not available from the Diplomacy Window? Thanks...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
randomturn
|
|
NYC US
Aug 1999
time: 05:15
|
|
oil makes the world go round. it has driven every conflict for 100 years, and everything in the modern world depends on it. I have no problem with Civ3 end-games being so oil dependent, or occasionally losing games that I was winning because of the situation Blackadar1 describes, as it means we have a more realistic game. I do have a few gripes but this isn't one of them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Blackadar1
|
|
One last note before I go to bed...
I'm not attacking Firaxis (the company) or Firaxis (the people). They've made some awesome games. I'm not calling these items bugs. I'm just finding fault with some of the gameplay and balancing issues and the problems that they cause.
But now since I've beaten this horse to death, I'll let it drop and head to bed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SuiteSisterMary
|
|
quote:
I just think that oil and uranium are too damned important to be random resources. It's not like you can see where they are placed early in the game and rush to capture them.
|
If civs should get them automagically, why bother putting them in as resources?
quote:
Here's a hint, think New York City Sept. 11th.
|
And now all the news shows are showing the crying families of the soldiers and sailors deploying, and showing them lamenting that "Daddy won't be home for Christmas!." And do you have any idea how many emails I get in a week from friends and acquaintces who believe that America should 'forgive and forget' or 'violence won't solve violence' or 'we just need to UNDERSTAND why they did that, and they won't do it again!' and such?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dainbramaged13
|
|
Dumbass
Mar 2000
time: 00:15
|
|
Add to this the extrem++++rampant corruption and wever got a patch bug list for firaxis.. thanks, firaxis, im enjoying the game a bunch, but this woul d make it just that much better !
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LordRiker
|
|
im tending to agree, these resources are too damned depended on. we are in the modern age and all i can use is rifleman and artillery cuz i cant get rubber or oil and such, several nations have it but refuse to share, I'd goto war but thats just suidice against them. even though we are at peace too they roam my territory even after nemerous pleas to leave, i cant do a damn think about it cuz i dont have the resources to, besides my play style goes toward the peaceful, Devensive and now Culture way but it seems Firaxis is telling me i cant play like that because i have to goto war to get resources that are required to advance my civ. Thats really annoying, i thought the point of these civ games that Sid Meier makes is to rule your nation as you see fit, be it a peaceful victory or a military victory. I see no such choice as it is, Im forced to fight alot or die from lack of resources.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
Hi Guys,
Not a player yet (obviously, being an Australian), but I'd just like to point out a couple of GENERAL impressions I'm getting about the game and the forum!
1) Yes the game has bugs in it, and thats a problem, but if it makes you feel any better. A friend was telling me about a game he picked up that came out here first, then came out in the States about 1 month later, and guess what?! Our version was full of BUGS!!! but by the time it came out in the States all the bugs had been fixed and a patch was put out on the internet for Australian buyers! (my friend said that, given a choice between wating for the game or putting up with the bugs, he'd go with the latter!!) Some people even say that the internet has given Game companies like IG an excuse to rush games onto the market unfinished, because they can just post a patch later on!
Thats not to say that Zoe and co. have no right to complain. It's just that we need to keep everything in perspective.
2) Leading on from the first point. I can't help but notice the frequency of posts from Dan and Soren in reply to the complaints on this forum. Not only do they seem willing to clear up any misunderstandings about the games mechanics, but they also seem willing to take on board legitimate criticisms about bugs and mechanics problems (which will probably turn up fixed in future patches!) I think that is a sign of a group of people who truly CARE, not only about the game, but about what the die-hard fans think of it. I tell you, I find that pretty rare these days, so credit where credit is due!
Anyway, sorry to get off topic, but just thought it needed to be said. I reckon that, in a month from now, everyone will be used to the game and (with the appropriate patches) will look back on these threads and have a good laugh!!
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.
P.S: Dan or Soren, I've read that enemy roads don't help units travelling through hills, mountains or forests (by making the terrain count as plains), is this true? If it is, then can you change those parameters using the Editor (eg. can I say that enemy roads don't grant 3 movement, but do grant 1 movement, regardless of terrain!) Anything you have to say on this would be appreciated!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UKScud
|
|
Auckland, NZ
Sep 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
If you read the thread I started about oil and the implications it would have on your actions in the industrial/modern ages you'll see a variety of opinions regarding your 'problem'.
After the discussion kinda petered out, I'm left with the opinion that denying the oil resource is the best way to get a significant advantage over a competitor Civ, but you should be able to put up a good fight if you defend with infantry and artillery.
If what you say happened in your game, happened in EVERY game...or the MAJORITY of games...then fine..I think you have a good point, it takes away from the gameplay.
But, if the game occasionally throws you a curveball and leaves you in a position where you have a real fight to survive on your hands, accept it as such. If you win, so much the better.
Wouldn't you be saying what a cool game Civ3 is, if you had come out the better in the game you mention. Unlikely, but if you had, you'ld be feeling good about yourself.
What it comes down to is this. Ask yourself the question, 'If I knew that every game of Civ3 I played would be biased in my favour (one way or another) would it be a challenge, and would I enjoy it?'
Lady Luck sometimes works against you. Smile and play another game. Tell us how that one goes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Soren Johnson Firaxis
|
|
Hunt Valley, MD
May 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by LordRiker
im tending to agree, these resources are too damned depended on. we are in the modern age and all i can use is rifleman and artillery cuz i cant get rubber or oil and such, several nations have it but refuse to share, I'd goto war but thats just suidice against them. even though we are at peace too they roam my territory even after nemerous pleas to leave, i cant do a damn think about it cuz i dont have the resources to, besides my play style goes toward the peaceful, Devensive and now Culture way but it seems Firaxis is telling me i cant play like that because i have to goto war to get resources that are required to advance my civ. Thats really annoying, i thought the point of these civ games that Sid Meier makes is to rule your nation as you see fit, be it a peaceful victory or a military victory. I see no such choice as it is, Im forced to fight alot or die from lack of resources. |
The idea is that you can either acquire them through peacefully through trade or forcefully through war. I still would like to get info from Blackadar as to why he wasn't able to trade for Oil. (Did the AI ask for too much? Did it not appear in the trade list? Had they not discovered Refining?)
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-11-2001 06:35
|