|
Kristjan
|
|
Estonia
Jan 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
Hello
Since I have seldom written to Apolyton forums, I use a chance to introduce myself here.
I have been playing PC strategy games for 10 years from now, starting with Warldors 1.00, there were some Commodore games before that. I have played Warldords series, Warcraft, Steel Empires 1, MOO 1, Civ1, Civ2, KOEI Gengis Khan and maybe some others of minor importance that have escaped my mind by now and mastered them to a level where AI has no chance of winning even if I started with serious handicaps. Besides that, I am an average chessplayer. I am enjoyed testing SG's AI weak and strong points for years.
Below I will list civ3's new features compared to civ2 and give my opinion on these. I will use Smilie icons for that --  for "better than civ2" and  for "worse than civ2", ranging from one smilie to three smilies.  means neutral attitude.
1) Stronger military AI. Needs to be tested further. AI definitely is stronger in Civ3 than in Civ2 but it is still no mach to experienced player.
1a) Usage of navy. AI uses its navy to take its armed forces behind enemy lines even if it has land connection with the opponent. .
1b) AI tactic abilities improved. AI tries to destroy infrastructure and find weak points in enemy lines. It is still far from tactic abilities needed to beat human, espescially in defence missions where it is definitely too passive.
1c) AI overall military planning is still too passive. I can hardly see a distinction between civ2 and civ3 in that matter. In a stone-age war, Russians offered me peace when I had driven their forces back to their borders regardless the fact that I was unable to capture any of their cities. If its in winning position, AI tends to be satisfied with a tribute instead of finishing off the enemy and taking all. AI lacks capability for long-range planning of offencives, that means preparing for massive strikes in peace time, stockpiling military hardware with intention to destroy a certain opponent. Therefore it loses surprise advantage.
1d) Needs further testing -- AI capabilities in extreme situations (map with many small islands for instance).
2) Stronger non-military AI. Non-military AI definitely is stronger than civ2, espescially in expansion missions.
2a) Expansion. Greatly improved -- AI that is trying to use ICS is a new feature. Has to be improved still -- AI has to cease creating cities in obviously vulnerable on not perspective spots in "holes" of other civs' zone of cultural influence.
2b) Economic capabilities of AI. Somewhat improved because it seems to me that in Regent level without extra bonuses, AI advances as fast as in civ2's Deity level, where it receives several extra bonuses. In spite of that, I was among best scientific civs even in my first game of civ3.
2c) Diplomatic capabilities improved. AI no longer tries to fight you simply because you are a human player and is able to make reasonable demands and proposals. It still lacks ruthlessness in winning position and gives away advances too easily.
3) Game concepts.
3a) Culture. Definitely on of the strongest points of civ3.
3b) Various victory conditions.
3c) Small wonders.
3d) Trade. Trade has been completely re-designed in civ3, resulting the liquidation of Caravan, one of the most important units of civ2 and civ1. Through I understand the reasons of diplomatic trade model, I would still like to express my deep sorrow over the fate of the Caravan unit and therefore I will give no points for or against trade system change. A reamarque about scenarious -- it would have been great to have a scenario where one depends on its ability of making trade with caravans, but killing every caravan gives some gold to the civ which killed it -- that would have resulted in complete analogy to robbery and sea pirates. I am very sorry that there is no way to make such a scenario in civ3. I would have liked to have a possibility to choose between trade models in each game.
3e) Diplomacy and spying -- greatly improved.
3f) Corruption. Here I have to say that the model of corruption of civ3 has no historical background and seems to be only an easy way for developers to limit ICS. Corruption only must not destroy the possibility to govern half a world or more, there shpuld be ways to manage colonial empires like British empire or govern big federal states. My suggestion -- add a city improvement of Governor's office analoguous to the SW of Forbidden Palace and state forms Colonial Empire (Ancient) and Federation (Industrial) under which it would be functional. From current settings it seems that Communism is the final solution for all the troubles of the world and I really hope that that is not the hidden message to fans by Firaxis civ3 team. I do not protest against high corruption levels i early stages of civ, but I definitely disagree with the cureless nature that it seems to have in civ3.
3g) Impotent human fighters bug. Needs no furhter explanation. Extremely annoying.
3h) Manhattan Project. Needs to be a small wonder. Civ2 sensless feature continued.
3i) Inability to use roads out of your territory. Has no historical explanation (on the contrary, makes blitzkriegs impossible) and seems to be a handicap forced onto humans who are more active and tactically smarter than AI.
3j) No race in space, removal of importance of advance that increases SS thrust (Fusion Power). A good and exciting feature removed with no apparent reason. (Sorry, I have not seen it myself yet, I rely on other posts in this matter).
3k) Mission-based air units. Some absolutely silly features of civ1 and civ2 at last removed.
3l) Airbases removed with no apparent purpose.
3m) Re-enforcing of the terrain improvement model known from civ1 (irrigation/mine + railroad). Definitely a step backwards.
3n) Un-balanced combat model -- combat result less predictable than in civ2.
3o) Introduction of workers -- a great enchancment.
3p) Swamps removed with no apparent reason. They still exist in reality, you know... Terrain variety should be increased, not reduced.
3q) Terrain transformation removed. It should have been limited, not removed. An engineer cannot make a plain from Mount Everest, it is true, but it is still possible to turn plains into grasslands with heavy cost. Besides that, there should be an option to create terraced fields in mountains like they exist in reality (Caucasus, Japan, Andes etc). And I am still looking forward to ability of creating canals.
3r) Introduction of resources -- a really great step. Congratulations!
3s) Introduction of desease.
3t) Introduction of races (cultural grouping).
3u) Introduction of sea terrain type.
3v) City resources needed to build improvements. More accurate and powerful than in civ2.
3x) Bombard option.
3y) Units reserved for certain civs.
3z) Golden Age.
3EndOfTheAlphabet) 16 civs in scenarios instead of 8. Last but not least!
4) Editor tools.
4a) Game rules editor improved, though it lacks 'Add' capability in its original form.
4b) Macro language removed. Destroying all possibilities to create many wonderful scenarios.
4c) Determination of initial position disabled. A really silly thing.
4d) No minimap in map editor. Makes it difficult to use.
4e) Placing of units to the map and editing cities disabled. Needs no further comments.
Conclusion.
Civ3 lacks features making it more challenging than civ2. Beating AI which receives enourmous bonuses it is not a challenge. AI is smarter but has to be made more active in diplomacy and war (that does not mean that I mourn the sensless fighting of civ2). Many good featurs of civ2 have been disabled and some civ1 models restored. The greatest imprtance of most of civ3 improvements is enchanceing the possibilities of scenario-making but unfortunately civ3 lacks the very basic tools for that. Civ3 definitely is a better game than civ2, but it is nearer to civ2 than civ2 is to civ1. Re-introducing of civ1 concepts is a step backwards in many occasions. The limited capabilities of the editor and removed cheat menu suggest that Firaxis team works on more powerful editor that would allow everything that was to be done with cheat menu in civ2. I am looking forward to hear news about new editor. I have not calculated the totals of my s and s, but if I had to give a mark to the game as a whole, it would be 1,5, that means, one and half s. With a proper editor it would have certainly been at least .
|
08-11-2001 04:15
).
|
|