13-11-2001 04:37									#1
	c194# CIVILIZATION III, A SHOE TOO BIG? Tired of ads?

194# CIVILIZATION III, A SHOE TOO BIG?
The realistic faction speaks

by Shadowstrike

Last edited by MarkG on 13-11-2001 at 05:09

	13-11-2001 05:24									#2
	Got spare money?

hey shadowstrike, I was wondering where you went.

I have to agree. a civ3 that has everything that was in THE LIST, and has an editor that can turn civ into pac-man would be unreasonably huge.

A lot of the griping that went on is being personally peeved that our personal favorite suggestions didn't become part of the game.

I do have to disagree about mp, though. these days, everything (except adventures) is expected to have MP ability. especially strategy games. I don't know how it is that most of the reviewers have glossed over the lack. If this was a new game in the genre, it would be expected in this day and age. or considered inferior.

Love to have you back. I became king at some point , and I didn't even notice for a couple of days.

	13-11-2001 05:51									#3
	Put an end to popups!

I'm still here. *waves* Only occasionally these days though. Yeah, and you can see from the article how much my ego depends on these boards.

I guess my main incentive for writing that was to stop the hordes shouting "The game is missing feature xyz, I'll boycott it!". Ranting was flying everywhere, and I'll admit it, I was in the fray shouting alongside the masses. Then thee was the calm before Civ3.

You have a good point about multiplayer. I haven't really been watching the game market carefully these few years (and my tendancy to reach back to my SP roots), and I never thought that multiplayer support would become a critical component.

OTOH, Civ has always been a hard game to MP, considering the sheer number of turns, forcing it into a demi-RT game, which doesn't work either. Firaxis doesn't have anything cut out for it there, they must find the right balence between RT Civ, and mind-numbing turn based play that rarely gets past 2000 BC. Only the future will tell how it turns out.

I would still like a macro language though.

	13-11-2001 06:59									#4
	Increase Your PM Length

Well, a few comments:

quote: Let's assume for a second that Civilization III is a totally new product on the market. Chances are, it would sell a little less, but it would receive far more positive reviews then negative. Instead of shouting: "What??? NO multiplayer?", we would be saying: "This game will have one of the best diplomacy models ever!"

I understand your point, but I think I'm not comparing Civ3 to what came before in the series. If this were Civ1, I'd *still* have the same complaints ... perhaps even louder. And in the meantime, really great OTHER games have come out showing that x, y and z CAN be done in a game.

quote: We must realize that our dream Civilization III can never materialize because it would end up too impractical to be plausible.

I don't think an 'air superiority' function that actually works is impractical. Same with a myriad other issues that have NOTHING to do with some idealistic dream of what Civ3 could be.

Quality Product is the most important step ... and in some important ways, Firaxis stumbled.

	13-11-2001 08:45									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I have to agree with Yin, but I'm not overly concerned. I'm not getting it at least until Christmas, so there's plenty of time for that all-important first patch...

	13-11-2001 09:58									#6
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Actually, i am more forgiving if a game needs patches. To find out what needs to be patched takes alot of time. As a programmer, i know nothing works perfectly the first time.

What i hate most are the missing little niceties that shouldn't be ommited, and will not be patched. Examples, typing "P" in a listbox jumping down to the letter "P". How about a way to find the best bases for min/food/com production. The ability to zoom out 1 or 2 levels for just an overview. Also i find myself Cris-Crssing the screen to select options which, is a waste of time. A better right-click menu would help. Reveal map options? Not in CivIII. Its all the little things like this that keep good games, from being great.

SMACs graphics weren't the greatest and i honestly hate the drab colors. But the interface was thought out a little better. Players had more customization control. Over the long haul, do you play a game for years after its publish date because of the graphics, or the playability? CivIII took a hit on playability. That's why people are dissapointed.

	13-11-2001 20:37									#7
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Actually, i am more forgiving if a game needs patches. To find out what needs to be patched takes alot of time. As a programmer, i know nothing works perfectly the first time.

While a good part of me is wont to agree with you on this, there is still a small part of me that has to absolutely bring exception to this. It's the small part of me that has to say "Why shouldn't something I pay $40 or $50 or $60 work in a manner that I would deem comprehensive and complete?" Honestly, I don't think that Civ3, in its current incarnation, is either of those. However, this is not to say that I don't currently thoroughly enjoy Civ3, or that I won't enjoy it even more once patches start flowing in the public's direction. But I don't think it's a good idea to allow ourselves, as consumers, to let ourselves think that way...to lower our standards or expectations of products.

Sorry if this sounds like a rant. Honestly, the part of me that feels this way is really very small, but it tends to get larger and more vocal, especially when something "near and dear" to me is on the line. Basically, I don't want to see Firaxis go the way of other to-remain-nameless megasoftware corporations (rumored to be based in Seattle), who despite accusations of having a CEO who is the anti-Christ, merely suffer from a severe lack of caring about the consumer any farther than getting their hands on the $199 it costs to buy their most recent product version ($99 to upgrade).

Lately I have found that the software I purchase (games, or otherwise) is a direct reflection of how I perceive the game designers/producers in relation to their fan base. I've always seen Firaxas (and my other favorite development company, Bioware) as having a sincere interest in the community. This is something I feel drive goods gaming companies and as a result, produces excellent games.

As far as Civ3 being a "SHOE TOO BIG", well, I'd have to say that it was a pretty big shoe too fill and no, it simply wasn't going to happen, at least not the way most people expected. I remember reading "THE LIST" many moons ago, chuckling, most of the time thinking "wow, if they actually make this game it will come out in like, 2020." However, I think the developers have done a good job at taking THE LIST and some of the better ideas and incorporating it into their vision of the game. From reading these boards, I think a lot of people have the misunderstanding that the game was to be compeltely designed around the needs and wants of THE LIST. I think these are the people who are going to be the most confused and disappointed when they have discovered this is not the truth.

Even in its current, flawed state, I think the game excels in most areas. I think it represents a concentrated effort in raising the bar against Civ2 or AC, and achievs a good balance between the fundmantal "civness" of games past and in the ingenuity in bringing in useful, new features. I think the only people who will be or should be disappointed (aside from the aforementioned) are those expecting absolute perfection....the kind that say "we've waited X years for this game to come out, why doesn't this work this way...why didn't they do this...why didn't they do that" or those nitpicking the "bugginess" of the game. Unlike other companies, Firaxis has a record of actually fixing problems with patches, so all that remains to be seen is what Firaxis deems a "bug" and what it deems "normal, albeit different, gameplay than what has come before."

Ramblingly yours,
Dave

	13-11-2001 21:34									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by yin26 Well, a few comments: I understand your point, but I think I'm not comparing Civ3 to what came before in the series. If this were Civ1, I'd *still* have the same complaints ... perhaps even louder. And in the meantime, really great OTHER games have come out showing that x, y and z CAN be done in a game.

I hope you are not refering to EU, yin???

Come to think of it, I think the way I got into Civ2 offers a leason for Civ3, at least for me. You see, I didn't play my first civ game until I bought Civ2 MGE in January 1999. By that time, the 1.3 patch had been released, along with MP (obviously) and there were hundreds of great scenarios to play. It probably was a good thing that I wasn't around when Civ2 was first released, like I am with Civ3. I wish I could have gotten into Civ3 the same way as I did Civ2. Sigh.

	13-11-2001 21:51									#9
	Got spare money?

I'm a little surpise that an article speaking aspirationally about what Civ 3 might contain has been published over a week after factual info about what was really in Civ 3 began to hit the boards. Any one of the more reasoned reviews of the game would seem more appropriate.

Firaxis have done well to produce a game that we have all been eagerly awaiting. It wasn't canned or cut to pieces unlike some other highly anticipated titles in recent years. Its playable and stable on most platforms but some bugs that would be hard pressed to go unnoticed had any solid beta testing been done have slipped through. Pretty much a standard game release then.

I don't think either camp can claim "victory". The bugs and missing features are undeniable but not enough to stop the game being playable and enjoyable for the majority. We should not allow Infogrames or Firaxis to think that this level of quality is perfectly acceptable though. Only by voicing our complaints might we persuade the suits to take a different attitude to quality next time.

	13-11-2001 23:24									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I am expressing my oppinion of games released that need patches or missing multiplayer by not buying it until after the first couple of patches, or if necessary waiting for the bargin bin. I finally got the hang of waiting past the initial release, reading boards, not reviews, to form an opinion before I buy. I can wait, I own 300 computer games, theoretically I should be able to wait, I wonder why its so hard to wait, but I will wait. But it is the only statement that Infograms and Firaxis and other companies will understand, I am tired of beta testing their games for free, or I should say at my expense, period end of discussion. If I negativly effect their sales numbers by waiting for a patch then I'm doing my part as a game consumer critic. But someone has to buy it to tell the rest of us it needs a patch, catch 22. Thanks all on this board for your honest discussions about the game so I can make an informed purchase, or non purchase.

	13-11-2001 23:47									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

P.S. I bought CivII 3 times... CivII ...CivIIMPG..... ToT...+ one of the 2 scenario packs befor ToT..... I will not ...will not .....repeat that process.... even though I can afford it now.

	13-11-2001 23:55									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I should clarify what i said earlier. What i meant about forgiving bugs is related only to game balance. But if developers gave the community more control over game variables they wouldn't need to bother, we could fix it. It would be great if that could be done with a full featured editor. If that isn't possible, then notepad will do just fine.

	14-11-2001 00:25									#13
	Increase the size of your Attachments

In RailRoad Tycoon 2 they gave you so much control you could program in VB like code anything you wanted. However, they didn't tell you how to do it. I assume because it would be impractical to supply a 400 page manual. But there were other easier things you could do. Lots of Y/N checkboxes for units, you could look at what script was there for a particular senario and change the values or add a few new ones.

	14-11-2001 00:27									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I should clarify what i said earlier. What i meant about forgiving bugs is related only to game balance. But if developers gave the community more control over game variables they wouldn't need to bother, we could fix it. It would be great if that could be done with a full featured editor. If that isn't possible, then notepad will do just fine.

I'll agree with that 100% (sorry if I sounded a little overzealous in my response).

I would find it very interesting to know why Firaxis decided to scrap the tried-and-true, "I-can-edit-the-game-files-with-notepad" route in favor of the new file extensions. I assume they were trying to make the editing tools more powerful and dynamic...unfortunately, most of us have already seen the state the editing tools are currently in. Since there's a good chance that problem will be remedied (soon), most people I think are willing to let it slide, for now. Of course, that hasn't stopped a lot of people from already diving right into mod and scenario creation. *I* would probably be doing that too, except the game is too fun and time consuming to be working on anything else.

Busily yours,
Dave

	14-11-2001 02:13									#15
	Full PM-box? Change here!

If the game was everything the veterans wanted, then it would not be accessible to the new people learning it. Those fans truly devoted to the phenomenon created by Sid Meier would want others to be able to enjoy this game.

For that to occur, I'm sure trade-off had to be made.

	14-11-2001 02:25									#16
	Remove this text

Sometimes we lose perspective that us hardcore gamers at Apolyton and civfanatics represent, at most, 1% of the customers that have bought Civ3. Maybe because we make the most noise, they are forced to listen to us but Firaxis knows it is in their best interest to keep improving Civ3 (and to release those 12 scenarios!).

	14-11-2001 03:27									#17
	number of logins dont tell the truth Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Steve Clark Sometimes we lose perspective that us hardcore gamers at Apolyton and civfanatics represent, at most, 1% of the customers that have bought Civ3.

last month we had 230,000 visitors. this month so far we had 190,000

	14-11-2001 04:16									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I think a large part of the disappointment dedicated fans have had with the game is simply due to unrealistic expectations, as has been pointed out by many others. Undoubtedly Civ3 does have many faults, some large, but these will matter more to some than others.

For example, two of the most valid complaints that I've seen about the game are lack of multiplayer, and lack of a decent scenario editor. I'm personally disappointed that neither of these made it into the game, but not overly so. Along with the majority of Civ players, I didn't play a single multiplayer game or fan-created scenario and I was never bothered by this, because I was having more than enough fun doing 'vanilla' single player. Incredible though it may seem, Civ's massive success is largely due to the fact that it appeals to a wide cross-section of the public, many of whom don't normally play computer games. These people also don't have the scheduled time for multiplayer and don't particularly care about the scenarios.

When I told my friends about Civ3 - and these are guys who play Red Alert, Max Payne, Counterstrike and the rest - they were quite interested and I suspect they'll get their hands on the game eventually. I added that there would be no multiplayer capacity, expressing my annoyance, especially since it was 'supposed' to be in.

They didn't go, "What, no multiplayer? Damn those lying scum at Firaxis, I'll boycott them forever as obviously a game released today without multiplayer is not worth buying at all, why, they should be ashamed at trying to rip us off, etc etc."

No, they said, "Oh, right."

They said that because they didn't really care that Civ3 wouldn't have multiplayer. They've never experienced Civ, multiplayer-style, and to be honest I don't think they really expected it, even though they play many other multiplayer games.

There's a difference in reaction here. While everyone would be happy if multiplayer was in the game, they would not necessarily be angry if it wasn't. Same for the scenario editor.

Now, to be sure, if there were no improvements over Civ2 then people wouldn't be pleased. But of course there are, and I've repeated enthused to my friends about the incredible experiences I've had playing against the AI.

An interesting comparison can be drawn with my friends' other favourite game, Max Payne. A sequel is currently in the works and you can bet that there are pretty high expectations for it (not quite as much as there were for Civ3, of course). I'm sure that there are people who will be arguing for multiplayer of some kind to be implemented, and I'm also fairly sure that it probably won't make it in since no-one gave a damn that it wasn't in the original game and it sold perfectly well without it, thank you very much. Of course, these people will be disappointed by its lack in the sequel (again, not quite as much as people were for Civ3). But then, most people just won't care.

Having said all of that, I still get annoyed with Civ3. I'm annoyed that I have to see all of the AIs moves between turns, I'm annoyed that their settlers can warp, that my jetfighters can't shoot straight and a few other things. Compared to the rest of the game though, they're a minor inconvenience. Granted, they shouldn't be in the game at all, but then I have long since learned not to expect perfection in the world since I'll have to wait too long for it.

Just to finish, I read about many people saying that they prefer Civ2 to Civ3. Does that mean you prefer ICS, inadequate diplomacy and AI, smaller map sizes, poorer graphics, a non-existent hypertext interface, city-based unit management and no borders, to name but a few problems? People seem reluctant to discuss the real improvements that Civ3 has made over Civ2. Imagine if ICS still existed in Civ3* - I don't want to even think of the reaction to that, but dozens of threads decrying it would probably be an underestimate. Yet do we see a similar number of threads praising the fix? Of course not. Because we expect this from Firaxis.

Well. Firaxis is just another computer games company and while it does have good old Sid, they're only human and they occasionally make mistakes - as will every other computer games company. I'm not going to say 'Live with it,' because in theory there should be multiplayer, there should be a scenario editor and there shouldn't be the bugs. But Firaxis had to be pragmatic, with the release dates and the testing. I don't doubt for a moment that they wanted to create the best game they could, and that they wanted multiplayer in. For various (probably financial) reasons, they couldn't do it. As for the bugs, they'll never all be caught, even with a public beta, which is itself fraught with problems.

Babbled on for longer than I expected. Oh well. Don't hold it against me.

*A very few people claim that ICS is in Civ3. I think I'm accurate in saying that most people disagree.

	14-11-2001 05:31									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Let's assume for a second that Civilization III is a totally new product on the market. Chances are, it would sell a little less, but it would receive far more positive reviews then negative. Instead of shouting: "What??? NO multiplayer?", we would be saying: "This game will have one of the best diplomacy models ever!"

that is fanatsy, you can't prove anything by saying this. it starts with an illogical premise and builds from there. even discussing this part of article(and the other parts that use this as basis for their reasoning) is hopeless and nothing but a good way to past time. heh.

	14-11-2001 05:45									#20
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'm sure that after a few patches Civ III will be a great game. One to add MP, one to add scenarios (and real scenario editor/events/etc). You can tell from the file formats and interface that these things were planned into the game.

In fact, I bet that a lot of these features were in the code originally, but were taken out to A) reduce the amount of code to test B) leave something for the add-ons. I just hope that we can get MP and scenarios without being forced to buy another expansion pack. I resisted buying Civ II:FW until I saw it in a bargain bin for $4.95.

BTW: Have any of you played Master of Magic with and without the patches. The game crashed every 10 turns or so when they first released it, never mind the unbalanced and broken features... By the final patch it is one of the best TBS games available. Microprose kept fixing the game for nearly two years and never charged for any of the patches... We can hope for the same...

Ze Ace

	14-11-2001 20:12									#21
	Put an end to popups!

I agree a lot with your article, Shadowstrike. I think many of us are wrongly comparing civ3 to an ideal that cannot be reached. We were expecting some super game that combined all our desires.

Sure, civ3 will require a few patches, but what game doesn't. I think that overall, Firaxis had the right approach to designing the game. They did not try to pack every single feature possible, or give hundreds of exciting units. But rather, they focused on enhancing the game's simple appeal and longlasting fun. I think they succeeded.

The bottom line for me is whether the game is fun to play. I find civ3 to be incredibly fun and addictive to play. I played for hours and had a blast, because the game was so much fun! And that is what really counts!

	14-11-2001 20:32									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Compared to many games, I have noticed that Civ III is pretty reliable and I have not come across any bugs. This is a testament to the work there at Firaxis.

Patches will come out, of course, but this is not a bungled effort on their part.

	15-11-2001 01:43									#23
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Jayis Solis If the game was everything... then it would not be accessible to the new people learning it.

Not true, and i cited Railroad Tycoon 2 as my example. That had both simple and complex editing features. Although you couldn't add buildings or trains to my knowledge, you could script any event trigger or variable imaginable for the existing objects. Essentially, you could make trains run at any speed, buildings produce as much as you wanted. Or, if "billy the kid" robbed a train, he turns himself in and pays you $5,000. This ability was awesome, sometimes RRT2 was too easy, so you could script events to make things harder.

I would like to make a correction, there is a zoom feature for CivIII and a way to sort information A -> Z or Z -> A on the various screens. If you don't read the manual and just jump right in you would never know that. The things you need to click are regular text, not button like.

	15-11-2001 02:38									#24
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by zeace In fact, I bet that a lot of these features were in the code originally, but were taken out to A) reduce the amount of code to test B) leave something for the add-ons.

I agree, but there is a way to kill two birds with one stone, and still make money with expansion packs. Look at "skinnable" music players. Why is WinAmp so popular? The object is always the same, to play music. But the community at large is responsible for the success of the application. Imagine what a game like Civ would be like if they followed the example of Sonique or Winamp. No-one has a copywrite on the "Musketeer" so why are things like this locked down in the code and uneditable?

The extra expansion pack revenue is generated from the artwork, themes, music, etc.. which would be better than most people could produce. This is the logic to the RollerCoaster Tycoon expansion packs.

	15-11-2001 16:53									#25
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Hey guys I've been playing the civilization series for 10 years now much like most of you. I was totally addicted to SMACX and of course I've read Velocrix's guide

I hear a lot of people *****ing about "it's just the same" or "where's the multiplayer". In response to the first point I say "you haven't played much of either game if you think it's just the same". In response to the second point I ask you guys have you really thought about whether Civilization is suited for multiplayer?

Have any of you played Alpha Centauri MP? My friends and I found the only way to really play the game was with the "Simultaneous Turn" option on (everyone moves at the same time and after the last player has moved the turn ends). While this is very playable at the beginning of the game we still found the end of the game was "SLOW" as in if you think it's bad for single player it's pretty much unplayable as a multiplayer game and we had the benefit of all being on the same LAN.

The other option was having a timer keep you honest on your turn but this really ruins the game for me IMHO, especially in the late game when you probably have tons of cities and want to make sure each are doing what you want them to.

First post, sorry for the long-windedness and I know Firaxis is working on some "really cool ideas for multiplayer" but I question whether it's even that kind of game... remember if you're looking for kick-ass real-time strategy in a historical context there's two games out that will satisfy your craving: Age of Empires II and Empire Earth.

	15-11-2001 17:11									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Just My 2 Cents ...I know Firaxis is working on some "really cool ideas for multiplayer" but I question whether it's even that kind of game... remember if you're looking for kick-ass real-time strategy in a historical context there's two games out that will satisfy your craving: Age of Empires II and Empire Earth.

Civ has more in common with traditional boardgames than RTS. People are still prepared to meet for weeks or weekends to play massive boardgames where turns can take much longer. The art of filling the downtime is much easier when you are face to face but that is why it is essential that MP Civ permit other products to run alongside like ICQ. While one player fumbles their units the rest can be making secret deals or discussing the football.

	15-11-2001 23:24									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Good point but I how many people will be prepared to meet for a weekend? This isn't the typical multiplayer game where you can have a game up and running fairly quickly (which is the allure of most MP games at this point).

CONSIDER: Age of Empires is at one end of the MP extreme i.e. it is considered a long, high-commitment game with the typical game ranging from half an hour to an hour. I've seen many games online where players (winning or losing) would quit without warning because the game was taking to long.

I'm sure there's hundreds of fanatics on this forum who would like nothing more than to spend a weekend playing MP Civilization but the average player will be hard pressed to find such devotion among his circle of friends... most of my friends are avid game players and I can only think of two that would even consider giving up that much time to play this game.

The point is this isn't really a game you can play over the internet; while it is most certainly PLAYABLE the time involved in a game will make it harder to find players for pick up games. I'm sure when I've got the Civ jones I'll be able to find willing participants here but good luck integrating this with something like Gamespy (and having good/commited players show up).

	16-11-2001 01:37									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I know I'm in the minority but I really liked CTP2 presisely because it had a multiplayer function. Playing another human will always be better then playing the AI; not only because humans reason more effectively but also because we can chat and joke amoungst ourselves when it's not our turn.
Finding players was never an issue since all play occured on the internet you can always find SOMEONE who wanted to play. Plus I've both seen and taken part in games which lasted for 12+ hours but if one player had to leave it was not problem. You simply saved the game and continued at a later time.

	17-11-2001 03:14									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Jen Dragon P.S. I bought CivII 3 times... CivII ...CivIIMPG..... ToT...+ one of the 2 scenario packs befor ToT..... I will not ...will not .....repeat that process.... even though I can afford it now.

I agree with you 100%! I bought Civ, then CivNet, then CivII, then CivIIMPG, but then, and worst of all, I remember my purchase of ToT and I still get angry. I too refuse, REFUSE, to do so again. I waited and purchased the SMAC/X combo (original and expansion) for $40(CDN) just last year. I'll wait it out again - and if no deal comes around, I just won't bother... If that means I'm not a hardcore Civ'er - so be it.

	17-11-2001 08:57									#30
	Remove this text

Well, I'm not THAT mad about the game anymore, but it still let me down.

Why the experience factor of military units from SMAC were unpratical? You know, a elite unit that gets a better chance at combat is really more useful than a elite one that only has slightly more hp but can still be beaten normally by a conscript lesser unit just because it is on a montain...

Why a better interface was unpractical? Civ2 and SMAC got great interfaces, and Civ3 not only got a lousy interface but the manual have pictures of the OLD interface! That means that the manual doesn't explain the interface very well.

Why do I have to double click on that star on my capitol to build a embassy? Couldn't that be done in a intuitive menu in the foreign advisor screen?

Why is unpratical to make spies sabotage city improvements, if this has been done in both Civ2 and SMAC?

Why is unpratical to you to view other civ's cities by just clicking in them providing that an embassy is in order? I live in Brazil, but if you want me to give any information you want about Paris I can return it to you in some days - they are available in the French embassies and even the internet, and I'll pay nothing for it.

Ok, military contingent can't be discovered this way (not in details), but you can hide ONLY THIS (the military instalations of a city not including the barracks, wich is of public knlowledge) and maybe financial data, so you could get those by missions.
But really: pay 150 gold just to see what a city have and what it is building? You gotta be mad, I never did this and never regreted not doing this...

At the very least to keep this shame, these prices at least should be way lower.

And why it IS pratical to make democracy immune to propaganda?I gotta say, this is the worst idea I've ever seen for game balance!
If they had to have a "propaganda-immune" gov, it got to be communism (Iron Curtain, anyone?), BUT is would STILL be unbalanced.

The catch is simple: since democracy gives liberty of information, you can't garrison rebellions and can't forbid ideologies, in truth democracy would be MORE suscetible to propaganda, even more if the city is in civil disorder.

But this is just "mental masturbation", fact is that propaganda-immunity (or suscetibility - sic) is unbalanced. It is crap, there's no point in cities that are simply discontent or revolt like mad but won't turn to propaganda just because of democracy, that's BS.

Alas, while the diplomacy in this game is great, the espionage issue is the worst of the civ games.

- You don't need to steal techs, because if you got enough money to pay a 'steal tech' mission, you most certainly can BUY it from another Civ (and without chances of failure once you paid).

- The price to peek in other cities is unbearable to any voyeur.

- You can sabotage production. So what? You have to pay the sabotage mission PLUS the "city peek" mission, as I stated above. Anyone ever wanted pay all that? I don't. Didn't miss anything, except the fun that would be involved with this.

- Steal map: same big deal as tech - if you can afford the money, you can afford the map. If you're in war with the other civ no big deal, I myself keep exchanging maps every 15 turns or so, so I'm up to date.

- Plant disease: removed from the game.

- Expose spy: spying is SO lame and expensive that even the AI never bothered to do it with me.

- Initiate propaganda: the ONLY useful mission, shame about democracy that spoiled all the fun - since almost all civs later in the game turn to democracy.

Governments are another pain in the ass. All in all, in the end it comes only to "democracy peaceloving civ" and "communism evil baby-eaters", since republic is an "alpha version" of demo and monarchy is a good-for-nothing gov that you need only in the early game. In this aspect I think Sid thought more of his personal convictions (wich I don't agree at all, England and Japan for example are Monarchies and are very efficient) than of making a fun government system (again, I don't need to mention the absolute dumbness of a propaganda-immune gov other than promoting what he thinks)


Whew... yeah, I know, I write a lot.
I can enjoy playing Civ3 now, but I can assure you that by the end of the month or so I won't be playing it anymore - while Civ, Civ2 and SMAC/X I've played (each one) from 1 to 2 years (!).

So yeah, Sid this time messed things up IMNSHO. Maybe he's getting old... maybe he's getting pop... maybe he can even be getting cocky... I dunno. But SMACX > Civ2 > Civ > Civ3
(not really in this order, but Civ3 being the last one either way)

Why?

Okay, Civ3 REALLY have more features than civ1, but you need to take consideration of the time of release of both games... A game that many years ago kept someone (like me) playing for 1 year or more is a classic, while a technically superior game of nowadays that keep me playing a month or so is not so good.

That's why Pac-man and Mario Bros. are considered to be classics while TA: Kingdoms isn't, despite the last being technically superior to those too (way) earlier ones.

That's my problem with Civ3. Hadn't I played SMACX all the ways I could during two years or so, I would be playing it now instead of Civ3. Since I've played fairly enough, I'll play Civ3 a bit, just out of curiosity about the game, before I trash it on my closet and move to the next game.

A patch? I don't think that a patch would fix/add all the things I miss about the game, I doubt they'll even touch democracy's unbalance factors.