 |
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:16
|
|
Give the game a patch or two before giving up on it. Civ2, while in my opinion a more revolutionary release than Civ3, also had numerous problems, some of which STILL have no fix. So be a little patient...
Venger
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PhillipII
|
|
Sydney, Australia
Nov 2001
time: 15:16
|
|
true, the diplomat AI refuses to make any reasonable deals in terms of luxuries and resources.
if you dont want a city just raze it instead of occupying it.
Are you kidding about CTP? that was the worst game in Civ history, yes even worse than the woeful ToT Midgard campaign...and thats really saying something.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Raleigh
|
|
You need to learn some more mechanics of the game before you make a final judgement. For instance:
Trades ARE fair but fairness is dependent on a lot including cultural values, how powerful you are, what you need, etc. For instance, I find early on that other civs will trade techs with you on a fairly even basis.
Luxuries + marketplaces have an increasing effect: 1-2 luxuries = 1 happy face, 3-4= happy faces, etc. Therefore if you have 2 luxuries and want an extra one, that third additional luxury will give you 2 happy faces. Expect to be charged accordingly.
The AI is actually pretty swift, both in terms of peaceful managemetn and waging war.
Cultural boundaries are very complicated and not explained perferctly in the manual but once you get used to them can stop the computer. For instace, if your city expands and has a regular 2 radius, the computer can move NEXT to it, establish a city and will be guaranteed to have its 1 x1 radius even if cuts into your own.
The trade and diplomacy system makes other games look ridiculous. By far, this is the best thing the game has going. Also, the whole point of resources forces you to find them, or more especially trade for them or go to war for them, just like real life.
This is only a sampling of things you will eventually figure out.
BTW, I enjoyed the first CTP as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boney
|
|
Thailand
Jan 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
PhillipII, have you ever really played CTP. Maybe two games and then quit.
Originally I thought the same as you, but then my civ2 disc broke and so I had to play CTP. After a while I realised that the depth is great. There were some major concepts that were wild. Slavers are great stealth units, along with clergy. Then there are the future units which are innovative, such as war walkers.
Contrary to many I thought the Public Works was good. Also you had a good range of governments to choose from.
The AI on the other hand was pretty limp. But with wes's med mod upgrade the game becomes good for single player.
As for MP (&PBEM)I think that there are not many games to touch it, just check out the number of posts to ctp's multiplayer forum.
CTP2 on the other hand sucks, even with mods the AI is too easy.
There are things to be said for all the games, civ2 civ3 ctp ctp2, it just needs someone to amalgamate all the good things into one awesome civ special game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lou Wigman
I have been playing civ3 for a week now and have never yet got beyond about 1000 AD. There are all sorts of problems with the game. |
I remember a class D chess player once who said the same thing about chess. He could never get out of the opening without a lost position. His conclusion was that something was wrong with chess.
quote:
* The workers are a micro-management nightmare! (CTP has Public Works which HUGELY reduces this problem) |
It's true that moving them around is a bit of a bi+ch, but you can opt to use the automated features. Since your own decisions likely would never match the AI's (or mine or anyone else's), I suspect that no type of automation would suit you. I hope you're not asking for a magic pill that will make all your problems with what workers do go away. If you want an easy game, just play on the Chieftain level.
quote:
* There is no group movement (CTP has group movement) |
Soren has been made aware of this problem.
quote:
* The combat system(?) is a farce. (CTP has a good one) |
No, it isn't. Nyah.
quote:
* There is no terraforming. |
You mean like mountains into hills? So what?
quote:
* Have I mentioned that the workers are a micro-management nightmare? |
Uh huh.
quote:
* There are no quick alternative governments in the early parts of the game. |
Gah. Why should there be? Why shouldn't you have to work toward an improved government? What sort of alternate government do you want that has no writing, no code of laws, and no knowledge of economics?
quote:
* It is not possible to raise an army and put this on 'stand-by' at a reduced cost until needed. |
Huh? What do you mean by this?
quote:
* Roads are needed EVERYWHERE to achieve maximum gain. This produces a genuine blot on the landscape and has strategic military implications as well. |
 A blot on the landscape? How delightfully anal!
As to the strategic military implications, so what? Do you also want to eliminate strategic military implications? Why don't you just play Scrabble or something?
quote:
* Units have no zone of control. What is the point of occupying key choke points if the enemy can just walk right past! So much for fortresses!! |
You just haven't learned the game yet. Have you read the manual, the Civilopedia, or any of these threads? Right. That would be a micro-management nightmare of epic proportions, inasmuch as your eyes would have to look at every word. And there are too many words.
quote:
* Did I say that workers are a micro-management nightmare? |
Then don't play.
quote:
* There is no trade system. Being able to exchange luxuries is no substitute. |
Nonsense.
quote:
* The diplomacy system is ridiculous. Do the designers really think that we want to exchange 'things' in these obviously lopsided trades? Forget it!!! |
Again, you just don't know how to play. There are certain situations and circumstances, enumerated throughout this message board that affect how "lopsided" a trade is or is not.
quote:
* The strategic resources don't work. I never seem to have the goods I need and usually I can't find a trading partner. |
Yeah. So "you can't play" equals "the game stinks".
quote:
* The AI behaves infuriatingly stupidly. It finds a one square spot (usually jungle or desert) right in the middle of your empire where your cultural boundary does not quite extend and puts a city there. AAARGH!!!! Noooooooooooo!!!! Worse still if you do manage to capture it then .... |
Sounds to me like it's playing pretty smartly. Enough so that it puts a cramp in your game. What would be playing smartly, letting you carry out your plans without interrupting them?
quote:
* It is not possible to disband an unwanted city. |
Aside from that not being true, just don't build a city you don't want.
quote:
* Did someone mention ICS? The AI plops cities everywhere like fly droppings. The only viable strategy is to try and match the AI in this respect but I can never seem to keep up. |
Small wonder.
quote:
The flaws in the game far outweigh its good features. It is massively inferior to CTP in terms of game features. if only CTP had a better AI! I guess my civ days are over. |
Buh bye.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
StratAll
|
 |
Belgium
Sep 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
QUOTE
* The strategic resources don't work. I never seem to have the goods I need and usually I can't find a trading partner.
END QUOTE
A lot of people seem to say this, but look at yourself, please : what would you do if the roles were reversed?
In my game (Normal size pangaea, 8 civs, Raging) only me (India) and the Chinese are in the lead, the rest just begs for our inventions (and pays dearly for them).
Well, I invented steam power and came to the conclusion that I don't have any coal.
The Chinese have 2 in reserve and they offer me one for twenty turns in return for two of my best advances, a luxury and 1160 gold.
"RIDICULOUS!" some people say, the game is unplayable that way, but I think those Chinese are pretty decent people. Had they not had coal and I would have, NO WAY they would have gotten it from me. I'd sell it to the Romans or another inferior nation to restore some balance, to counter my opponent.
Let's face it, we humans play it dirty. Of course in CivII, you could only play dirty by just crushin' all enemies beneath you. Now the enemy has real power. They can deprive you of coal, and it's up to you to go get it. If you can't, then you loose. That's the real world I guess. Not every nation in the world has all resources. What would the US do if they didn't have oil resources in their soil and the other nations wouldn't sell it to them? (And do't say I have to make it multiple choice...)
It's a very logical reaction in essence. Admit it, we feel a tiny bit threatened if the AI has power over us (even if it is only a game). And if we don't succeed in getting it from them, we start blaming the engine that created those evil Chinese who wouldn't sell us their coal.
The Civ2 days are over! Finally a game that lets you feel how frustrating it is not to completely dominate the map from your isolated island, knowing you've won in 1000AD while the other Civs don't have the slighest clue.
I don't intend to insult anyone by this post, mind you, I just want to make some people think and look at the AI as a real opponent. We may not have multiplayer, but we don't need it as bad as in the Civ2 days to get a challenge.
Greetz,
Stefan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Raleigh
|
|
I agree with your post, although it would seem that the AI probably would never pay that for your coal. Even I would sell coal to my closest military competitor for 2 advances, 1100k and luxuries!
Then again, I GOT coal from MY closest military competitor for a heck of a lot less and although he is still stronger than me, he gave me the ONLY means necessary to defend my continent from any possibly attack of his and gave me immense projection power. I now have 20-30 iron clads which I am sure he is not thrilled about. It just goes to show the AI swings wildly both ways.
Also, the great thing about that usurious prices is it keeps the game flowing because maybe you thought it was less effort to go to war for it! (Gee, again just like real life).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Blaupanzer
|
 |
Fairfax, VA
Oct 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
Mr. Wigman, indicating the game frustrates you will not elicit sympathy on these boards. Seeking assistance on how to solve the problems identified will get an enthusiastic response, some of it actually useful. If you are complaining because the game is too hard, then play an easier one. The CTPs, developed outside of Sid's purview, both sucked. That they had some good concepts is without question. But, frankly, they were unplayable, lacking challenge while infuriatingly tedious, especially in modern times. So, if you want to learn how to play, just ask. If not, go back to the CTPs. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chronus
|
|
I normally don't respond to these kinds of posts but this is a good example of "legitimate complaint" vs "lack of understanding the game". Please don't get me wrong. Many of the posts in the forums contain good suggestions, but some of them seem to complain about the game being too hard or seem to misunderstand some concepts. By the way, I've played quite a few CTP games. It's okay but even Civ 2, IMOHO, was better:
quote:
* There is no group movement (CTP has group movement) |
I agree. This would be helpful. Simply having the ability to SHIFT+CTRL+CLICK on multiple units and then using the GO TO feature would more than satisfy me.
quote:
* The combat system(?) is a farce. (CTP has a good one) |
The "range combat" feature in CTP was pretty good as well as group combat. However, both CTP and Civ III contain what's best: bombardment. In addition, Civ 3 has retreats for fast units, which is neat. Consequently, I think the combat system between the two games are on par with each other.
quote:
* There is no terraforming. |
You can clear or plant forests in Civ 3. However, I kind of like the idea that you cannot change arctic landscape into desert, or gradually create grasslands from what used to be mountains. I SUPPOSE this can be done in real life but it went too fast in the previous Civ games. As far as I can tell, the environment still dominates over man in the real world, though to an increasingly lesser degree.
quote:
* There are no quick alternative governments in the early parts of the game. |
Civ 3 has Despotism, Monarchy and Republic. CTP has those plus Theocracy which was similar to Monarchy. I don't see a big difference here. I agree that it takes longer to get there but it doesn't bother me.
quote:
* It is not possible to raise an army and put this on 'stand-by' at a reduced cost until needed. |
You can raise armies in Civ 3 once you meet the criteria. The "stand-by" feature is something I don't miss.
quote:
* Roads are needed EVERYWHERE to achieve maximum gain. This produces a genuine blot on the landscape and has strategic military implications as well. |
Roads SHOULD provide a commercial benefit in addition to movement bonuses. They SHOULD have strategic military implications and, yes, they do look ugly . . . just like in real life. Roads in CTP were for movement purposes only, which is really bad in my opinion.
quote:
* Units have no zone of control. What is the point of occupying key choke points if the enemy can just walk right past! So much for fortresses!! |
Comments like these make me wonder if you are familiar with the rules. Are you not aware that many units, as well as fortresses, can take a free shot at enemy units when they pass through your zone of control? And, of course, fortresses still provide a defensive bonus as well. You can still use chokepoints . . . it just requires more units to utilize.
quote:
* There is no trade system. Being able to exchange luxuries is no substitute. |
You have GOT to be JOKING! CTP allowed you to set up trade routes with other nations to generate gold. Civ 3 allows you to trade luxury AND strategic resources for gold, technology, maps, diplomatic agreements, and, of course, other luxury and strategic resources . . . by themselves or in combination.
Perhaps I'm misreading people, but many of them talk as if you can only trade on a one for one basis for the same category (i.e. one luxury item for one luxury item, etc.) Again, are you familiar with the rules? (no, I'm not trying to be facetious . . . it's an honest question).
quote:
* The diplomacy system is ridiculous. Do the designers really think that we want to exchange 'things' in these obviously lopsided trades? Forget it!!! |
In my current game, I need oil which is currently hogged by two other nations. Am I willing to pay a lot extra for this commodity to build my tanks and keep the Iroquois off my back? YOU BET I AM! 
If a resource is hard to get, you SHOULD expect to pay a hefty price for it, just like in the real world. The rules of supply and demand are alive and well in this game, which I really like.
quote:
* The strategic resources don't work. I never seem to have the goods I need and usually I can't find a trading partner. |
You SHOULDN'T automatically get what you want or need. Go out and earn it through diplomacy, trade or conquest. You don't have trading partners because you don't understand, or ignore, the rules I've outlined above in response to your last two quotes. This is the number one complaint I hear that makes me think people don't understand the game. Consequently, they complain that it "doesn't work" and they end up missing out on one of its best features. Or is waging war the only challenge you want?
quote:
* The AI behaves infuriatingly stupidly. It finds a one square spot (usually jungle or desert) right in the middle of your empire where your cultural boundary does not quite extend and puts a city there. AAARGH!!!! Noooooooooooo!!!! |
This is the toughest and best Civ AI to date. Yes it does do things that frustrate you which is good! Don't you want to be challenged? (again, I'm not trying to be haughty . . . I'm just honestly trying to understand you). The CTP AI can't even compare to Civ 2, let alone Civ 3.
quote:
Worse still if you do manage to capture it then .... It is not possible to disband an unwanted city. |
What? Are you not given the option to raze a captured city?
quote:
* Did someone mention ICS? The AI plops cities everywhere like fly droppings. The only viable strategy is to try and match the AI in this respect but I can never seem to keep up. |
Yes, try and match the AI in that respect. Apparently, you do not enjoy the challenge. I love the challenge.
quote:
* The workers are a micro-management nightmare! (CTP has Public Works which HUGELY reduces this problem) |
quote:
* Have I mentioned that the workers are a micro-management nightmare? |
quote:
* Did I say that workers are a micro-management nightmare? |
This has been a big debate for some time now. I prefer workers because I like the challenge of having to protect them from the enemy.
Nevertheless, I find these three quotes rather ironic. Did you mention the fact that the City management in CTP is a nightmare because you have to flip back and forth between three small tabs in order to do your managing? Civ 1, 2 and 3 have that famous one city-screen for easy management.
I'm sorry to hear you've given up on this game. I think you're missing something good here.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Peets
Most comments are not valid at all.
|
Says you. Let us know where we can forward all comments so you can approve them for publication...
Venger
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
Which comments do you see as valid?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Deathray
|
|
High Wycombe
Oct 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
Says you. Let us know where we can forward all comments so you can approve them for publication...
Venger |
The reason that a lot of the comments aren't valid is that a lot of them have no logical basis whatsoever. Most of them are the equivalent of screaming "I want it! I want it! I want it!" in an attempt to knock the price down while bartering. In fact, by the looks of things, that is why the thread starter's trade efforts are going amiss ;-)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by n.c.
Apparently there are a number of Civ III designers, like Libertarian, on these boards. Why else would people personally attack/insult the thread starter? I'd hate to think they were petty, childish buttheads. |
As a fellow North Carolinian, I can't imagine what you perceived to be a personal attack. That he can't play the game? But that's obvious. His ignorance of ZOCs, for example. I didn't design Civ3, but if I had, I would likely appreciate someone learning how to play before offering me any criticisms of it. Wouldn't you?
I know there's been a lot of tension here between the supporters and the critics. Frankly, I'd like to see a middle ground, where criticism is offered by those who state their case with the respect and civility that the Firaxis team deserves. They are people who labored long hours through the night to bring us this game. I see no point in flaming either them or their work. Especially since they had nothing whatsoever to do with decisions regarding the release schedule or any other such particulars.
Sycophantism is not called for, but then neither are mean spirited snipes that serve solely the mundane purpose of venting the critic's hysterical emotion.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kenjura
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lou Wigman
* The workers are a micro-management nightmare! (CTP has Public Works which HUGELY reduces this problem) |
Perhaps you haven't heard of the "automate" feature. As long as your workers have a land route to what work needs to be done, they'll do it. Place them in the neighborhood and they unfailingly get the job done. I've had basically no problems with automated workers.
quote:
* There is no group movement (CTP has group movement) |
That would be nice, but this is civ3, not ctp. CTP had the name of civilization by a legal settlement, not by any pure ancestry.
quote:
* The combat system(?) is a farce. (CTP has a good one) |
It may interest you to know that the combat system is an evolved form of the civ2 system. Why do this? Well, perhaps it was because civ2 was one of the most revolutionarily excellent games ever made. That's why CTP exists.
quote:
* There is no terraforming. |
There ain't much of that in real-life. When's the last time you heard of a 20-mile-square section of mountain turned into hills? I don't think the human race is capable of that.
quote:
* Have I mentioned that the workers are a micro-management nightmare? |
Have I mentioned AUTOMATING? All you have to do is press "a".
quote:
* There are no quick alternative governments in the early parts of the game. |
In any appreciable difficulty, you will not be making enough money to support even a small army outside of despotism. And really, how many forms of government were there in 4000 BC?
quote:
* It is not possible to raise an army and put this on 'stand-by' at a reduced cost until needed. |
Like most of what you say, this sounds like "civ3 isn't CTP".
quote:
* Roads are needed EVERYWHERE to achieve maximum gain. This produces a genuine blot on the landscape and has strategic military implications as well. |
Without roads, there is no commerce. It is implied that there are little villages, suburbs, and settlements all over your empire, especially around the cities. The roads provide much-needed access for those people. Also, the enemy cannot use roads in your territory.
quote:
* Units have no zone of control. What is the point of occupying key choke points if the enemy can just walk right past! So much for fortresses!! |
Some units DO have a zone of control. They get a free shot at a passing enemy. With a large amount of fortified units, you will dominate anyone trying to bypass them. Also, one square is a very large space. You can't hope to control as much as a major metropolis with just one unit. A "choke point" is one you can fill with three or four units. If you want one unit to block eight squares for you, maybe you should modify the rules and play chieftain.
quote:
* There is no trade system. Being able to exchange luxuries is no substitute. |
The trade system is sufficient. What, you want to be able trade specific things? Like what? Units? You think people switch loyalty that easily? What do you want to trade beside resources, luxuries, gold, technology, cities, diplomatic agreements, and communications? I think, for the civ series' first trade system, it's EXCELLENT. Civ is not CTP, and CTP ain't never been civ.
quote:
* The diplomacy system is ridiculous. Do the designers really think that we want to exchange 'things' in these obviously lopsided trades? Forget it!!! |
That's a little vague. Just what are you talking about?
quote:
* The strategic resources don't work. I never seem to have the goods I need and usually I can't find a trading partner. |
There's a lot of luck in strategic trading. Yes, it WAS intended that you may have to wait many turns, build many roads and harbors, and even give away techs if you want certain strategic resources. Yes, you aren't simply supposed to control everything you need.
If you want better resource placement, play a pre-made map, like the world map. Random maps seem more prone to poor resource placement.
quote:
* The AI behaves infuriatingly stupidly. It finds a one square spot (usually jungle or desert) right in the middle of your empire where your cultural boundary does not quite extend and puts a city there. AAARGH!!!! Noooooooooooo!!!! Worse still if you do manage to capture it then .... |
They've got to try, don't they? You're telling me you don't ever do that to them? If you want an easier game, play chieftain.
quote:
* It is not possible to disband an unwanted city. |
For once, I agree. This infuriates me. But then, how are you supposed to disband a city. What, does washington say to los angeles "we don't want you. go away". That's impossible. But maybe turning a city into settlers would be really nice.
quote:
* Did someone mention ICS? The AI plops cities everywhere like fly droppings. The only viable strategy is to try and match the AI in this respect but I can never seem to keep up. |
That's funny. Most of us can. Maybe you aren't fit for anything above chieftain.
quote:
The flaws in the game far outweigh its good features. It is massively inferior to CTP in terms of game features. if only CTP had a better AI! I guess my civ days are over. |
You're part of a minority that prefers CTP to civ. CTP was never civ. They wanted sid meier's legacy, but to my understanding, the team who made it was either only slightly the same members or didn't contain a single civ-creator at all. It was a business thing.
All you're saying is "civ3 isn't CTP". Why make ctp again? Why the HELL would sid meier COPY a game that only exists because he made a better one?! CTP already exists. Go play it if you want.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by n.c.
"General" forums are exactly where people vent emotions. Yelling at your dog about a computer game is not terribly satisfying (or nice).
There is also clearly a difference between comments directed at an absent company and an individual. If some said Dan Magaha was a jerk/bonehead/whatever I'd come down on them as well.
A middle ground would be preferable. Sadly we lost much of it when the sycophants responded so harshly to posters' understandable (if occasionally incorrect) frustrations. |
Three good points made and noted.
Your good temperament makes it possible for you and I to find common ground. I'll dispense immediately with both pejorative terms, "whiner" and "sycophant" (and equivalents).
As I see it, the critics were the first to emerge. Not sure why. Likely, the supporters, like me, were still playing. I quite imagine that early reactions might have had something to do with whatever fortune (or lack of it) we were finding in our games.
By the time we got back, there was a whole slew of critical threads. Many were duplicates. I understand the venting. But I hope you can understand that the rest of us saw it as overreacting, particularly given that it was both ubiquitous and contemptuous.
"Damn you, Firaxis" does not, in my view, constitute the amelioration of a personal attack. That clearly means Dan, Soren, et al. We supporters were, frankly, mortified at the sheer intensity of the complaints. I think what we did was probably overreact the other way, attacking the critics, much as we would a series of brush fires.
It has calmed down quite a bit. But as new people arrive, who are reading neither the previous threads nor their own manuals, it is difficult to tolerate more piling on.
As I say, your points are well taken. All of them. Can we meet halfway by asking the new critics to vent in threads that are already doing that. That way, we can see more give and take here, and maybe even more common ground, between the critics and the supporters.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
NC,
Maybe it's like Cheerwine. You know, a Carolina "thang". 
Stepping out on a limb here, I would say that my biggest criticism at the moment is the circumstance itself, i.e., the uncertainty in which we all find ourselves. What exactly is being worked on? We got a couple of Mark Burnette type hints in the Soren chat, but beyond that, we really don't know what, if anything, is being done about any particular aspect.
Certain bugs are, in fact, debilitating. What can you possibly do about air superiority? In the Strategy forum, I asked what people were doing about that bug when they reach late game. The answers are all along the lines of "lose".
It might have been prudent to have released a fix of such bugs that actually destroy the game. Then again, it might not. [...shrug...] I'm not sure even to whom I should address the issue. Is the patch being scheduled by Firaxis or Infogrames?
Anyway, I just wanted you to know that I don't think things are ideal by any means.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ludwig
|
|
Just about the only thing is this particular list of criticisms that I fully agree with is the original poster's statement about roads and railroads. The current system places a premium on roads as a terrain improvement per se and not as a communications/transportation system. "Uglying" up the map with roads and railroads on every square brings huge benefits. It's entirely an aesthetic judgment on my part, but maps with roads and railroads heading nowhere in every square are just inelegant and awkward-looking, IMHO. There HAS to be a better way to model the importance of roads; perhaps instead of a food or commerce bonus for every tile containing a road, you could get food and commerce bonuses based on the number of friendly cities on a road network. This would place a premium on linking all of your cities with roads and rails, so you'd still want to build them - but you'd want to build an actual transportation network, instead of the Road Blob.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-11-2001 11:36
|