 |
| |
|
|
basickillr
|
|
oklahoma, usa
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
He has some points. I do enjoy how many people reference the real world as justification for a ruleset that just boggles any logical mind.
Strategic resources. Originally i said hey cool...now I just wonder what wiz kid dreamed them up to punish us. I can send ships to other planets, build stealth bombers, and eradicate cities with nukes...now if i could just build railroads for more then 20 turns cause I dont have coal. Horses? Strategic? errr....they eat grass...trade for them once then breed a herd...nuff said. Did the Americas originally have horses...no...do we still trade with europeans as our only supplier?
ZOC..its screwed. But fixable with a little planning, but he is right that there are no chokepoints. History is chock full of terrain being used to channel the enemy where you want, thats almost totally missing in this game. Picture modern tanks crossing the rocky mountains and you get the gist.
The combat system..havnt found a game yet with a perfect one. This one is okay but a lot was lost in the effort to "streamline" war. The automated air missions are just a joke and unfortunately there should be a point where if you get so far behind you just lose. Caravels should never sink battleships, it shouldnt even be allowed in the ruleset.
The trade deals I dont get, if your accepting what the comp gives you thats your first mistake, 75% of the time I am able to negotiate a better deal. The big flaw I dislike is that its really all luck. Get lots of resources and you can make incredible deals, get stuck with say 3 ivory 1 iron and you lose a ton of bargaining power unless you have techs to trade, something that really only occurs consistantly at the lower levels.
The workers...shrug, I like controlling them, again have never seen a game with an ai controller thats gonna do it as well as me.
My biggest complaint is that up through Monarch i just annhilate the comps 9 out of 10 times, they play like lobotimized labrats. At emperor Its ez enuf if you avoid war and just go straight for a launch victory(a cheap victory i have always hated). Any other victory is marginal at best. Deity is just silly, best part is deciding in what manner you will lose. Havent won yet, actually only got marginaly close once...i was just starting my ship when a comps landed. If i turn off some of the victory conditions I can win..../shrug.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boney
|
|
Thailand
Jan 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
Yo Cleverpound,
Hey I am a "Die Hard Civver" too. But I still think you are being hard on CTP, what I am trying to say is that there were a lot of good ideas that could have gone into CIV3. But most people, including yourself, just slag it off without remembering the good points.
Many, yourself not included (I hope), really did not give the game a chance, I include myself in that. Being the "Die Hard Civver" that I am when my civ2 broke, and I could not buy another, (here in Thailand thay are in short supply) I had to turn to CTP.
Blah blah blah...
The point I want to make is that civ2 and ctp's good ideas should have been combined a little with those of Civ3 to make the all time mega civ game. Just to say CTP was crap lets leave it by the cat litter is a bit retrogressive for me. Then again that is the best place for CTP2, even the mods could not improve it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sachmo71
|
|
de Tejas
May 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
Did anyone ever explain why they think terraforming should be in CivIII? What with all of the talk about realisim, where in that argument would terraforming fit?
I really am curious and not trying to insult...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chevin
|
|
It is obvious that in this thread he is looking at Civ III from the view point that call to power is a great game. Using call to power as a basis for comparison I could see you being pretty unhappy with Civ III.
Looking at it from the standpoint that Civ II was a great game, and thus using it as a comparison you would find Civ III more favorable. You would not even have the comparison of public works to make. (I personaly hated public works, and call to power in genral)
In this case I would say that this is a clear example of the Name CIV being attached to this game was mistaken to mean it will be like Civ call to power. In this case it means like Civ II. If you had played Civ II where the settlers/engineers were a micromanagment nightmare, you would not be shocked to find they were still a nightmare. (I do not care for how they do things when automated.)
So yes I can see why he has a negative view of the game. If you really liked how things were done in call to power, then Civ III is going to be a shocker for you.
If you liked how things were done in Civ II then Civ III will handle almost exaclty the same, however I still wish I could teraform deserts to grasslands and such.
It ins't necisary to say that call to power sucked and thus can't be used as a basis for comparison. It should be pointed out though that Call to power was modeled on Civ II, and Civ III is a much truer and closer descendant of that game than Call to power was.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
G.A
|
|
Kiev, Ukraine
Nov 2001
time: 07:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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. |
Well, this road blob would be there anyway. Imagine, you have just enough RRs to connect cities and that`s all. Then here comes an enemy invasion, and what? Your army loses all it`s mobility advantage due to all your roads being cut in one turn. So, even if it had no bonuses, I`d still have`em everywhere possible for military purposes.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lou Wigman
|
 |
Newcastle,Australia
Jun 2001
time: 15:16
|
|
From the replies to my original post it is clear that most respondents are not at all clear what I am on about. Why do I bother posting at all you say. Well I am frustrated in the extreme. I am infuriated and want to vent my disappointment. I just LOVE the civilization genre. I WANT to like this game. I will therefore spell out my views in greater detail.
What I look for in a game is COMPLEXITY. This is not the same as micro management. In a complex game there are many variables each of which impacts on the other. The civilization games are complex games but they are also plagued by micro management. When we examine Civ3 we must do so in the light of what has come before. Specifically we need to compare it to Civ2, Alpha Centauri and Call to Power I
The workers are pure micro management. Its all pain for absolutely no gain. Call to Power showed how exactly the same could be achieved without the micro management.
Imagine trying to move a stack of 12 hoplites all in the same square. You move the first. The focus now automatically shifts to a unit far away. Next the focus return to your stack. You move the next unit etc, etc, etc. This is micro management gone absolutely berserk. All pain no gain. In fact this is just plain bad game design. It might have been OK 10 years ago but it certainly is not acceptable in a game today.
The best way to describe the combat system is to use an analogy. (Not mine, I stole it from an earlier post.) Imagine 6 weaklings trying to beat up Mike Tyson. Do you really think that each one would front up individually and try to lay a punch on Tyson? Or would they jump him all at once? Merely asking the question makes the answer obvious. What purpose is an 'archer' in civ3? Archers support infantry. Not in civ3 it seems. Again CTP showed the way. Their combat system puts a premium on a well balanced army. This greatly enhances the combat experience without the totally unnecessary micro management in civ3.
This brings me to Zones of Control. Not having them reduces the military strategy of the game to a nonsense. In a typical games there will be sentries guarding the borders of your empire. The enemy can't simply waltz in willy nilly. Instead there needs to be a plan to knock out the border guards and pour an exploiting force through the gap towards your objective. Additional reinforcements need to be fed into the battle as required. This means that an attack in the mountains where road infrastructure is poor is unlikely. (see next paragraph) Instead the attack will fall in good terrain along a road leading to the heart of the empire. How I love setting up an attack of this sort. In other words, having zones of control focuses both attack and defensive on 'invasion routes' determined by terrain and infrastructure. There is none of this in civ3. Instead units simply drizzle through the holes like water through a sieve. It easy for the AI but it is no substitute for a well thought out campaign.
This brings up the issue of roads in general. In civ3 roads are needed everywhere to gain an economic advantage. This however, creates a military problem. Read the paragraph above. Given that roads are needed everywhere for economic purposes why have them at all? Why not just assume that the roads are there for the purpose of commerce without actually having to laboriously move workers around to put them in. Again its all pain for no gain. Roads should only have strategic importance.
People have said that terraforming is not realistic. But then none of what has already been described is either. I want terraforming because it adds complexity to the game. It means eventually that strategic city in poor terrain can be made to come good. There is long term strategy here as well as long term satisfaction. This is a GAME folks. Terraforming is FUN.
Lets talk about governments. Alpha centauri had a good system. Each different 'faction' had a set of priorities which dramatically influenced the way the game developed. In Call to Power the governments effect every aspect of your society. Happiness, production, science, military prowess, commerce etc. The governments in civ3 are simplistic and a poor excuse indeed.
Remember the trade system in civ2. Pushing those caravans around was pure micro management. But oh the gain!!! When you finally reached that far away city the satisfaction was immense. And watch the loot roll in as the game progressed. Indeed, at the higher levels in civ2, without the income from trade I doubt if the game could be won. There is great complexity here albeit at the expense of a good deal of painful micro management. I don't like the CTP version of trade much. I was really looking forward to an innovative enhancement of the trade system. Instead we got, well how can I say this, NOTHING!
How about the terrain improvements, city improvements and the tech tree then? Well, there has been no change since civ2. CTP had quite a few neat and interesting ideas here. The civ team chose to ignore these completely.
Civ3 has culture. This is a good idea. In practice though the effect of this is to stabilise the borders which were poorly implemented in both AC and CTP. Definitely an improvement though still not perfect.
Civ3 also has nationality. Again I like this idea.
Civ3 has strategic resources, another great idea. I haven't played enough to decide how well this has been implemented in practice.
Civ3 has colonies. I have built a few but they soon get swallowed up, usually by some other civilization.
In summary then civ3 is essentially a stripped down version of Civ2. Given that Civ2 is now 10 years old that is saying very little for Civ3. Alpha Centauri had some good ideas such as 'culture'.(As well as some bad ones such as the movement system.) Civ3 has failed to build on the strengths of Alpha Centauri. We all love to hate CTP. We all know it was implemented poorly. But in terms of gameplay and game features its light years ahead of Civ3. (Activision please note.) Why weren't the good ideas from CTP built into this game?
I am bitterly disappointed. After all the build up and marketing hype I got taken for a sucker. A fool and his money are soon parted.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-11-2001 12:43
. And then they even patched it with Hotseat and many other fixes! Sure the AI was stupid....but Civ3 AI is not a whole lot better(it cheats like a gambler!). CTP you would have 3 or 4 AI units roaming around inside your territory. Big deal.... Civ3 there is like a 100 dudes running around. And there no ZOC
|