10-12-2001 23:08									#1
	Civ 2-1/2 Got spare money?

I have played for a little bit now and I generally like the game. It is only an iterative improvement from Civilization 2, not a whole new game. Therefore I dub thee Civ 2.5.

The cultural aspects are good. Strategic resources are good. The new diplomacy is good. Queues are good. User interface is better too.

The tech tree is unchanged, it seems, wonders are unchanged, city improvements are unchanged.

Combat is irritating. I liked the fire power concept of Civ2, better. I am not sure if I like the new bombardment concept of Civ3. Is it just my imagination or will the computer never actually destroy a unit via bomabardment? Also, it is ridiculous to see wooden vessels sink my submarines (how did the wooden vessel even see the sub?) and have one destroyer sink my battleship. Actually, I had a transport sink my destroyer too. Just irritating.

Also, why the heck does your movement stop when you cross a national border? Too bad that didn't work for the low countries and France in 1940. Might have given the Allies a chance to mobilize against the Germans.

The combat system is rigged. Totally. There is no way you can tell me that the AI abides by the system described in the rule book. Not when I had the same enemy swordsman unit destroy 2 elite infantry units. Just tell us what the honkin calculations are, no matter how corked up they are so we can figure out how many units we need to win a particular battle.

The workers are pretty useless on automate. They ignore pollution and irrigate my minefields and build mines on my irrigation.

I would also be willing to bet that the AI removes resources from the map in the area you start just to put you at a disadvantage.

	10-12-2001 23:35									#2
	Suffering from ads?

quote: not a whole new game

As the guy who wrote the column said, if it was a whole new game it would not be called civilization 3, it would be called "Soren Johnsons Spank Your Aunty"